Gordan's Gone

Hey, just a quick note to let you know that I am begging off of blogging for the foreseeable future. Many of you know (more of you don't) that I had a novel published in 2000. Well, I've been bitten by that bug again and now must pursue the path of writing another. I don't have a lot of control over my own creative juices: you've kinda got to go with the flow on these things, I've learned.

But even before I begin to pursue another book-writing, I'm already stacked to the gills with time constraints and ministry responsibilities, so something's got to give. This time, that something is the internet in general, and the blogosphere in particular.

I believe Rhett is going to come on here shortly and make an announcement along similar lines with regard to the status of this blog, so I will simply sign off with the prayer that our great Sovereign may continue to bless you with an ever-increasing knowledge of the truth, as it is found in the face of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

Crazy talk? We'll Soon See

Four minutes, listen then comment. Is this crazy talk?

Sanctification Question

Here's the scenario.

A young man comes to you and confesses that he is in bondage to something addictive (whether drugs, alcohol, sex, pornography...whatever.)

He is in distress and near despair because of his lack of victory in this area.

He is a confessing Christian, and aside from this confession, has never seemed to bear the fruit of a false convert. There's nothing you've observed in his life that would've led you to suspect that he's anything other than a growing, though imperfect, sincere believer in Christ.

Now that he's laid bare his soul to you, his desire is freedom from this sin.

What is your counsel?

(The reason I ask is because I was "raised" as a baby Christian with a Pentecostal view of sanctification, and am interested in other ideas. I'm not so much interested in your theology of personal holiness as I am what your specific counsel to a man like this guy above would be. I'm interested in how the rubber meets the road in your theory of sanctification.)

So...play nice and try to keep responses to something less than thesis-length.

More Prophecy Stuff at Incrediblog

I'm starting a series on allowing the Bible to interpret itself, even on prophetic matters. I think when most of us settle on a prophetic system that seems to work for us, then that's the one we go with, and it becomes a filter through which we look at all prophecies. But what if the Bible itself demonstrates proper interpretation of prophetic dreams and visions? Hmm.

"With Juicy Bits"

For interested folk, I've published a post on the last third of the Revelation, with juicy bits of wild speculation at the end. Enjoy.

A Mediocre Review of a Great Book: "Precious Remedies Against Satan's Devices" by Thomas Brooks

Is there a Reformed view of "spiritual warfare?" And if there is, does it differ significantly from the modern, charismatic rebuking-the-devil sort of thing?

The answer to the first question is Yes. Thankfully, the answer to the second question is also Yes. (In the interest of full disclosure, I write this review as a former charismatic, warfare prayin' demon buster. I could cast devils out of just about anything, including stuff you never knew they'd get into. Those were the days, joining hands in warfare prayer around a pallet-full of demon-possessed ceiling tiles... but I digress.)

For my money, the best treatment of so-called spiritual warfare from a Reformed perspective is Precious Remedies Against Satan's Devices, a Puritan classic by Thomas Brooks, published by Banner of Truth.

Here's the shocking, secret weapon of the devil in spiritual warfare, that the typical charismatic completely misses as he's rebuking spirits of hip-hop music in the sound system: The devil wins in spiritual warfare when he can coax God's people into...brace yourselves...into sinning.

Precious Remedies is really like a foot-soldier's field-manual, instructing him thoroughly in the enemy's tactics and how to overcome them. It has spurred me personally to a greater pursuit of holiness. I suspect that was intentional on Brooks's part.

There is one section that some might find controversial, in which Brooks discusses what is often called "besetting sins," or those particular sins, particular to us as individuals, which we seem to struggle with (and lose against) more often than other people do, and more often than we do with regard to other sorts of sin. Mary is known as a gossip, and can't seem to help herself. Joe is famous for his temper, etc. They both hate their "trademark" sin, but seem to be unable to defeat it utterly.

Brooks's somewhat surprising answer to this is that he was unable to find any promise in the Scripture which gave assurance that these sorts of besetting sins could or would be completely annihilated from the Christian life. He goes on to propose some reasons why God may allow the believer to struggle so, reasons that are both thoughtful and redemptive.

