'God helped me save myself essentially because I worked so hard'--Chuck Quarles on his pre-Calvinistic relationship with God

What does a typical non-Calvinist affirm or deny so far as the foundation of his or her relationship with God is concerned? Is the relationship based solely upon grace through faith as Paul reveals in Ephesians 2:8-9? Or does a typical non-Calvinist believe the basis of his or her salvation is essentially because he or she works so hard to be saved?

Below is a hefty slice of what Dr. Charles Quarles testified to a congregation in Denham Springs, Louisiana during a sermon on 2 Thessalonians 2:13. He said:

And finally, what should our response to the doctrine of election be? I think it should be the response of the Apostle Paul here in 2 Thessalonians 2:13. How did he start things out? We ought to do what? I can't hear you. We ought to do what? 'We ought to give thanks always, brothers loved by the Lord, for He chose you.' The doctrine of election should ensure thanksgiving. It should inspire our adoration of our gracious God. It should drive us to our knees in worship. When we recognize that our salvation is God's work from beginning to end, it should lead us to praise Him and His mysterious grace all the more.

Now I used to half-heartedly praise God when I thought that my responsibility was to believe in Jesus and do the very best I could and God helped me save myself essentially because I worked so hard. But when I discovered that my good works contributed nothing to my salvation; that it was all based on Jesus' sacrificial death; then I began to praise Him from the depths of my soul. But I still thought I contributed something to my salvation; I thought well, yes God gave me forgiveness but after I first gave Him my repentance and faith. When I came to understand the doctrine of election I soon realized that what I thought I contributed to my salvation was itself only God's gracious work in me and I would never have even repented and believed had it not been for His sanctifying work in accordance with His eternal plan. And suddenly I was driven to the dust to recognize that I contributed nothing to my salvation and that what I thought I contributed was only His gracious work. And then I praised Him and Him only for my forgiveness.

Question: Does non-Calvinism typically encourage less praise to God for personal deliverance from sin than Calvinism? More importantly, is a person even saved if he or she believes his or her relationship with God is essentially based on working so hard?

Consider again: The language Dr. Quarles uses in this sermon concerning his cross-over from non-Calvinism to embracing the Dortian form of the doctrine of election seems strangely similar to the language of New Testament conversion does it not?

If these words were the words of a so-called "cage-stage" Calvinist, perhaps we could ignore the aggressive rhetoric. However, the language came from then a college professor and now a seminary professor teaching our young students.¹ 

With that, I am...

Peter

¹as I noted in Dr. Quarles' previous quote posted, perhaps Dr. Quarles' excessive, aggressive rhetoric has softened somewhat since 2009. Still hoping so...

Comments

[Andrew Barker]

If you're going to take sides in an argument, it always pays to look at the others on your side. They can either support or really mess things up.

"And suddenly I was driven to the dust to recognize that I contributed nothing to my salvation and that what I thought I contributed was only His gracious work."

Superficially this sounds so plausible and comforting I can see why some people fall for it. But it's also rather depressing when you start to evaluate what is being said. Is Dr. Quarles really saying that God rubbed his nose in the dirt just to make it plain that it was "all of Him"? How nice of God to do that! Plus I'm sure if Dr. Quarles thinks about it, he will also retract that part which says that 'he' Dr. Quarles came to understand election! Well, we can't have any human intellect getting in the way can we, so perhaps we'll re-write that as 'he was given divine understanding'.

There is a complete misunderstanding with Reformed theology regarding the nature of faith and works. Faith is never considered a work within scripture in fact it is encouraged. Neither is faith a divine gift but is something which every person is exhorted to exercise. It is in fact "in your mouth", that's how close it is!!

For me, I like to say "your faith has made you whole" because that's what Jesus said to people on a number of occasions. If Jesus didn't have a problem with that, then who am I to disagree? :)

So cheeky chappy that I can be "I have Jesus on my side". Now who's on your side?

Sorry all, feeling a bi feisty today :-)

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks, Andrew.

Admittedly, I have hesitation in fully accepting the "mystery" position. I tend more to see the controversy caused by the paradox alluded to more as a product of philosophical inquiry than biblical revelation. Even so, many historic Baptist Calvinists genuinely and sincerely held to "mystery"--and "mystery" in its finer sense rather than an intellectual safety net just in case they got into "logical" problems with objections to their strict Calvinistic interpretations (interpretations including philosophical compatabilism) like so many Calvinists do today who, when backed in a corner, typically yell, 'Mystery! Mystery! God's higher thoughts are not our lower thoughts!.'

For men like Fuller in the 19th century, and W.A. Criswell in the 20th century, they seemed to care not a straw if philosophically-minded people viewed their theological positions as logically contradictory. Instead they were content to embrace what they genuinely believed the Bible taught. In that finer sense, I respect--even admire--their appeal to "mystery" not as a last-ditch crutch to prop up their failed appeal to philosophy to solve the riddle they perceive but as a deep conviction the Bible teaches both even if I find it not fully satisfying to me personally.

Lord bless...

With that, I am...
Peter

[Alex Guggenheim]

Faith is the graciously God ordained means of apprehending what God offers. Faith is the reciprocal to the gospel offer. As stated above, it is never viewed as merit and always the means to receiving what God offers, Genesis onward.:

Secondly, it is merely a rationalism that one must view and/or define election as particular or special where God chooses whom he will save, individual by individual otherwise "once saved, perfectly (always) saved" may or cannot fairly be held outside of Augustinianism/Calvinism's boundaries.

Clearly the professor is unaware of the Great "in Christ" treatise Paul wrote in his Ephesians (I say this tongue in cheek about the professor's awareness) letter explaining that all we have is guaranteed based on our being "in Christ" who secures and preserves our inheritance by his integrity, election even not withstanding.

It is his person that guarantees us Calvinist or non.

But to election. A little grammatical diagramming of the text on election in Ephesians would do anyone good. The grammatical diagram reveals that the choice or election was God choosing or electing that "in Christ" is how we are to be saved.

