God Loves… Himself

Former BLOGS critiqued Morris Chapman’s article in the August 2007 edition of SBC LIFE. He said this: “The Baptist Faith and Message agrees that both the work of grace and the responsibility of man are necessary elements in the salvation experience.” There are other statements that are of great concern. “If we are swept up in a Convention-wide debate between those who believe in five-point Calvinism and those who don’t, especially so soon on the heels of the Conservative Resurgence, we will do irreparable harm to the Kingdom of God and our Convention.” The issue has moved beyond Morris Chapman’s statement as such to looking at other things. For example, can it be that the real issue is not between those who believe in five-point Calvinism and those who don’t? It could be that the issues between Calvinists and Arminians are actually hiding the real problems.

The stated concern in the above article seems to be about not harming the Kingdom of God and “our Convention.” If God is not at the center now, the harm has already been done regardless of what theology one holds. The real question is whether God will restore it to a focus on Him in reality. It appears that many in the SBC have baptized a man-centered theology and practice with a few verses. This is true in professing Calvinists and Arminian churches alike. In operating on business principles numbers and offerings are the real focus though termed with other names. If numbers or offerings are down, we come up with a program to pump that up. Of course we will find a few verses and Christian phrases to tack on, but the real heart of the issue is numbers and offerings. Why do we want to start churches? Apart from some pious terminology, the reasons could be many. It is, after all, how the great machine continues on. But where is God? Where are the broken hearts seeking God? Oh sure we have a few prayer meetings where we offer up a few “prayers” asking God to bless our plans, but why have we not truly sought His wisdom to begin with? Perhaps we even offered up something we call “prayers” before we started even though we knew what we wanted to do before. But where is God? If He did withdraw Himself, would we notice? Could it be that He has withdrawn and that is the real problem? The Arminians think the answer is in evangelism and the Calvinists think the answer is in theology. In reality the answer is God Himself. If the churches do not do what they do with God at the center, whether Arminian or Calvinist, they are not being a true church in truth. If our theology is not truly centered on God we have a wrong theology and wrong practice.

Let us be blatantly and brutally honest. If we took out the word “God” from many of the programs would they continue on as if nothing had happened? If we did not tell the name of many of the SBC churches and had people watch services by video of some sort, would they be able to tell much difference between those and many of the nice but secular self-help talks? What has happened to biblical preaching these days? One could search for a long time to find God in the midst of many sermons than an occasional mention of His name. We would rather offend God than people and would rather exalt man and diminish God in the name of God. Where is God? We even have well constructed expositional sermons that we think is a sign of a return of biblical preaching but in fact man is still the center of it rather than God. We can even speak of God in man-centered ways. This is also true in Calvinistic churches. We use Calvinism in a man-centered way and as such are guilty of idolatry in the Calvinistic doctrines.

Those who are true believers in the churches are starving to hear of the glory of God, yet we continue on with our self-help and self-esteem messages in order to fill the pews. Some Calvinists teach Calvinism in a way where they expect people to come hear their orthodoxy. It almost seems as if doctrinal orthodoxy is thought to be a magical formula for church growth. Meanwhile, true believers are starving for God while many stand firm with doctrinal Calvinism instead of feeding the people with the glory of God. Where is God in reality in what Calvinists and Arminians are doing other than the use of His name at a few points? The doctrinal distinctions are seen as intellectual distinctions alone without being important distinctions until they are applied to the soul in a God-centered way. People will spiritually starve under Arminian and Calvinistic teaching alike unless God is declared to them in His glory through Christ. Without God at the center of all that is preached, taught and done in a local church the doctrine will make no real difference. Intellectual Calvinism will kill a church as effectively as the Pelagianism that is so alive in the professing Arminian congregations. In reality, there is a lot in common between a dead Calvinism and practical Pelagianism. Neither position acts like it believes that the depravity of man is in the heart and that man must be made alive by the Spirit of God. It is also true that many Arminians are in truth practical Pelagians and many Calvinists don’t really believe in depravity despite their protestations to the contrary. We can see how peace can happen between the two camps when there is a difference between the stated doctrines but the practices are the same. The leaders talk peace and the people don’t hear the glory of God in truth.