The controversy may come as this sort of thinking meets with a currently popular answer to the same topic. This other answer is: "Stop that! Cut it out! You are probably not saved if you continue to struggle with this one thing and can get no lasting victory over it. Etc." Brooks was unwilling to paint things in such stark black-and-white on that one. Whether you wind up agreeing with him or not, the discourse is worth reading.

For my money, the best way to get your hands on Brooks' Precious Remedies is in the first volume of The Works of Thomas Brooks, a six-volume hardcover set that is now on sale for about 4 cents a page. Talk about your treasure troves, aye, mateys. Brooks is widely regarded as one of the most readable, and profitable, of the Puritan authors and this set is a crown jewel in any Reformed theologian's bookshelf. If any of you out there are wondering what to get me for Christmas--hint, hint, nudge, nudge.

Works of Thomas Brooks, 6 Volumes

Arminianism and Regeneration-Prior-to-Faith

Article 3 of The Five Arminian Articles of 1610:

That man has not saving grace of himself, not of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is);

[A fairly strong statement that fallen man can do nothing, including have faith in the Gospel of Christ, that is anything other than evil. -GR]

but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in his understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John XV.5; 'Without me ye can do nothing.'

-from pages 546-547 of Philip Schaff's The Creeds of Christendom, Volume III. (Brackets mine, of course.)

Note well the phrase "it is needful that he be born again of God," and its relation to understanding and doing that which is "truly good"; and, note that the article has specified that faith is included in that true good. This Arminian confession, the foundational Arminian confession, which is the basis of the famed Remonstrance, has clearly specified that being born again must precede, logically, faith in Christ.

What this means is that when synergists of any stripe, even those claiming to be Arminian, argue against regeneration-before-faith, they are not advancing the cause of true Arminianism. Rather, they are denying the doctrine of Total Depravity (which both Calvinists and Arminians affirm) and are siding with teaching of Pelagius. Pelagius, of course, maintained that

a) Adam's fall into sin did not render his posterity incapable of doing Good, and

b) the fact that men are commanded to do Good is proof that they can.

These concepts undergird the position of the mainstream leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention. This is the position that was advanced at the John 3:16 Conference. It is neither Calvinistic nor Arminian in its origin. Classic theologians in both those camps would label the theology of J316C as some form of Pelagianism.

Granted, it is not "hard" Pelagian: it is some greatly softened version, but it maintains the core ideas. Specifically, man's fallen state does not render him incapable of truly doing Good, and the fact that the Gospel commands him to do so is proof that he can.

Again, for those keeping score, Pelagianism is a heresy. Whether or not the J316C version of it is damnable is up to God the Judge; but we can certainly render the verdict that it is a different gospel, and thus anathema (Galatians 1.)

Some Things that TULIP Doesn't Mean

I'd like to address some things that I've seen as common misunderstandings of the Calvinistic TULIP doctrines. I'm approaching this negatively, in terms of what it doesnt' mean. Hope no one is confused by that.

Total depravity: We don’t believe that

1. TD means that humans are incapable of performing any “good works.” But we’d say that even those are tainted with sin and thus unacceptable on their own; and they certainly will never be enough to purchase salvation.

2. TD means that all people are as bad as they could possibly be. They are as bad as God allows them to be. There is always room for deprovement, as John Gerstner said.

3. TD is contradicted at all by the human being’s ability to hear the gospel with his ears. Yes, you could say that the dead man hears. But that is a non sequitor. We’ve never posited that TD means a natural inability to process sound waves impinging on the ear drum: we’ve said it means that the gospel is rejected.

4. TD means that God forces people to choose evil and will not allow them to choose good. Rather, TD means that men always choose what they love, and reject what they hate. God is not holding a gun to anyone’s head; but the sinner will not choose that which violates his own nature. He will choose what he loves, which is darkness.

Unconditional election: We don’t believe that

1. UE means that salvation is random. That is how UE is often mockingly portrayed, as if God simply goes down a line, pointing at people and saying, “Heaven, hell, heaven, hell, heaven…no wait, hell, hell, hell, heaven.” In fact, there is a condition to election; there is a reason why one is chosen and one is not--but the rub is that that reason does not lie in the person chosen. The reason lies in the mind and will of God, and He hasn’t decided to let us in on those particular thoughts of His. Election is not random. He has chosen in accordance with His own good pleasure. I can’t answer farther than that.