Once saved perfectly saved is also amplified by the use of the perfect tense in Ephesian, "you are saved by grace through faith".

[peter lumpkins]

BTW, I think much of the problem we have in SBC circles presently is because so many of today's Baptist Calvinists refuse respect for "mystery" (in its finest sense above understand) as a viable option like their Calvinistic Baptist forefathers.

Consequently, they see only one truth--God's meticulous sovereignty over all, all including all the free decisions of human beings. If this is so, then in no sense can men and women be morally free in the classic sense of moral freedom. Therefore, with all their getting, they get compatibilism.

And, as I argued on the other thread, once compatibilism is embraced, the "logical" difficulty seemingly disappears. Hence, when the "men are free" message is proclaimed, the return from those embracing compatabilism is "Works! Works! You're taking glory from God and giving it to yourself!" This message is not far from what Dr. Quarles suggested in his testimony it seems to me.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Andrew Barker]

Thanks Peter, I would not like to totally decry the appeal to 'mystery' as I grew up in that kind of environment. But what I see it that too often people accept the so called 'tensions' rather than change a previously held belief. It can be a rather recalcitrant position to take.

If we do have a 'free will' in the libertarian sense and we find this conflicts with our understanding of election, then maybe what we hold dear as far as election is concerned, is wrong? If there are explanations regarding election which will sit comfortably with 'free will' then maybe they are more in line with the truth of scripture?

I've never been impressed by compatibilism as an explanation. It throws up as many questions as it answers. Firstly there is the rather damning implication that God could have changed everyone's heart so that all believe. But he chose not too and chose a few to life and the rest, well, let's not go there!

But there is also the nagging feeling that if God can change a person's heart regarding salvation, without their prior knowledge or approval, why oh why can't he do it for living as well? One might even be tempted to complain a bit. If it is 'all of God' and 'none of me', then I would question why God is doing such a bad job of it in most of us, myself included (only at times of course!).

The truth may be uncomfortable at times and it may be that we are just not willing enough to let God work in our lives? There's enough to suggest that at the end of the age God is going to be asking what 'we' did with the talents he has given us. And answering "well God, you just didn't work in my life that way" is probably not going to win any prizes.

Quite how and why God does work in our lives, may well be a mystery and I can accept that and thank God for it! :-)

[Steve]

Peter,

Do you think Dr. Quarles is trying to say that his past beliefs are indicative of non-calvinism as a whole, or that it is simply what he used to believe?

And can you point me to the "aggressive rhetoric" in this section, I am certain it is there if you say it is, but my almyraldian blinders are keeping me from seeing it.

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks Steve. To answer your opening question, Dr. Quarles' comments don't necessarily implicate non-Calvinism in a wholesale manner which is why I queried in the beginning the triad of questions:

"What does a typical non-Calvinist affirm or deny so far as the foundation of his or her relationship with God is concerned? Is the relationship based solely upon grace through faith as Paul reveals in Ephesians 2:8-9? Or does a typical non-Calvinist believe the basis of his or her salvation is essentially because he or she works so hard to be saved?"

Even so, Dr. Quarles surely designs his comments to steer the listeners in that direction. If not, I have no idea what to make of his words.

Now I have a question: what do you think Dr. Quarles implies by suggesting he "half-heartedly praise[d] God when [he] thought that [his] responsibility was to believe in Jesus and do the very best [he] could and God helped [him] save [himself] essentially because [he] worked so hard?

With that, I am...
Peter

[Steve]

I think he was trying to say that he had (in his mind) a poor concept of salvation.

Btw, thank you for your response. If he is giving his testimony, I think it wouldn't be improper to acknowledge past beliefs. I refer to past beliefs all the time without intending them to indicate what someone of similar beliefs (to my past beliefs) would hold to.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but I'm failing to see the offensive nature of Quarles quote.

[peter lumpkins]

Steve,

Perhaps you don't see my point. Fair enough. But of course that doesn't mean either my point invalid or that others would wonder why you fail to see what I see because they see it too.

Now consider: It's not just about personal testimony. Instead it's about him giving what he believes is an exegetical case for Dortian Calvinistic understanding of election based upon 2Thess 2:13 contra those who do not embrace *the* biblical doctrine of election (i.e. Dortian Calvinistic understanding of election). That he uses his personal experience as illustrative of his point does not dilute his call for men and women to forfeit their sub-biblical view (i.e. non-Calvinism) and instead embrace *the* biblical view (i.e. Calvinism).

You assert of Quarles' proposition that "God helped [him] save [himself] essentially because [he] worked so hard" as merely indicating he held "a poor concept of salvation." Interesting. I would classify such as no conception of salvation so far as biblical redemption is concerned. In fact, I'd be surprised if anyone on this thread argued contrarily.

And, further Quarles places this "poor conception of salvation" as being held in the days of his non-Calvinism, the days he's pleading with the congregation to also put behind them.

Hence, feel free to continue to suggest you fail to understand my point. I think that's what comment threads are all about. Know I have no illusions of grandeur I will convince everyone what I plainly see.

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Steve]

The issue over "poor" vs "no" is of no concern to me. I don't think it is relevant to our discussion.

Similarly, I have asked others who disagree with me soteriologically to read what Dr. Quarles has written, and they too are confused how you are digging the ideas out.

Honest question, have you contacted Dr. Quarles to ask him his intention in the sermon? Was it to make (Calvinist)disciples? I'm curious what Dr. Quarles would say.

I'm reviewing the sermon and I feel as though he was brought to a realer and more sincere adoration and reverence for God. It seems to me that he used that illustration to emphasize that he used to conceive of salvation of being partly on his works and God reacting to his works, but not recognizes that he could not save himself, and it was only God who could save him.

We both know that you two would disagree soteriologically, but I'm failing to see the major issue here. I'm willing to try to "see plainly" what you "see plainly", but I am still not seeing it.

I'm also curious to know how you got a hold of this manuscript/audio from 2009.