We have been critiquing Morris Chapman’s article in the August 2007 edition of SBC LIFE. He said this: “The Baptist Faith and Message agrees that both the work of grace and the responsibility of man are necessary elements in the salvation experience.” This continues to be a shocking statement in contrast to Scripture and the older writers who all spoke of a salvation that is of grace alone by the works of Christ alone. There are other statements that are of great concern as well. “If we are swept up in a Convention-wide debate between those who believe in five-point Calvinism and those who don’t, especially so soon on the heels of the Conservative Resurgence, we will do irreparable harm to the Kingdom of God and our Convention.”

At this point I am not critiquing Morris Chapman’s article but have moved instead to critiquing what goes under the name of “Calvinism” today. In the last BLOG I tried to set out that one could call himself a “five-point Calvinist” and yet not have grace at all. There are probably many people that call themselves “Calvinists” that are not converted. In the last BLOG the real issue was over grace and that of a real grace in the heart and not just one agreed to by the intellect. I John was written for a specific reason: “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life” (5:13). John did not write asking people if they were Calvinists or Arminian. What he wanted to know was whether they had eternal life in their soul or not. If a person is trusting in the fact that he is a Christian because he is a Calvinist of one stripe or another, that person is quite deceived. One is not saved by the points of Calvinism; one is saved by Christ alone. One is not saved by an assent to something as true, but only because the Spirit has applied them to the person.

Am I at this point denying the truths of Reformed theology? Not at all. I am simply asserting them in a way that stresses life itself and rather than in just as a creed or a doctrinal formulation. On the one hand I would tell Arminians that they teach something far different than Luther and the Reformers did even though they use the same words Luther did by describing the Gospel as justification by faith alone. Though Arminians use the same words as Luther did, they teach the opposite of what Luther did on the subject. So when a Reformed person can say that he teaches the same Gospel as his “Arminian brothers” do, we can know that something is terribly wrong somewhere. The Reformed person has at some point, though he may still hold to his beloved “five-points” in some way, actually fallen from his five-points as informed by sola gratia. The other option is that those who are calling themselves Arminians have actually moved from the Arminian position. The truth of the matter remains that the doctrines must be applied by the Spirit or they are nothing more than words to the brain.

Let us be very clear on this. There is enough bad terminology around that one can call himself a “five-point Calvinist” and really be more in line with historical Arminianism. One can call himself an Arminian and in reality be more in line with historical Calvinism. Along with the terminology and definitional issues, we have the polarization and inflamed rhetorical issues. What we must do is get beyond the rhetoric and get to the real issues at hand. Unless Jesus and Paul were mistaken (sarcasm intended), there is only one Gospel of Jesus Christ. All those who teach a false Gospel are condemned without exception whether that person is a professing Calvinist or a professing Arminian (Galatians 1:6-10). What that means is that there can be peace or war in the SBC between professing Calvinists and professing Arminians and both sides could be condemned for teaching a false gospel. The peace being sought could simply be an effort to please men rather than God (Gal 6:10).

What that should also show us is that it is so easy to get away from the main issues at hand. How frightful it would be to be a staunch protector of Reformed theology or of Arminian theology and teach a false gospel. How needful it is to search our own hearts and see by Scripture if eternal life is really there rather than fight for a system as a system. It matters little if the founders of the SBC were Calvinists or Arminian if the present generation does not stand for the Gospel itself and actually has the Spirit of the living God in their hearts. We must never be moved from what the two main issues are. The first main issue is the Gospel of grace alone which is the Gospel of the glory of God in the face of Christ. In one sense that is what I have been trying to stress in the past two BLOGS. The second main issue is that of doing all to the glory of God out of a true love for God. It is being God-centered in all that we do because of the God who is at the center of His people’s hearts and affections. This will be addressed starting with the next BLOG. But for now, remember that both the system of Calvinism and the system of Arminianism can be used to deceive people as to the real Gospel. That is said by a Reformed person.

We have been critiquing Morris Chapman’s article in the August 2007 edition of SBC LIFE. He said this: “The Baptist Faith and Message agrees that both the work of grace and the responsibility of man are necessary elements in the salvation experience.” This is simply a shocking statement to one that has been drinking from the wells of Scripture and the wells of older writers on a salvation that is of grace alone and worked by God alone. There are other statements that are of great concern as well. “If we are swept up in a Convention-wide debate between those who believe in five-point Calvinism and those who don’t, especially so soon on the heels of the Conservative Resurgence, we will do irreparable harm to the Kingdom of God and our Convention.”