Limited atonement: I don’t believe it means

1. That God is stingy with salvation. I believe with Spurgeon that on the last day it will be manifest that there are overwhelmingly more that are saved than not saved. The tiny remnant will be in hell. LA does not have to mean that few are saved.

2. That anyone is barred from heaven by the Limitations of the Atonement. Meaning, some mock the doctrine by speculating that there will be people who believed in Jesus who will be damned to hell because they were not part of the group chosen for salvation. This is not LA at all. If you believe, then you are one of those to whom the Atonement of Christ is limited. No one goes to hell because they fell outside the limits of LA: they go to hell for their willful sins. Big, big difference there.

3. That there is less grace available in the Calvinistic view than in the Arminian view. I’m convinced that a lot of the hatred of LA is nothing more than an emotional reaction against the terminology itself. It strikes natural ears as somehow curmudgeonly. Rather, we revel in the belief that our Limited Atonement actually accomplishes more for the believer than the Arminian’s supposedly Unlimited version. Specifically, our LA actually saves people, while ULA saves no one, apart from assistance from the sinner.

Irresistable Grace, does not mean

1. That God forces people to be saved. Those who are saved are saved in accordance with their wills, not contrary to them. Nobody’s in heaven now murmuring, “Dang! Y’know, this is really not what I wanted.” Nobody goes to heaven kicking and screaming.

Having said that, it also doesn’t necessarily mean that

2. IG is a quick work, or that resistance is not offered by the sinner. We do often kick and scream. Sometimes we kick and scream for years. But in the end, God wins and we are glad that He does. Some people try to disprove IG by pointing to places in the Scripture where the Gospel is rejected. This misses the point. We are not saying IG means no resistance is offered. We are saying that for the elect, no amount of resistance is ultimately successful. It is a war of attrition: at some point, you give in if you’re elect. And you give in, or surrender, not because your will has been forced somehow or overwhelmed; but because it has been graciously changed. You give in because you begin to love what you once hated.

Star Trek’s villainous monsters, The Borg, have the catch-phrase: “Resistance is futile.”

Okay, that’s not what we’re saying when we speak of IG. For the Borg, they were saying, Resist all you like: we are bigger and badder than you and we will dominate you regardless. For the elect, while it is true that resistance to grace really is ultimately futile, the reason is not overwhelming force. The reason is miraculous mercy, which sweetly and softly changes our affections.

3. That we are fatalistically doomed to whatever has been chosen for us. We don’t believe in fatalism, where it doesn’t matter what you do: your fate will happen anyway. We are determinists, not fatalists: so that your actions matter. Just because we believe in IG does not mean that the human will is unimportant, or that his choices do not matter. You still must repent and believe in order to be saved. If you choose not to, and persist in that decision, your own choice will confirm your unelect status forever. If you want to come to Jesus, then by all means, come to Jesus! Heaven forbid that anything you hear us say should prevent that!!

Perseverance of the Saints, does not mean

1. That once you’re saved, you can live like the devil and be assured of heaven. Without holiness, none will see the Lord. Salvation is not a “Get Out of Jail Free” card that you simply put in your back pocket and whip out when necessary. If, since you’ve been “saved,” your relation to sin has not changed, then your relation to God has not changed either, as Paul Washer has said.

2. That your salvation is dependant upon your faithfulness. I know, darkened minds will think I’ve just contradicted what I wrote in the above paragraph. They’ve got root and fruit mixed up. Your perseverance is not what gets you in the pearly gates. Your perseverance is the result of the saving graces of God being genuinely present in your life. If you are faithful unto death, it is 100 percent a work of God’s free grace, and you get no credit. Sorry.

3. That you can’t really know if you’re saved while you’re alive. Some try to say that the Calvinistic doctrine of perseverance destroys the Assurance of salvation, by tossing it all “up in the air” until the time of death. After all, they say, until it’s all over, the possibility of apostasy is real, so you can just never know…

But we believe that real, genuine assurance is in fact possible in this life (though not guaranteed) as the elect exercise genuine, saving faith in the promises of God, and cling to them in all joy and confidence.