[Steve]

And if you're interested, I have no problem communicating via email, I don't want to hassle and sidetrack your blog comments section too much.

[peter lumpkins]

Steve

Let me try this again: I'm not particularly concerned whether you are personally persuaded or not by what I take away from Quarles' sermon. I thought I made it clear. Perhaps I need to say it again:

Hence, feel free to continue to suggest you fail to understand my point. I think that's what comment threads are all about. Know I have no illusions of grandeur I will convince everyone what I plainly see.

Why then would I want to continue via email? If you remain unconvinced from what I've written thus far, how would an email exchange benefit? More importantly, I'm not the least interested in whether or not you become personally convinced of my interpretation of Quarles' words. Perhaps I've been clear enough now.

As for your definitive dismissal of the importance between "poor conception" of salvation (which may or may not lead to a genuine experience of salvation) and "no conception" of salvation so far as biblical redemption is concerned (which cannot lead to a genuine experience of salvation) I'll leave for others to judge.

Finally, it makes not the least difference in the world where I obtained the mp3 or transcription. I have both.

Now, unless you've got something new to add to your recorded dissent concerning your own take on Quarles, I say, you may believe as you wish.

Fair enough?

With that, I am...
Peter

[Steve]

You aren't interested in whether I am convinced of your interpretation? Then why offer it? This confuses me.

I am trying to understand your perspective, that is all.

And I don't think how you obtained the information weighs on your assertions either, I was just curious how you obtained them. It seemed strange to dig up some sermons from 4 1/2 years ago that a professor from SEBTS preached at a small country church. I was just wanting to know how they found their way into your hands is all. If you do not wish to share, that's ok.

I feel as though I've offended you. Perhaps that is the internet filter causing me to misunderstand your tone. Comment sections and a lack of face-to-face communication tends to do that. With that said, if I have offended or caused you to be upset, I'm sorry. I was simply trying to understand your position and check my blinders and bias.

[Scott Shaver]

Pete:

Steve's problem seems to be an inextricable relationship with Quarles as opposed to the substance of your perspective.

This conversation (or lack thereof)should probably be viewed in that light

[Scott Shaver]

Again:

Why the sensitivity toward the mention or quoting of Quarles with attendant references to LC?

[Scott Shaver]

Hey Steve:

If Quarles has a problem with how what he's allowed to be printed is interpreted. Why can't he speak for himself on this thread.

He surely has a computer.

[peter lumpkins]

Steve,

If you're confused about the difference between general persuasion and particular persuasion, I cannot help you. You need to look that up on your own nickel.

As for your making a deal about my posting this, I don't dance easily when someone else appears to either dictate the tune I play on my own blog or can't accept the tune I've chosen. Nor did I "dig up some sermons" as you suggest. I've been forthright on some of the details on the last thread. So there's no need for you to create your own version.

Moreover, this thread is not about "offense." If you actually did "offend" me, and I thought it worthy, I'd bring it up. But why would I be "offended" because another asks questions? Nor am I "offended" because you say you remain unpersuaded. Sweet Georgia peaches! I've been as clear as I know how to say to you, believe as you wish--"I have no illusions of grandeur I will convince everyone..." Hence no apology needed because no "offense" taken.

Finally, I've given you several things about Quarles words which, from my perspective, offer questionable implications. You've either ignored them or dismissed them outright with something like "The issue over "poor" vs "no" is of no concern to me." It may not be a "concern" to you but it darn well is relevant to the points I've made (I spoke to this in my last comment which you once again glibly ignored). Other than an appeal to some phantom "others" to which you say you polled who agree with you, you've not offered any substantial content that I haven't addressed.

Now, I'm saying this just once more: if you have nothing new to add to your already amply logged opinion that I have yet to personally persuade you, I'll bid you a good afternoon, Steve.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Scott Shaver]

Let Quarles speak for himself Steve...if possible.

[Scott Shaver]

I may have missed something in this post as well but looks as if the author was obsessed (egocentrically) with the idea that he had something to do with his salvation in the beginning and this same compulsion led him eventually to a theological infatuation with Calvinism.

Am I missing something?

[peter lumpkins]

Scott,

The impressions you receive are similar to my own. The rhetoric Quarles employs throughout the message positions the strictly Calvinistic understanding of election as the sole biblical understanding. Anything less is "twisting" and manipulating the Bible.

Here's some more sampling:

--"I finally came to 2Thess 2:13 and that passage that I read this morning was the nail in the coffin of my skepticism towards the doctrine of election." Note how Quarles equates his earlier non-Calvinistic views with "skepticism towards the doctrine of election." Incredible.

--"I could continue to cling to my prejudices against the doctrine of election but I would do so at a very high price. It would require me to reject the authority of Holy Scripture. It would require me to elevate the authority of my own intellect above the authority of God's inspired Word." Again observe how Dr. Quarles portrays non-Calvinistic views of election?

--"The reason I tell you about my pilgrimage in relationship to this doctrine is because I suspect that there are some people in this room who are much like me. The doctrine of election is abhorable to you." THE doctrine of election, according to the Bible of course, is strict Calvinism.

--"...will you have the fidelity to the Word of God necessary to surrender to that doctrine? Embrace it? And affirm it? Do you have enough regard for the God-breathed Word to believe what it teaches, even when it defies your personal sense of what is right and fair and just?... . Until we wrestle with that question, we're not going to listen to Scripture like the noble Bereans did. We're going to hear it only to see how well I twist this, how can I distort this, how can I explain it away..." Oh, yes. Dr. Quarles is merely giving his personal testimony here alright.

[Dean]

Peter,
I was at the sermon in question, when it was preached. I think to be entirely fair to Dr. Quarles, if you are going to spot quote the sermon, you should also post the sermon in it's entirety so that everyone can have the comments in the proper context of surrounding statements. I'm sure you would appreciate the same when others post quotes of yours.
Also, just knowing the issues that transpired at LC, and the hands that the sermon in question passed through, I would say that the random focus toward a 4 year old sermon and Dr. Quarles, reeks of political motivation, personal vendetta, or both, which unfortunately is going to end up driving many Christians of the SBC. Feel free to reveal your source of obtaining the sermon if I'm off track, and it did not come from anyone in leadership at the LBC or LC.