I believe that there are massive errors in the previous statement, but perhaps part of the issue involves certain presuppositions. One of those simply must be addressed at this point. The driving issue for some of us is not some sort of distinction between five-point Calvinism and those who don’t hold it, but the God-centered nature of theology and the Gospel itself. It is becoming more and more evident in our day that the distinction between many five-point Calvinists and those who don’t hold to that is relatively small. It seems to be true that it is thought by many Calvinists and non-Calvinists that the real issue is over the five points rather than the issue of the nature of Christianity and the Gospel. It is with utter dismay that I hear “Calvinists” say that the Gospel they hold to is the same as others but that they (the Calvinists) just have a more pure understanding of how things work.

Perhaps we need to go back once again to the roots of Protestantism which was rooted in Scripture. When Luther broke with Rome it was not over the issues of certain points of Calvinism as stated theologically, it was over the issues of the will and the Gospel. The reason that the doctrine of the will is so important is because, of necessity, it is the place where the doctrine of depravity and the Gospel of grace meet. A person can call himself a “five-point Calvinist” and still have a Gospel that is just like how a conservative Arminian would teach it. But according to Luther, the teaching on the bondage of the will was necessary to safeguard justification by grace alone which is the heart of justification by faith alone. The discussion within the Convention will not even get to the real issues unless it gets to the issues of the Gospel of grace alone through faith alone and a thorough God-centeredness in the Gospel and all things. If the issue is focused on modern Calvinism, it will probably miss the Gospel.

In all frankness if the issue is just over the five-points of Calvinism nothing will be accomplished. There can be agreement or disagreement on these issues and nothing will really change. What must happen for there to be change is to get at the deeper underlying issues. One can be a five-point Calvinist (whatever that may mean to so many) and still not truly believe in the depravity of his or her own heart. It can be nothing more than an intellectual teaching and it might even be something learned from a creed or a history class. But until that person has learned the depths of depravity of his own heart and learned that he needs grace every moment to do any spiritual good at all, that person has not learned depravity. The issues of Reformed theology as a whole cannot be distinguished from the “Five-points of the Reformation” or it will become nothing but a heartless and man-centered doctrinal formulation that deceives people about the Gospel.

A Calvinism that focuses on creeds more than the experiential aspects of Reformed theology is out of balance and is most likely not focused on the heart of Reformed or biblical theology. Reformed theology puts importance on the creeds but it also puts a vital importance on the work of God in the heart. The Gospel of grace alone is far more than an assent to a creed, though it is that as well, but it is the living God in the soul of a sinner saving that sinner by grace in the heart and then working in the sinner to persevere by grace. The Gospel of grace is not about starch in the shorts to make people stiff and solemn, it is about grace in the heart that causes people to love and adore the God of such grace. It might be the case that many people assent to the teachings of Calvinism and yet don’t have a true knowledge of grace in the heart. The issue must not be about the five-points of Calvinism, it must be about the grace of God in the heart which is what the Gospel is. Jesus Christ died for sinners so that they would be broken of their own self-centered lives (which can be lived as a five-point Calvinist or as an Arminian) and to be turned to God by grace in the heart. It has been reported that many of the religious people in Jerusalem believed in the doctrine of election and yet had no grace in the heart. Many other people believed in free-will in Jerusalem and also had no grace in the heart. The Gospel of grace alone that works in the hearts of people and then lives in the hearts of people to strengthen them to live by grace should be the issue. If we will not discuss that, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die. All else will simply be external religion regardless of the tag we assign to it.

We will continue our critique of Morris Chapman’s article in the August 2007 edition of SBC LIFE. Here is a representative quote from that article again: “The Baptist Faith and Message agrees that both the work of grace and the responsibility of man are necessary elements in the salvation experience.” In contrast to that here is a quote from Joseph Alleine: “If ever thou wouldst be savingly converted, thou must despair of doing it in thine own strength” (An Alarm to Unconverted Sinners). In the last BLOG we looked at James 1:18 and John 1:12-13 and saw that God regenerates sinners according to His will and not theirs.