I hope this helps.
Gordan

Breaking the Rules

I'm kind of breaking Reformed Mafia rules with this post. When we went through the secret and bloody initiation ceremony into this family, it was stressed that the RM exists to promote the principles of Reformed soteriology (Calvinism) and the credo-baptist view of Baptism. We don't dive into denominational squabbles, or spiritual gifts, or eschatology.

Well, okay, I'm not diving in but I would like to dip my toe for a moment in the topic of eschatology. However, it's not my intention at this time to argue for a specific view, so all the guns can be put away.

What I want to mention is simply this idea (on which we here at the Reformed Mafia have proceded) that eschatology is a less-important field of study within the broader realm of theology.

While I agree with that notion, and have no intention to elevate the study of prophecy to a level of primary importance, I would like to balance that common Evangelical understanding. This whole notion that eschatology is rather unimportant in the grand scheme of things, is that Biblical?

I agree that genuine Christians ought not fight with venom over eschatological matters; and we certainly ought not divide over them, but I think I note on some high-powered Reformed blogs in particular the growing intimation that eschatology can be safely left aside while our focus is more properly placed elsewhere.

My argument on this point comes largely from experience. That is, I know that moving to a postmillennial view has sent ripples of effect throughout my whole practice of the faith. Similar to the manner in which embracing Calvinistic principles caused a thorough-going paradigm-shift which went far beyond soteriology, shifting millennial outlooks has effected more than merely my four-color chart of the End Times.

I've done no scientific survey on this, but here's what I think just from talking to people:

Premillennialists are less likely to be politically active, beyond voting.

Postmillennialists are more likely to homeschool their children.

Postmillennialists are more likely to dive into the realm of cultural reform, through the arts.

Meaning, I don't think it should shock anyone that if you hold to a view which says there is no option to the fact that the whole world will inevitably descend to the depths of unrestrained wickedness before Christ's return, you're going to be less motivated to try and get out there and build something that might actually last for generations.

Personally, the combination of a Gospel that is heavy on God's sovereignty and an eschatology which sees the nations of the world converted to Christ through preaching that Gospel, has made me a much more motivated evangelist than I was when I was synergistic and Dispensational. For me at least, my eschatology has impacted the preaching of The Good News of Jesus Christ.

The Antichrist is another issue where I think that theoretical views on the Bible have concrete, real-world effects on our practice of Christianity. Specifically, consider this: What if you are convinced that the correct interpretation is the one all the Reformers believed, and that the office of the Pope is the Man of Sin, the son of perdition, the Antichrist?

Compared to those who hold to another view, you're going to have far less inclination to work alongside Catholics in any meaningful way. As a concrete example, did you know that the modern Pro-Life movement has become a windfall for Roman Catholicism, in terms of converting Protestants to the Pope's religion? As Protestants join with Catholics in the cause, they start to think maybe these guys ain't so bad, and we're off to the races. See, if your eschatology either has the Antichrist always just around the corner in the future, or, conversely a couple thousand years in the past, you will be more inclined to try and find ways to work together with his followers in a "good cause."

Not saying right now that one view is right or wrong, but merely illustrating how differing views really do effect things.

Okay, I'm done. Back to regular programming. Just some things to think about.

On Getting Back What We Lost

The Biblical pattern of Receiving, then Losing, then Receiving Again the Word of God, and how this ought to inspire our prayers for Revival and Reformation.

Top Ten Small-Church Pastor Challenges (part three)

In this edition of my personal reflection on the Top Ten Small Church Pastor Challenges, courtesy of LifeWay, I’m taking four all together at once:

3. Lack of commitment from members. Many pastors said they deal with apathy and indifference. Waggoner said it doesn't matter what the size of the church is, but small churches feel it more.

4. Too few workers. If the church's philosophy is that the pastor is a hired gun, the professional, it will wear the pastor out, Waggoner said. He also said most churches do not have a strategy to equip the laity for ministry.

7. Worldliness of the church. Waggoner said he saw in the survey something he called "cultural seepage."

9. Too few people. In the survey, pastors said they couldn't get things done because not enough help was available.

I lump all of these together because in my mind they all fall into the same broad category. In this category, we have problems a pastor faces which (without honest reflection on his own part) can automatically look like what he’s dealing with is unregeneracy and false conversion in the congregation.