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Dean,

I was wondering when I would outright be implicated of devious motives in posting this. Thank you for settling my anticipation.

Since you apparently sat through the sermon, I suggest you offer any evidence I've taken Dr. Quarles' words out of context. I'll be glad to entertain your claims. Otherwise, I'm not going to take the time to type the entire manuscript. I have a very good track record on this site for quoting people accurately, and I have nothing to fear concerning this piece.

Thanks for the contribution.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Dean]

Peter,
I notice that you picked up your last quote in mid sentence. Could you provide the previous words or sentences leading to it?

[Dean]

Thanks for the response. I still say that as a Christian, looking to maintain transparency and integrity, especially when making accusations that include interpreting another brother's sermon, I would be willing to do what was needed to give him an honest hearing. If not, the lack of forthcoming on your part speaks volumes. You don't feel it to laborious to type the parts that fit your scope, but conveniently the task is too much for total truth.
As the sermon was over 4 years ago, I would need to go back and find the audio, and I'm not the one publicly speaking for him in regards to his intent and presuppositions.
I also notice that you did not correct me on my assumption in regards the source. So would you publicly deny that the source of the sermon was from either of those sources? That does not require you to give a name and would at least clear up the assumptions of some of us.

[peter lumpkins]

Here's the section in full. The emboldened words are what I omitted in the section:

"The reason I tell you about my pilgrimage in relationship to this doctrine is because I suspect that there are some people in this room who are much like me. The doctrine of election is abhorable to you. It makes no sense to you. You want to find the ammunition with which to refute it, to disprove it. You want to stamp it out, and you want to be rid of those obnoxious people who dare say this is God's truth. I think that you are going to have to wrestle with the issue that I wrestled with years ago, and that's the issue of your authority for what you believe.

If the Scripture were to clearly demonstrate that God has chosen individuals for salvation from the very creation of the world, will you have the fidelity to the Word of God necessary to surrender to that doctrine? Embrace it? And affirm it? Do you have enough regard for the God-breathed Word to believe what it teaches, even when it defies your personal sense of what is right and fair and just? Are you willing to put into practice what many of us sang as little kids in Vacation Bible School, "God said it; I believe it; and that settles it for me"? Are you willing to say with the authors of our Baptist Faith & Message, that doctrinal confession that we affirm as a Southern Baptist Convention, that the Holy Scripture is the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions be tried?

Until we wrestle with that question, we're not going to listen to Scripture like the noble Bereans did. We're going to hear it only to see how well I twist this, how can I distort this, how can I explain it away, and frankly if that's not our approach then we're wasting our time here this morning. When the great English Baptist pastor, Charles Spurgeon, who is now known to most as the 'Prince of Preachers' preached on this text that I'm preaching on today he began his message with these words. He said, 'If there were no other text in the sacred Word except this one, I think we would all be bound to receive and acknowledge the truthfulness of the great and glorious doctrine of God's ancient election of His family.'

But there seems to be an inveterate prejudice in the human mind against this doctrine. And although most other doctrines will be received by professing Christians--some with caution, others with pleasure--yet this one seems to be most frequently disregarded and discarded. I ask you, lay your prejudices aside. Listen calmly; listen dispassionately; hear what Scripture says. And when you receive the truth, if God should be pleased to reveal and manifest it to your souls, do not be ashamed to confess it. For to confess you were wrong yesterday is only to acknowledge that you are a little wiser today. It is, instead of being a reflection on yourself, an honor to your judgment. It shows that you are improving in the knowledge of the truth. Do not be ashamed to learn and to cast aside your old doctrines and views, but take up that which you may plainly see to be in the Word of God.

Now so far as I can tell, Dean, the words I added to satisfy your curiosity hardly show I botched the quotes on one hard. Nor do my omissions make Quarles' words more theologically palatable to non-Calvinists on the other as he continues to drone on and on about his listeners ditching the sub-biblical view they'd been wrongly embracing and instead having the courage to stand up, putting off the old doctrine, and strapping on the sole truth about the biblical election. And the sole truth is Strict Calvinism.

Hope this is enough because I'm through adding comments from the sermon tonight. Enjoy...

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Dean,

What you're suggesting is pure nonsense and no one surely will take up your case. To remotely suggest that the only credible way to post quotes with integrity is to post the entire document from whence the quote is pulled is ridiculous. How under heaven's blue sky do you think research is conducted? Ever hear of footnotes where sources are found as the basis of the quotations?

How could we ever make a theological point by quoting Scripture verses if we had to post the entire book of the Bible from whence the quote came? In fact, your view indicts Dr. Quarles himself. He pulled a quote from Spurgeon with no citation whatsoever as to where the quote is found. He merely pointed out that the great Spurgeon preached on this text once.

My advice to you is to be very careful before making thoughtless, impugning suggestions like these.

Nor did I overlook anything as to how I have the source. I've already dealt with that above. And, if you don't find my answer sufficient, I give you my express permission to assume whatever you want as to how I got this message. Just don't bring your speculative concoctions here. Fair enough?

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

BTW, Dean, if you'd like to see a clear case of quote mining (i.e. cherry-picking a quote out of context, consider the next post I'm putting up.

[Scott shaver]

Dean appears to have same obsession with defending Quarles while cursing LC in same breath..:.strange paranoia indeed

[Dean]

Scott, actually I'm very fond of LC, and would very much like to have leadership there in the future to send my children there confidently. Please point out where I "cursed" anyone. Calling the integrity of the current leadership at LC into question is hardly a stretch or a curse.
Asking for clarification and a full presentation of the surrounding quotes from the sermon in question is hardly an "obsession".
And as anybody who is aware of the history here knows, bringing Peter's methods and motivations under scrutiny is hardly unfounded. Let the discerning reader decide for themselves:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2010/04/07/note-to-peter-lumpkins-it-is-hard-to-lie-openly-when-the-videos-are-posted-on-line-with-update/

[peter lumpkins]

Scott,

I owe you big time. Your tenacity brought Dean out of hiding behind the mask of a sincere enquirer. I've been had by a James White follower. Should have known but I'm getting older now.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Dean,

As I mentioned to Scott, I'm glad his tenacity made you come clean as to your real motives for your questioning. Had I known you were James White's supporter, I would never, ever in a thousand years have taken the time I did with you.