But what would cause God to save sinners when they have nothing in themselves that would cause or move Him to save them? A look at Titus 3 will help with this: “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:5-7). This text tells us the reason that God did not save and the reason that He does save. He does not save us on the basis of deeds done in righteousness. Perhaps the reason is that we have no righteousness as set out in Romans 3:10: “There is none righteous, no not one.” What does this verse tell us about something other than grace being a necessary element in salvation? It tells us that God saves according to His mercy and result of that is that sinners are justified by His grace. This text wipes away any act of man that contributes to salvation. If a person has “free-will” and it is that will that must move in order to be saved, then that will must be a righteous will and not a totally depraved one. That will that must move must be free from the power of grace in order to be free. But the text tells us without one bit of equivocation or shame that one is saved according to the mercy of God and the mercy of God alone. There is nothing in man that contributes to salvation and so there is nothing of man’s responsibility that is a necessary element in the salvation experience. It is all of grace.

Romans 3:23-24 shows the real cause of salvation as well: “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.” This text tells us the nature of grace and simply blows away any thought of man being able to add to grace or contribute anything to his salvation. Justification is a gift. But what does that mean? It really means that justification is without cause in man. John 15:25 uses the same language about Jesus: “But they have done this to fulfill the word that is written in their Law, ‘THEY HATED ME WITHOUT A CAUSE.'” The words “without a cause” is from the same Greek word that is used as “a gift” in Romans 3:24. Salvation is without a cause in man. There was no cause for Jesus to be hated in Jesus, but the cause of the hatred for Him was found in the depraved hearts of those who hated Him. In the Gospel there is nothing but God as the cause to save sinners by His grace. The cause of salvation is not the “free-will” of man or of anything in man. There is nothing about the responsibility of man that contributes to the grace of God in salvation in the slightest or in any way. Salvation is by grace alone.

Romans 4:4-5 simply seals the case even further: “Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.” Here the text tells us that if a person tries to work for salvation that person is not saved. Salvation is to the one that does not work for salvation. We must get that idea in our heads and to sink deeply into the depths of our being. It is only when a person gives up trying to save self or contribute to his or her own salvation that a person can be saved. If there is something about men’s will that can contribute to salvation and that not be the working of the will and so be a work, someone will have to do a lot of explaining to get that one across. A person must give up all efforts of self and all of his or her own willing in order to be saved by grace alone.

We then move on to Ephesians 2:1-10. Without quoting the verses, we see what a person that is dead in sins and trespasses can do nothing in the spiritual realm but sin. The person that is dead has no spiritual life and no spiritual will. The will is not free as it is in bondage to the devil, sin, selfishness and love for the world. What would move God to save one like that? The person’s choice? No, a person dead in sin will only choose sin and nothing but sin. What can that person contribute as a necessary part of his or her salvation? What moves God to raise that person from the spiritual dead but His great love and mercy? There is nothing that man can do that is a necessary element in the salvation experience. It is all by the uncaused (in man) mercy and grace of God. God only needs Himself.

We will continue our critique of Morris Chapman’s article in the August 2007 edition of SBC LIFE. Two BLOGS ago I set out to show how it is simply impossible to interpret the words of that article in any other way than setting out Reformed teaching on one side and Arminian teaching on the other. When the author uses the words that “The Bible teaches both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man,” there can be no question that he is meaning the Arminian view of the responsibility of man when taken from the context of the article itself. In the last BLOG we looked at some of the language of the article and how it is dangerous to add something to grace. In this BLOG I would like to focus in on how dangerous it is to add something to grace.

Here are a few quotes from the article again: “The Baptist Faith and Message agrees that both the work of grace and the responsibility of man are necessary elements in the salvation experience.” Once again, “since the Baptist Faith and Message embraces both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man, it is reasonable for Southern Baptists to expect professors to teach both elements as necessary for the salvation experience.” And even again, “For the sake of reaching the world for Christ, can we not agree that both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man are necessary ingredients in our salvation?” At least one main reason that theologians have asserted the sovereignty of God in salvation is because that protects grace and grace alone. If the term “responsibility” is used as historical Arminians use the term, it means that the will has a power that is free from external forces to it and hence the will is free. A free-will that must be exercised apart from external forces is a will that is free of grace and so salvation would not be by grace alone or by faith alone.