The truth is, though, that there may be other, more mundane answers which actually put the problem right in the pastor’s lap.

For instance, a church I attended faithfully some years ago suddenly decided to make a big push to become, first, a Contagious Church ™ and then later, when nobody seemed to “catch” anything from us, it went all Purpose Driven ™. Or, it tried to, anyway.

This was at the urging and behest of the pastor. I found it difficult (to say the least) to get on board with either bandwagon. In fact, at a couple of meetings on the topics, I argued against it.

Eventually, both programs fell by the wayside due to there being too little commitment to them from the laity.

I’m quite certain my pastors at the time felt frustrated over the lack of commitment displayed by us in the whole ordeal (my wife and I in particular.) They thought we evinced a galling inability to “get onboard” with what the Spirit was doing. We showed an appalling lack of zeal for the kingdom, etc. We were worldly, lazy, careless.

Here is my conviction, after having pastored a small congregation for just over a year. I realize, that still makes me a rookie and a novice, so take this for what it’s worth: We occupy ourselves with a lot of extraneous crap in Christian churches. (I use that term soberly, meaning by it what it means: excrement, dung, and so forth.)

We act like our church won’t survive if we can’t muster up a Vacation Bible School in the Summer. Or, horrors, if we can’t field a Sunday School that is thoroughly age-segregated. I mean, what if (gasp) the teenagers have to join in with the Adult class’s Bible Study?

I’m saying this: pastors, let’s make the main thing the main thing, especially on Sundays. The church exists to worship, to teach and guard the Truth of God, to preach the Gospel faithfully, and to love each other.

Building programs, softball and bowling teams, conventions, special events and speakers, committee meetings, block parties, Summer Youth activity schedules…at some point we have to pull back and wonder just how needful any of that is, and maybe God is trying to tell us by the reaction of His people when we try so hard to press those things.

So, when you meet with “lack of commitment” to your ambitious schedule of “stuff,” step back and re-evaluate. Maybe read through the book of Acts again.

Now, having said all of that, I am personally convinced that a very large portion of our typical SBC churches is in fact unregenerate and genuinely worldly.

Happily, both these issues have the same “fix.”

Whether the problem is that you, pastor, have been sucked into focusing on extraneous crap; or that your congregation is largely unsaved, the only solution is that we must repent and believe the Gospel. We must believe it is the power of God, and we must believe this strongly enough to motivate our constant study, and attention and care given to making certain we communicate it in the most Biblical way possible, via careful and prayerful exposition of the Text.

Top Ten Small-Church Pastor Challenges (part two)

Continuing on challenges faced by small church pastors, here is the second installment.

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


"2. Resistance. Small-church pastors said their congregation doesn't want to change, which leads to stagnation. Pastors have to deal with individuals who want to usurp authority from the pastor, forgetting that it's God who controls His church."

There are really two issues listed here. One is a reluctance to pursue change; and, the other is individuals in the church who want to stake out “turf” and be in charge of stuff.

I want to focus on the first issue. (The second one is pretty easy to fix, if God shows you mercy in His Providential handling of all things. Pastors, remember well Runyan's First Axiom of Ecclesiology: There are very few local-church problems that would not be instantly and greatly improved by one or two well-placed deaths. Not wishing anything on anyone, or advocating anything evil. Only stating a fact.)

The reluctance to change things in church is the brick wall into which your pastor keeps banging his head. But seeing and meeting that resistance is much easier than diagnosing it. There are several possible causes:

A. Simple inertia. Never underestimate the power of that cosmic force known cryptically as WNDITWB. (“We’ve never done it that way before!”) It’s always been like this, and we’ve gotten along just fine.

Now, don’t go jumping to the conclusion that the blue-haired old ladies who are nervous about change must therefore be unregenerate, and uninterested in being conformed to Christ. Even regenerate folk have a hard time, sometimes, with accepting the mandate to break all their routines, and all their habits (even the good ones.)

One way to tell is this: the regenerate will generally agree to the change in question if you can demonstrate that it is Biblical. Generally. Great patience is key here. Resistance doesn’t always imply they are lost.