Now since you posted a link to the flame White blew my way, a flame he constantly brings up every chance he gets, I'll post a link to my detailed response to his categorical nonsense, a response he's never once attempted to answer. He's gloats all over himself about his words but refuses to acknowledge his own pathetic confusion I documented.

Read it or not. I don't care. But don't come back here popping off about my integrity again until you can offer a detailed rejoinder to it.

With that, I am...

Peter

My response to James White's claim I lied about his video http://goo.gl/K6WH5g

[Scott Shaver]

Dean should also be reminded that, prior to his departure, Quarles was a big part of the leadership tier at LC. His whitewashing as an innocent victim at the hands of the devil's minions at LC doesn't fly with me anymore than modern day revisions of the Wizard of OZ or Rumplestiltskin.

Might want to take a closer look at the track record of Quarles at LC and have James White discuss that one with you.

Just don't see any innocent victims either in Quarles camp or that of Aguillard. Victims were students, donors and supporting Louisiana Baptists.

[Brian Gunter]

Peter,

I fail to see what Dr. Quarles said in that sermon that was not supported by Scripture. He believes that "our salvation is God's work from beginning to end." Isn't that what the Bible says in passages such as Eph 2:8 and Titus 3:5-7? Dr. Quarles said that he previously thought he had contributed to his salvation, but then he came to realize that Scripture teaches "that what I thought I contributed to my salvation was itself only God's gracious work in me." Isn't that also what the Bible says? Paul said to believers in Philippians 1:29 that "it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake." Doesn't the Bible teach that our faith in Christ "has been granted" to us?

What is so outrageous about someone who believes that faith is a gift from God, not something that we produce on our own? I was a student of Dr. Quarles' at Louisiana College. I studied through the entire Gospel of John with him and took my 3rd and 4th semesters of Greek with him. He never used the word "Calvinism." I feel like I have been exposed to enough of Dr. Quarles' teaching to know that he is a committed exegete and expositor of Scripture. He is not concerned about propounding a system of theology. He is concerned about faithfully teaching Scripture. If he is so wrong in his exegesis of Scripture, then demonstrate this. Otherwise, why would you attack a man who is simply teaching what God has proclaimed in Scripture?

[Dean]

Peter,
So let me understand you correctly, you congratulate Scott for making false accusations against me in order to "reveal" something that I obviously was not hiding, since I openly posted my concerns? That sounds about right.
I took the time to read your response to White, and while I may not agree that the issue in question was quite the "major issue" that White made it out to be, I also don't follow the majority of your reasoning in defense. Also, since White was blasted from his video in which he "preached on the love of God", from the Reformed perspective, don't you think that is evidence in itself that is can be indeed a "dangerous" issue because of the emotions involved? I don't think anywhere that he suggested that we neglect the attribute of God's love, but his intent was handling it with care. All of which I think your accusations actually proved his point to be true. So then, how can you respond that the thought of addressing the Love of God being "dangerous" is ludicrous or ridiculous? I think your accusations after his sermon actually proved the point and proved your response to be in vain. I just think that as Christians, we are called to a higher standard of integrity.
I dont' need to defend White or Quarles, they are more equipped to do that than I am, and each of our fruit bears witness that either confirms or denies the words that we speak.
I agree with your assessment of the damage done at LC, I guess I disagree that the proper way forward is for men in the LBC to try and demonize those who preach the doctrines of Calvinism with conviction, and to continue to go after Quarles by adding your interpretive comments to a sermon from 4 years ago.
Perhaps your version of the SBC, LBC and LC moving forward and seeking peace is primarily to see us split over the theological differences in soteriology. Unless we stop lobbing bricks over the wall at one another, that is where I fear we are headed.
You will have to excuse my ignorance, I'm really not that familiar with your work or writing, before yesterday. I'm just curious, how many articles have you written criticizing those who hold to the same view of salvation and sovereignty as you? Perhaps you have, but if not, I would say that speaks to an unbalanced "obsession" of your own, and as a recognized leader, should be prayerfully considered.
Thanks for you time, genuinely, and I will pray that Christ would reconcile you, White, and Quarles for the sake of His glory.

[Scott shaver]

Brian:
These fans of. Quarles on this thread are paranoid about what? This analysis of sermon content as an example of contemporary Calvinism was never offered up as an attack IMO.

Right touchy bunch huh?

[Brian Gunter]

Scott,

"Right touchy bunch"
"paranoid"

Are you interested in interacting with one another, or just taking shots? If there isn't going to be any discussion of what Scripture teaches, then I will just stay out of this conversation.

This post looks like an attack to me. When Peter bemoans that Dr. Quarles is "teaching our young students," I get the impression that he wishes Dr. Quarles were not teaching them. I was one of Dr. Quarles' students, so I think I know something about his integrity and fidelity to God's Word. I am defending Dr. Quarles because I believe that he is faithful to God's Word. Please demonstrate how what Quarles has taught is unbiblical, or stop attacking him.

[Lydia]

"Right touchy bunch huh?"

Yes, disagreeing with one of theirs is hate speech.

Here is a link to an open letter to John Calvin. There is a great line in the letter that has amused me to no end:

"Which is why, John, it’s hard not to conclude that Calvinism is a sustained exercise in the defense against the obvious. By which I mean you’re constantly on the defense against the obvious conclusions of your claims." - See more at: http://theamericanjesus.net/?p=12190#sthash.1N8f5L7j.dpuf

Disclaimer: while I enjoyed the open letter to Calvin, it in no way means I agree with the blog owner on other topics as I have not read other articles.