Let me give a quote from another famous old author: “If ever thou wouldst be savingly converted, thou must despair of doing it in thine own strength” (Joseph Alleine, An Alarm to Unconverted Sinners). We must wrestle through this statement and in it we will see the massive danger of saying that “The work of grace and the responsibility of man are necessary elements in the salvation experience” (Morris Chapman in the August 2007 edition of SBC LIFE). We should go to Scripture and compare the two statements with Holy Writ. We will test these two statements first by James 1:18: “In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.” Here we see that being born again is of the will of God who acts through the word of truth. The result of the exercise of His will is that believers are a kind of first fruits of His creatures. This text mentions only one primary cause and that is the will of God. This text mentions only one secondary cause and that is the word of truth. The text mentions the results of the two causes and the fruit is to be His creatures. There is no mention of the works, responsibility, power or will of man.

We can go to another text and test it. “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13). In this text we see that there is a present tense in verse 12 of those who believe, but verse 13 speaks in the past tense of those who were born. Many see from the way the text sets out the tenses that it teaches that the birth happened before the belief. Either way, however, the rest of the text makes things very clear. Of whose will is the causative power to make men children of God? The text tells us that this birth is not caused by the person’s nationality. The text tells us that this birth is not caused by the will of the flesh nor of the will of man. If man is responsible from the Arminian position, what good does it do at this point? Man is not saved by a choice, but man is saved because God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Rom 9:16). These texts speak to the issue of the will of man and they say very clearly that salvation does not depend on the will of man.

What determines and then moves and causes the new birth in man? It is the will of God. We see that very clearly in John 1:13. It tells us that the new birth is not of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man. This text very clearly moves the free-will argument out of the picture. Man is born again by the will of God. Where is the Arminian view of responsibility at this point? Man has no ability apart from the grace of God. If man has no ability apart from the grace of God, then free-will in the sense of salvation is null and void. If man has no ability apart from the grace of God, then man is saved by the will of God alone and that would be by grace alone. Let us marvel at the glory of the grace of God in salvation! There is nothing in man that would move God to save man. There is no other necessary element to salvation other than the grace of God. Period, period and a thousand periods!!

We will continue our critique of Morris Chapman’s article in the August 2007 edition of SBC LIFE. In the last BLOG I set out to show how it is simply impossible to interpret the words of that article in any other way than setting out Reformed teaching on one side and Arminian teaching on the other. When the author uses the words, “The Bible teaches both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man,” from the context of the article itself, there can be no question that he is meaning the Arminian view of the responsibility of man. It is true that Reformed theologians can use those same words, but they use them with a far different meaning than the author of the article in question.

The issues at stake here are simply enormous since they deal with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Again, I don’t think that it can be denied in the context of this article and the stated reasons given in the article that the author is using the term “responsibility” in the Arminian sense. We can also look at another sentence that shows this but also makes a dangerous assertion: “The Baptist Faith and Message agrees that both the work of grace and the responsibility of man are necessary elements in the salvation experience.” Once again, “since the Baptist Faith and Message embraces both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man, it is reasonable for Southern Baptists to expect professors to teach both elements as necessary for the salvation experience.” And even again, “For the sake of reaching the world for Christ, can we not agree that both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man are necessary ingredients in our salvation?” The dangerous assertion is that there is a necessary ingredient to salvation other than grace. Scripture is crystal clear that salvation is by grace alone and knows nothing of another necessary ingredient to salvation. Salvation is by grace alone in order that it may be by Christ alone to the glory of God alone. Another ingredient to salvation means that salvation is by Christ and something. While this may be nothing more than careless language, it is repeated.

What we see in this article is the phrase “the sovereignty of God” being used along with the phrase “the responsibility of man.” The phrases are used as two aspects or necessary ingredients in salvation. What does the responsibility of man have to do with the necessary things of salvation? What is necessary for salvation? From the Reformed view (historically) man’s responsibility has to do with man’s obligation and not his moral ability. The fact that man has responsibility only increases his guiltiness before God and has nothing to do with his salvation. Salvation is by Christ alone through grace alone and that is received by faith alone. Faith itself is not a work of man, but is rather a gift of God and is how regenerate men receive salvation. From the Reformed view the responsibility of man has nothing to do with his salvation.