B. But sometimes they are…unregenerate, that is. What you’re preaching as a need for repentance and for reformation of action or practice, they see as meddling, change-for-change’s sake. If this is the case…Rejoice. You’re doing something right. Keep it up. And, make sure you keep your resume’ updated.

C. Cultural Conditioning. This is the inertia of A above, inbred through several generations. They’ve been trained to accept that a good, American church does certain things at certain times, like decorate the sanctuary for Christmas, and fly the American flag in a position of superiority in relation to the Christian flag, etc. It becomes part of what it means, in their mind, to be a good church.

Some of these are more grievous to the Biblically-minded pastor than others. You must attack those worse examples, of course, but be forewarned: others have probably already died on the hill you plan on assaulting. So pick your battles wisely.

Personally, though I detest the aforementioned Christmas decoration, I let it slide last year and didn’t oppose it. However, I did manage to keep us from having a scheduled “revival” week this Summer, in which I would’ve had to sit through the infernal preaching of some “Cowboy evangelist,” or perhaps one with a sock puppet. I call that an overall win. I’m saying that it’s going to take some time to turn this wagon-train around, barring an Acts 2 sort of outpouring. So don’t push for everything at once. Prioritize.

We all meet that resistance, in one form or another. I humbly submit that the diagnosis of the source is of grave importance in dealing with it.

Also, to the credit of the referenced article, the suggested solution to Resistance was spot on. That was, patient, consistent expository preaching. I don’t know about you, but it does my soul good to see a Lifeway rep speak in such ways.

Top Ten Small-Church Pastor Challenges (part one)

Lifeway has done some research lately on the particular issues faced by small-church pastors. This article at Ed Stetzer’s blog reproduces the information that recently appeared in my State’s Baptist newspaper. It lists the Top 10 Challenges that were reported by pastors of smaller SBC congregations.

I’m going to list the ten below and intersperse my comments, as a bivocational pastor of a small, rural SBC church.

1. Time.

There’s never enough of it. I’m sure this is true of all pastors, but it is particularly true for small-church pastors. There aren’t enough hours in the day. (You should hear a little whiny tone as you read the following sentence…) It is even more true for bivocational pastors.

It’s become fashionable and accepted as an axiom among exegetically-minded preachers that you should do one hour of sermon preparation for every minute you intend to preach. I generally shoot for about 30 minutes on a Sunday morning. (I know, that makes me a light-weight to all you hardcore Reformed giants out there.) But then on Sunday evenings, it’s generally closer to 40 minutes or so.

If I’m to follow the axiom here, that adds up to 70 hours worth of sermon prep time during the week, on top of 40 at my “day job,” on top of hoping to be a decent husband and father before all of that.

It’s the first time I’ve actually sat down and put numbers on it, but I’ve got to tell you, now I understand why I’m so sleepy all the time.

To be honest, I’m just an average middle-aged guy, fighting Dunlop’s Disease and watching my hair go away, and I simply can’t do all of that, not all the time. So what gets trimmed back? What suffers, time-wise? Well, sadly, all of it, except my day job, which can demand time and threaten consequences for not meeting the demand.

I don’t spend the time with my family that I’d like to spend. I don’t get enough hours of sleep every night. I don’t get enough “alone” time where it’s just me and the Lord. I don’t get enough book-time in sermon prep. I hardly do any visitation at all. I don’t get enough exercise. Yikes. What I do get is exhausted. Got plenty o’ that, thanks.

That’s the first of the ten challenges, and even as I write about it, I anticipate two responses:

1. If it’s so tough, then quit.

Answer: I’m not doing this because I want to. I’m doing this because I have to. I’m doing this because I’m commanded to. My Lord requires it. All my time is His.

2. If you know you’ve been called to it, then stop whining about it and get to work.

Answer: This hasn’t been intended as a complaint piece. I’ve tried to be humorous as I’ve discussed very real challenges. By doing so, I’m hoping to accomplish two things. One, that my fellow pastors would know they aren’t alone or strange in what they’re experiencing. And two, that we would all be reminded to pray earnestly for those who are our shepherds. They/we/I need it.