[Scott Shaver]

Based on your demeanor in here Brian, think I'll stick to "taking shots" as opposed to "interaction".

Your idea of interaction where only your logic applies and you're the only one free to question is simply not my cup of tea, no matter how Pete's post looks to you.

Peter Lumpkin has not bemoaned the integrity, personality or work of Dr. Quarles in this thread beyond calling into light some things he offered up in sermonic form.

Sorry my opinion of Quarles and his shenanigans at LC does not rise to the same level of veneration that yours does.

If you're looking for somebody to malign for questioning the intergrity of Quarles. Take your shots at me. Peter Lumpkins has nothing to do with this one.

[Mark]

Peter,

I would like your input.

I argued with a Montana Reformed Preacher (in his May 27 posted blog) who admittedly proclaimed that he repetitively reminds his congregation multiple times every service of their "Unworthiness" in preparation of worship.

I suggested (among other things) that he must be staying strictly within the perimeters of TULIP which is the Calvinist cliff notes of the Bible.

Finally, I told him that centering his Ministry on "worthiness" is an unbalanced use of Scriptures bordering on Spiritual Abuse. (like Catholics only without the statues and daily communions)

[Mary]

So Quarles supporters are here telling us how Calvinism is Biblical while they seem to be missing what some people used to call THE POINT of the article .... Quarles is acting like what he believed before Calvinism is what SBC nonCalvinists believe. So we have testimony from a student of Quarles that this is basically how Quarles proceeds in his teaching - Calvinism is Biblical and of course everything else is. But Quarles isn't one of these people distorting what many in the SBC believe while indoctrinating students into Calvinism with all that lovely nonCalvinist money he takes for his salary.

[Brian Gunter]

Scott,

I am not interested in taking shots at you. I don't even know you. You seem to be looking for a fight, not a discussion. Well, I am not going there. It is obvious that this is going nowhere fast.

Peter,

If you would like to respond, I am open to hear what you have to say. I think what Quarles said in the sermon excerpt you posted is supported by Scripture. Quarles said that he once thought he had contributed something to his salvation, but later he came to see that his salvation was the result of God's work alone. To explain this, he said: "I would never have even repented and believed had it not been for His sanctifying work in accordance with His eternal plan." That sounds biblical to me. Maybe your primary disagreement is that you believe Quarles did not fairly represent the non-Calvinist perspective. Is this what you were getting at in your article?

I would like to know if you believe that what Quarles said about salvation being the result of God's work alone apart from any contribution of man (including faith) is biblical or not.

I am not trying to be antagonistic. I am asking a sincere question.

[Scott shaver]

If u really want sink in the mud with me , Bryan, let's discuss the ethics of Quarles as opposed to his biblical exegesis. Peter is a nice guy.

I'm not.

[peter lumpkins]

All,

The comment is long. Too long. But I found it necessary. Please ignore it if you have no interest in Dean's contributions here. 

Dean,

Thanks. Your words are embolden:

So let me understand you correctly, you congratulate Scott for making false accusations against me in order to "reveal" something that I obviously was not hiding, since I openly posted my concerns?: No. I congratulated Scott because his tenacity brought forth the real basis underlying your questioning all along--allegiance to the emotionally-driven, you-sir-are-a-liar rhetorical shenanigans of James White. Your link and commentary said it all. You had no real interest in gleaning my understanding. Rather, already having your mind convinced I was deceptive because of you-sir-are-a-liar arguments of White, you continued to demand context, making irrational assertions like integrity demands one post an entire sermon or else assume the person dishonest and consequently an untrustworthy witness.

That sounds about right. This sounds strangely like a prejudicial, judgmental slur but I may be entirely wrong.

I took the time to read your response to White... Hurray! May I congratulate you for doing what James White has to date never done so far as I know.

...while I may not agree that the issue in question was quite the "major issue" that White made it out to be, I also don't follow the majority of your reasoning in defense. Thanks for the concession in your first clause; interesting about your content-less criticism in the next. If the "majority" of my reasoning was so glaringly difficult to follow, then why not log the criticisms you find so unfollowable, thus showing your criticism to have teeth? The comment stream is open on the post. Go ahead. Be my quest. Show how White's you-sir-are-a-liar tactics are so much more clear, and perhaps even superior to my confusing reasoning.

Also, since White was blasted from his video in which he "preached on the love of God", from the Reformed perspective, don't you think that is evidence in itself that is can be indeed a "dangerous" issue because of the emotions involved? No. To suggest preaching or teaching or lecturing or discussing or sharing or testifying or any other venue of communication on the love of God to be a dangerous issue for the person doing so is, as I said then, prima facie absurd. Complete nonsense on its face.

I don't think anywhere that he suggested that we neglect the attribute of God's love, but his intent was handling it with care. All of which I think your accusations actually proved his point to be true.  Uh? Where did I suggest or even mention White neglected the attribute of God's love? The point throughout was clearly not neglect of addressing/preaching/discussing God's love but viewing the communication of God's love to be dangerous. If you're going to criticize, Dean, criticize what I actually wrote. Better still, understand before you attempt to criticize. 

So then, how can you respond that the thought of addressing the Love of God being "dangerous" is ludicrous or ridiculous? I think your accusations after his sermon actually proved the point and proved your response to be in vain. What sermon? What accusations? Supposedly proving my response to be in vain? Excuse me? Vain? Exactly how or why is it vain to explain how one came to an interpretation of another's words, especially when the other continues to morally browbeat you as an intentionally lying deceiver who possesses absolutely no regard for truthfulness? Your responses are becoming more judgmental and less substantial as you proceed I'm afraid. As I noted more than once in my response (though you claim you could not follow my reasoning), even if one would grant my claim that James White's view remains patently absurd on its face was itself fundamentally skewed, intellectually empty, and biblically bankrupt, how does it follow I am therefore a liar and deceiver who is absolutely void of any integrity, honesty, or trustworthiness on my part? From my side of the swamp, I refuse to allow any credence whatsoever to such a grossly asinine position either in or out of the Christian community. If I'm mistaken about someone's words, correct me. That's what genuine dialog is all about. But just because I may be mistaken about another's words offers no justifiable warrant to morally condemn me or anyone else. Yet that's precisely what your defending by citing James White's frequent and vicious flaming of critics who challenge him. 