From the Arminian view a necessary act of salvation is for man to exercise his free-will and make a choice. It is the choice that man makes in choosing Christ that God responds to and so saves the person. The differences between these two systems of thought can hardly be any more divergent. Historically these two positions are contradictory and mutually exclusive. According to Scripture they are as well. Whatever comes from a free-will (logically and theologically) is a will that is moved by the power of man and is free from grace if it is a free-will. Salvation is by grace alone and that is from the beginning through eternity. “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace” (Rom 11:6). Whatever is by grace is not on the basis of works and it is opposite to that which moves us to a work apart from grace. For the will to be free it must be free from outside powers. If we are saved by grace alone, then it is grace alone that moves the will which means the will is not free.

The statements in the article in question are not in accordance with the Gospel of grace alone. Can those that are truly Reformed agree to a unity based on statements like this? Can those that are truly Reformed agree that the theology expressed in these statements should be taught by SBC professors? Can Reformed people agree that human responsibility (as taught in this context) is a necessary element for salvation? Can those who are in line with historical Arminian thinking agree to those statements? As the conference in North Carolina grows closer, the dangers become more obvious. It is so easy to agree with the words and phrases of a statement and never really agree at all. It will be easy for people to become infatuated with civility and the desire to be winsome and the desire to agree with others that they may be blinded to the fact that there is no real agreement in substance. It could be that the desire to agree will be so strong that the Gospel of Jesus Christ will not be defended. That is a frightful outlook, but we must remember the power that wanting to get along and be accepted can have on men.

At this point I will be moving back into a critique of Morris Chapman’s article in the August 2007 SBC LIFE. I will attempt to discuss the article and refer to Mr. Chapman very sparingly. However, this article was and is an important article as it sets out the differences between differing groups in the SBC. His article is an attempt to take a middle ground. It appears that the vast majority of people want a middle ground on this issue, even people on both the Reformed and Arminian side. We must be careful and know what is being said about what the middle ground really is. If we don’t, the Gospel will be compromised by at least one side if not both.

Why do I believe this article has such a dangerous concept? It is because it is an attempt to get people to quit arguing for certain positions in an attempt to keep the SBC from a debate. The problem, however, is that the Gospel is at the center of this debate despite the denial of both sides that it is. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is by grace alone from eternity to eternity and at every point in between. There are professing Calvinists and professing Arminians who deny this in either word or by practice. We must be careful to think through these issues with great care or we will be guilty of compromising the Gospel for the sake of peace and we will run around crying “peace, peace, when there is no peace (Jer 6:14; 8:11; Ezek 13:10).

The overall purpose of the article was an attempt to bring peace regarding three issues in the SBC by looking at the Baptist Faith and Message. One of the issues dealt with is Calvinism. The desire was to prevent a Convention wide debate on this issue as the author thought it would “do irreparable harm to the Kingdom of God and our Convention.” While I totally disagree with the idea that “a debate” on the Gospel would do any harm to the Kingdom of God, we are discussing the reason why the author wrote this article. The author clearly does not want there to be a “debate between those who believe in five-point Calvinism and those who don’t.” This is the stated reason and this reason cannot really be debated from the words of the author himself. That is his stated purpose.

With that in mind, the author starts this section of the article (on Calvinism) by quoting Section V of the Baptist Faith and Message. This is the section that speaks of election. He quotes two paragraphs and both are dealing with election and what Calvinists affirm. He then quotes from Section IV of the Baptist Faith and Message which speaks to salvation being “offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior” and then “there is not salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.” The whole of Section IV is debated, but the author quoted just a small part of section IV. His very next words after quoting Section IV are these: “The Bible teaches both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. The Baptist Faith and Message agrees that both the work of grace and the responsibility of man are necessary elements in the salvation experience.”

If we look at the overall purpose of the article and then the selected quotes from the Baptist Faith and Message followed by the words of the author of this article, I am not sure how it can be denied that the author is setting out a comparison of Calvinist and Arminian teaching. He does not want the Convention to get involved in a debate over this issue and then he sets out quotes from the Baptist Faith and Message. Section V teaches God’s sovereignty and Section IV is interpreted by Arminian leaning theologians as teaching man’s responsibility. But note that what is meant by the responsibility of man at this point is an Arminian view of man’s responsibility. For more on what the Arminian view of responsibility is, see a former BLOG on this issue (Responsibility and Inability I). There is no purpose in giving Section IV in that context if it is not an attempt to show that the Arminian view of responsibility is taught.