I just think that as Christians, we are called to a higher standard of integrity. Agreed. How about together we start with condemning the vicious, flaming, you-sir-are-a-liar character assassinations  James White so often produces toward many of his critics rather than actually addressing the ideas of his critics?  

I dont' need to defend White or Quarles, they are more equipped to do that than I am, and each of our fruit bears witness that either confirms or denies the words that we speak. Then what's your point here, Dean? Why are you questioning me on what I believe to be the verbal failures of both White and Quarles? If you're defending neither as you claim, then you've certainly done a poor job communicating your purpose given the comments you've logged. 

I agree with your assessment of the damage done at LC, I guess I disagree that the proper way forward is for men in the LBC to try and demonize those who preach the doctrines of Calvinism with conviction, and to continue to go after Quarles by adding your interpretive comments to a sermon from 4 years ago. What assessment of LC? What under the blue sky are you talking about? I've not so much as breathed a word about LC here. I didn't even mention Quarles taught at LC. To the contrary, that's what you guys brought up. Nor are you following so well what I've written on this post by suggesting I try and demonize those who preach the doctrines of grace (that may bear pondering since you claim you didn't follow so well my arguments elsewhere). Good heavens, brother, I've not demonized Quarles. I'm saying Quarles demonized us! What do you think the purpose of all Quarles' quotes is? Sheesh.  What's most interesting is, you imply on the one hand I apparently demonize those who preach the doctrines of grace (i.e. Quarles) and condemn it. The evidence I demonize Calvinists? By simply quoting there own words for discussion in a forum. On the other hand, James White explicitly slams me over and over and over again in a single piece as a liar, a deceiver, a man who neither possesses integrity nor desire for truth whatsoever--all based upon the difference in interpretation of a single word--and what do you do? You glibly conclude-- and conclude in the face of your own admission you didn't follow my reasoning-- that my response to him actually proved his point and made vain my response. Sweet Georgia peaches. I feel like I'm stuck with Alice in Wonderland.   

Perhaps your version of the SBC, LBC and LC moving forward and seeking peace is primarily to see us split over the theological differences in soteriology. My "version" of moving forward in the SBC perhaps is documented on my site quite well. I've not thought that much about it to be honest--at least in any holistic manner. This is partly an issue-oriented site. So I take things as they come usually. My actual passion is to explore historical sources. That's why the lion's share of posts go in that direction. So far as your implication of my thoughts about LBC and LC, I haven't a clue. I wrote about some issues last year. But know it rarely if ever crosses my mind to envision the future for either the LBC or LC. I've got more on my plate in Georgia than any human ought to have.    

Unless we stop lobbing bricks over the wall at one another, that is where I fear we are headed. Truth is we're already split theologically. That's reality. Period. We're not headed there. We are there. And the last time I checked, engaging the words of others as I've done here does not constitute "lobbing bricks over the wall at one another." On the other hand, what does constitute "lobbing bricks over the wall at one another" is morally condemning a brother to be a liar, a deceiver, a person who holds absolutely no desire for truthfulness, honesty, and integrity when the brother at worst misinterpreted a single word of a man's presentation, consequently judging wrongly, for argument's sake, the man's meaning. Personally, I think that constitutes nicely "lobbing bricks over the wall at one another." However, I find it strange, after hearing you lament, you standing with White lobbing bricks over the wall at me, judging me exactly as James White allegedly proves me to be. 

You will have to excuse my ignorance, I'm really not that familiar with your work or writing, before yesterday. No? Then why would you make the judgment about me above? A judgment which appears to suggest you know me quite well? You definitively asserted in an earlier comment: "And as anybody who is aware of the history here knows, bringing Peter's methods and motivations under scrutiny is hardly unfounded. Let the discerning reader decide for themselves: [link]" What's up with that? Care to explain your alleged ignorance in light of the above assessment?

I'm just curious, how many articles have you written criticizing those who hold to the same view of salvation and sovereignty as you? Excuse me. But what reason would I have to offer a critical assessment of a view identical to mine? I realize the value of self-criticism to be sure. But I don't think that's your point, Dean. What is more, what if my site was actually launched as a site which focused on what I perceived to be the Calvinization of the Southern Baptist Convention? What now, Dean? Arguably every post dealing with another subject other than Calvinism or Calvinization could be a step away and not toward the original intent of the site.   

Perhaps you have, but if not, I would say that speaks to an unbalanced "obsession" of your own, and as a recognized leader, should be prayerfully considered. In light of the above, how is it an "obsession" to keep focused on the actual purpose one designed as the reason for the site's existence? Maybe my site's purpose is just not your cup of theological brew. Fair enough. But do not fault a person for staying focused on what he or she believes to be the purpose of his or her project.    

Thanks for you time, genuinely, and I will pray that Christ would reconcile you, White, and Quarles for the sake of His glory. I appreciate your prayers. But I have no present desire to be reconciled to James White and no need to be reconciled to Chuck Quarles. As for the latter, if disagreement reduces to estrangement, then I suppose my wife and I sorely need reconciliation. Happily, it does not. As for the former, James White continues to harass, humiliate, defame, and assassinate my moral character every single chance he gets to this day. Hence, to reconcile with him is similar to the roadrunner reconciling with Wile E. Coyote. Martin Luther King, Jr said somewhere something like, "I can forgive a white man for taking my pencil. But I cannot reconcile with him till he gives it back."

Now, I've thoroughly answered. Over-answered most would say. So be it. Even so, unless you've something to bring up either new or I failed to address, we're through on this exchange. Know if you want to address anything I've mentioned concerning my response to White, take it to the comment stream on that post. I've already clogged this stream with way too much irrelevant to the original post.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Brian,

Thanks for your questions. However, my available time was spent on a thorough answer to Dean (over-answer as some would say). Know I'll be glad to respond. Perhaps in the morning.