If the author meant the Reformed view of responsibility in his article, then he gave no evidence at all for the Arminian view of responsibility. If he meant the Reformed view of responsibility, then there is no reason to say that there should be no debate between those who believe in five-point Calvinism and those who don’t. If indeed he meant the Reformed view of responsibility, then he did nothing but state what Reformed people believe. What would be the point of that in light of this article? The only possible way to interpret this article in the words it was written is that the author meant that the Baptist Faith and Message and Scripture teach the Arminian view of responsibility. If so, then those who are truly Reformed and those who are truly Arminian have a problem. The author would then apparently think that it is okay to teach both Reformed soteriology and Arminian soteriology at the same institutions. That which is truly Reformed and that which is truly Arminian contradict each other and there can be no real agreement between those who truly hold to the various positions. We are just kidding ourselves to say that this is not true.

Do those that believe in the “five-points of Calvinism” believe in the responsibility of man? Yes, but in a far different way than the Arminian does. Of course the Bible teaches both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man (properly defined), but it does not teach the responsibility of man as the Arminian teaches it. In the past Reformed theologians have went to this issue at hand and thought that the Gospel was seriously compromised by Arminians at this very point (see BLOGS Essentials of the Gospel and following for more on this). In fact, they have taught that salvation cannot be by grace alone unless the Arminian view of ability was denied. In the past Arminians have thought that the Reformed view killed evangelism and churches. The author says that there is an antinomy between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. From the Reformed view of responsibility that may be true, but rather than an antinomy there is a contradiction from the Arminian view. For the Reformed people to remain silent on this issue and to accept peace at this point is to jettison what the Reformers and their theological children taught that the Bible taught on this issue. It can still be argued whether it is to jettison Scripture or not, but there can be no argument about what the Reformers taught on this.

The question then comes as to us as to what to do. There can be no debate and dialogue on the Gospel itself. The Gospel is to be preached and declared and there can be no compromise on the Gospel. One can compromise on ways to express things and certain focuses, but one cannot compromise the heart of the Gospel which is all about the glory of God in the face of Christ by grace alone. Can one that loves the Gospel of grace alone be quiet about others who teach a gospel that is not grace alone? Can there be peace in a denomination while some teach a Gospel of grace alone and others teach something else though still using the same designation? These are not silly little issues and is not just one person being picky. These are things that must be dealt with if we are to be faithful to Christ. Sure we have to be analytical and ask what people mean by words and concepts, but that is exactly what people that have been faithful to the Gospel have done over the years. It is far easier in one sense just to stand back and say nothing, but faithfulness to Christ and His true Church requires that we stand firm regardless of the cost.

In the past three BLOGS I dealt with two articles from the October 2007 issue of SBC LIFE. Those articles had to do with people being civil in what is written and said in all mediums of communication. I am not questioning the heart of those men and really not even the central theme of what they have written. I am simply stating that more needs to be taken into consideration. In one sense I am very concerned with what is going on within the SBC and modern evangelical thinking. In another sense it may be partly self-preservation. In the next BLOG or two I am going to return to a critique of an article by Morris Chapman in the August 2007 SBC LIFE. In that article there was a serious compromise of the Gospel. I cannot remain quiet about that. There is something else going on that is of serious concern, though, namely the Building Bridges conference that will take place in November. It is related to the Morris Chapman article. At that conference professing Arminians and professing Calvinists are planning to dialogue on understanding each other and how to get along. There is a strong possibility that if the goal is getting along, then in order to be civil and polite the Gospel itself will be compromised. Whatever else is done, the glory of the character of God in the Gospel is more important than civility for the sake of getting along in one denomination. The issues between the two groups as historically understood are logically and biblically irreconcilable. The differences must be set out with clarity and not watered down.

Jesus Christ would be considered harsh today, but He was and is perfect love. Well, some say, “He knew hearts perfectly and you don’t.” That is correct. But following that argument to its conclusions leads us to the point where we are not able to say anything to anyone. We don’t have to pass final judgment on hearts to obey Scripture and tell people that what they say is not according to Scripture and to stand up for the Gospel. Listen to some words of Scripture pointed to leaders:

Exodus 32:21 – Then Moses said to Aaron, “What did this people do to you, that you have brought such great sin upon them?”

Matthew 16:23 – But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.”

When the men gather in North Carolina, if their primary goal is not the glory of God and His glory in the Gospel, then they will fail miserably in truth no matter what the outward victories appear to be. If the solution is that both sides will just have to learn to compromise for the greater good of the SBC, all will be lost. The Gospel of the glory of God is of far more importance than the SBC. In fact, the SBC should only be in existence for the advancement of God’s kingdom. If the Gospel is compromised, the SBC has become totally worthless. The men at that conference must realize that civility and being gracious is not the most important thing. They must be there to defend the Gospel at the expense of their reputations and positions. The calls to civility and graciousness may in fact work to dull the edge of the Word of God and this simply must not happen.

It is my view that the SBC in general terms is teetering on the edge of irrelevance. It has become more like the business world and less like the Word of God. It has become more of a good-ole-boy network than of people being concerned about seeking men who seek God. It has become more interested in counting nickels and noses (under a pious guise of baptisms and ministry) than it is in seeking the glory of God. In other words, as it becomes more and more like the world it is becoming less and less biblical.

Here are some words from R.C. Sproul from his book Willing to Believe, pp. 19-20:

Robert Godfrey, president of Westminster Theological Seminar in Escondido, California, recently suggested that I write a book about “the myth of influence.” I was startled by the suggestion because I did not know what he meant. He explained that this phrase refers to the modern evangelical penchant to “build bridges” to secular thought or to groups within the larger church that espouse defective theologies.

The mythical element is the naïve assumption that one can build bridges that move in one direction only. Bridges are usually built to allow traffic to move in two directions. What often happens when we relate to others is that we become the influences rather than the influencers. In an effort to win people to Christ and be “winsome,” we may easily slip into the trap of emptying the gospel of its content, accommodating our hearers, and removing the offense inherent in the gospel. To be sure, our own insensitive behavior can add an offense to the gospel that is not properly part of it. We should labor hard to avoid such behavior. But to strip the gospel of those elements that unbelievers find repugnant is not an option.

Martin Luther once remarked that wherever the gospel is preached in its purity, it engenders conflict and controversy. We live in an age that abhors controversy, and we are prone to avoid conflict. How dissimilar this atmosphere is from that which marked the labor of Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles. The prophets were immersed in conflict and controversy precisely because they would not accommodate the Word of God to the demands of the nation caught up in syncretism. The apostles were engaged in conflict continuously. As much as Paul sought to live peaceably with all men, he found rare moments of peace and little respite from controversy.

That we enjoy relative safety from violent attacks against us may indicate a maturing of modern civilization with respect to religious toleration. Or it may indicate that we have so compromised the gospel that we no longer provoke the conflict that true faith engenders.

We must never forget that our hearts are deceitful and that the world is always trying to make us conform to it. The world can get inside of religious denominations and make them more like itself in terms of business practices and its outlook of tolerance rather than the denomination being like Christ and His Word. Peace within a denomination is only desirable if it is a peace wrought by and of the Gospel itself. The Gospel is of Christ alone and grace alone. No matter the words that men say, their theology must sustain that as well. The men going to North Carolina may be going to dialogue in a civil manner and in a gracious way, but they must be sure that they are going to defend the Gospel first and foremost. At times speaking in a civil and gracious way is nothing more than carving the offense of the Gospel away and making it more palatable to some.

The true Gospel of grace alone will always provoke conflict as it reaches the hearts of sinful men. The true message of the sovereign God will always provoke conflict within the hearts of self-sufficient men who hate the rule of God over them. The message that men are dead in sins and trespasses and unable to save themselves in any way is offensive to those who are dead. The message that a person can only be saved by Christ alone and of grace alone is horrible to those who trust in even a little of their own righteousness and power.

This may sound intolerant to some, but so be it. If it is intolerant to judge others, then no one should judge the intolerance of others as that is also judging. If it is intolerant to judge others as unbelievers, then it is also intolerant to judge others as believers. The issue is the Gospel of Jesus Christ and if anyone denies the Gospel that person is not a Christian regardless of his or her position in the world or church. A worldly tolerance will not say anything and that person will perish. True love will say something. The person that love speaks to will respond in anger, yes, but perhaps will be converted later on. The meeting in North Carolina is perhaps about far more than the men themselves realize. They will stand before God as to whether or not they will be faithful to Him and to His Word. That is far more important than whether or not men think of them as civil or gracious. The goal must be the glory of God and nothing else. Anything else would be idolatry.