Thanks also for the patience.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Brian Gunter]

Mary,

My entire point is that Quarles never pushed "Calvinism" in the classroom. I took classes with him for my last two years at LC, and he was my favorite professor. Yes, I like Dr. Quarles, he was my favorite professor at LC. But just so you know, I like Dr. Patterson, he was my favorite professor at Southwestern. So this is hardly a "Calvinist" thing for me.

Dr. Quarles taught me to read Greek and he taught me to love theology. I didn't even realize that he was Reformed when I was a student at LC, because he did not push Reformed doctrine on his students. He did push the doctrine of the Trinity, the inerrancy of Scripture, and expository preaching on his students, though. I will tell you what, Dr. Quarles is a card-carrying Conservative Southern Baptist. Yes, we all know now that Quarles holds to Reformed soteriology, but that is not what he "indoctrinates" his students with as you accuse him. I learned that he was Reformed many years after graduating from LC when the whole controversy blew up there. I honestly didn't even know where he stood on the whole issue, and I took 4 different classes with him in my time at LC.

[Scott shaver]

Dean:

I need to add nothing further to Pete's defense over posting whatever he feels adds to a theological/soteriological discussion on his own copyrighted blog.

He is right, u 2 guys brought this up ( I.e. Me and u big guy). If anyone has raised a question about the person or integrity of Quarles in this thread .... 'Twas me.

Please direct your ire in the appropriate direction and will do my best to rebut with grace.

As SnagglePuss would say ... With civility evenl!

[Mary]

Brian, your first comment was asking how Quarles' quotes were not Biblical. Quarles quotes are Calvinism. You say he didn't push Calvinism? But did he push the "bible?" What you seem to be missing here is that teaching Calvinism and then just declaring it "biblical" doesn't necessarily mean it's Biblical. It's biblical if you're a Calvinist but not to those of us who reject Calvinism. So not only are you and Quarles just running all over the place not using the actual word Calvinist and then just declaring "this is just the Bible" but Quarles as evidenced above is throwing out insulting caricatures of what nonCalvinists actually believe. You completely missed that these are the usual ridiculous representations that Calvinist use when talking about what those who reject Calvinism believe.

Now understand there is nothing wrong with Calvinists teaching their beliefs and declaring those beliefs Biblical. But Quarles isn't just any ol' SBC Calvinist. He's a Professor who has been and is employed by Southern Baptists. So the fact that you as a student of his demonstrates that he's teaching his Calvinism as simply "the Bible" and also he's teaching caricatures of what nonCalvinists believe is disturbing. That's where the indoctrination comes in. Now he says the caricature is what he believed before Calvinism. Fair enough, but if he hasn't learned that he was wrong then and that he still is demonstrating that he has no understanding of what nonCalvinists actually believe then he simply isn't qualified to be teaching anyone on the doctrine of election.

Simply put, Brian if you didn't read those quotes by Quarles and realize how off the wall they are in regards to what SBC nonCalvinists believe then you have a lot of studying you need to do. Nobody has to accept what SBC nonCalvinists believe, but they should have the respect and the decency not to push out ridiculous falsehoods - especially if that person pushing this nonsense is a teacher at an SBC Seminary.

[Mark]

Hyper-Calvinist pretty much stick within the perimeters of TULIP which are cliff notes of their unbalanced view of the Bible.

[Brian Gunter]

Mary,

When Quarles taught "the Bible," he was teaching on the deity of Christ, the Incarnation, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, the substitutionary atonement, the bodily Resurrection, etc. You may not believe me, but these are the doctrines he emphasized in the classroom. Particularly, when Quarles taught through the Gospel of John, he helped me understand these great doctrines, especially the Trinity, much better. So no, he did not push election in the classroom.

However, I remember many non-Calvinist professors at LC and Southwestern who bashed Calvinists. I had far more professors who made absurd caricatures of Reformed theology than those who misrepresented non-Reformed theology. I am not going to go around smearing those non-Calvinist professors whom I sat under just because I disagree with how they misrepresented my theological position. I have more respect for them than that.

I have to say that the tone of most people in this forum, on both sides of the argument, does not honor Christ. My hope in sharing here is to challenge Peter and others to critique Quarles on his exegesis of Scripture, because THAT is what really matters. However, when you, Mary, tell people that "you have a lot of studying you need to do," just remember that you have no idea how much studying I have done. I disagreed with you, so you insulted my intelligence. That does not honor Christ. If you disagree with someone, use Scripture to demonstrate that what you are saying is true, not pejoratives.

Lastly,we are all supposed to be on the same team here! Southern Baptists need to discuss the issue of Calvinism, but can't we do it without dishonoring Christ? Do we really need to suggest that anyone who disagrees with us "simply isn't qualified to be teaching anyone" on that doctrine? That sounds like someone who doesn't want to interact with those who disagree, but someone who wants to silence those who disagree. Look, I disagree with non-Reformed Southern Baptists on election, but I am not going to treat them like heretics and demand that they stop teaching people. If they deny some central doctrine of Christian orthodoxy, then yes, I will call for them to be removed. But disagreeing on election? That is hardly worth splitting our Convention over! The world is watching all of us, and we need to represent Christ better than this.

[Mark]

Brian,

Sorry to hear about "Reformed" getting bashed by those that don't profess to be Calvinist.

I can tell you first hand however, that a Stealth Hyper-Reformed "TULIP" something was force feeding his Doctrine without disclosing that he was referencing his Methodology around TULIP to my Church that didn't embrace Calvinism.

If you tried to inquire about his Methodology or Doctrine he wouldn't disclose it, but rather verbally retaliate against those asking the wrong questions about his beliefs.

So in your defense of Calvinism, it doesn't surprise me they are getting bashed, because much of their Stealth Methodologies is making them vulnerable to scrutiny and rightfully so.