Give the Lord no Rest

As a pastor whose soteriology is solidly Reformed, I rejoice that I can evangelize without the "pressure" of having to convert anyone. With a view of the Gospel that rightly emphasizes God's sovereignty, a "successful witnessing encounter" is one in which I was able, by grace, to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ clearly. Period. Making someone convert is not my job. That is a spiritual work that only the Spirit of God can perform. I just preach. Wow, y'know, honestly that really narrows the task down to something manageable.

But here's the rub: I still earnestly desire to see conversions. I still long to see people come to Christ in repentant faith.

Let's just be honest: I get sick of merely "planting seeds" and hoping that someday, by and by, I'll see some actual fruit.

Thus the emotional dilemma for the evangelistically-minded man: I know salvation is up to the Lord; but I am impatient to see it happen.

Now, the common way in which I and my fellow Reformed pastors have comforted ourselves and one another as we encounter this dilemma, is to say that we must turn our impatience into submission and contentment. After all, that sort of willful acquiescence to the Lord's will seems quite Biblical, and Reformed. Right?

Well, the famous giant of Christian history, George Muller, says no. Consider this quote from a preacher and pastor who knew more than we ever will about living by faith alone.

The Bible assures us that in everything we do for the Lord...our labor is not in vain. We have to guard against thinking that it does not matter whether we see present fruit or not. On the contrary, we should give the Lord no rest until we see fruit. Therefore, in persevering yet submissive prayer, we should make our requests known to God. (From his autobiography, emphasis mine.)

Muller would suggest that the line of thought we are using to comfort ourselves in our fruitlessness is the very thing we need to vigilantly struggle against. It does matter, what fruit we bear, what things happen as a result of our ministries. If none are being converted, or if we are not being persecuted as our Lord promised we would be if only we were faithful, there can be only one answer.

Let us commit ourselves to fervent, persistent, and as Muller says, still submissive prayer.

Baptists and Free Will

It is simply a falsehood to state that all Baptists have always believed that man has a free will that can either accept or reject the gospel.





The Philadelphia Confession (Baptist) of 1742 has this to say on the topic of man's "free will."




Man, by his fall unto a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself or to prepare himself thereunto.


When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by His grace alone, enables him freely to will, and do that which is spiritually good; yet so that, by reason of his remaining corruptions, he doth not perfectly nor only will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.


The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory only.



Similarly, the Sandy Creek Association (one of the very first and most important Southern Baptist groups) included this statement in their confession:



That Adam fell from his original state of purity, and that his sin is imputed to his posterity; that human nature is corrupt, and that man, of his own free will and ability, is impotent to regain the state in which he was primarily placed.



(Just so that we're on the same page here, "impotent" means powerless, without strength. The Sandy Creekers believed that fallen man's will was powerless in the realm of salvation.)

The Lord's Purpose for Absalom

"So Absalom and all the men of Israel said, "The counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the counsel of Ahithophel." For the Lord had purposed to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that the Lord might bring disaster upon Absalom." - 2 Samuel 17:14 (NKJV)

Some background: Absalom is trying to kill David, who has been forced to flee with a few of David's mighty men. Absalom is asking for advice about how to pursue him.

Ahithophel suggested leaving immediately with a relatively small force, while the trail was hot. Hushai thought it better to wait until all of Israel could be summoned to Absalom's aid, and then they could go looking for David, bullying people along the way to help them.

Ahithophel's advice was "good," not in a moral sense. It was good in the sense that it was simple and likely to succeed. Hushai's advice was less good in that it was logistically outlandish and strategically unnecessary.

So, Absalom the leader is confronted with a choice. One is more wise and likely to get him what he wants. The other is ridiculous. He chooses the ridiculous option.

Now, thou faithful student of the whole Bible, a few questions would be in order to make sure that you understand the ultimate reality of the situation, as recorded by the prophet.

What's the reason Absalom chose the rotten advice? (Look at the verse again before you answer, you cheater!) I mean, who's will was really behind his poor decision?

Is it really "possible" that he could've chosen differently?

Wouldn't that have foiled the plan of God?

In light of this text, in what way would you suggest that Absalom exercised an unfettered or libertarian free will?

For Exploration of the Issues

Some of our readers may be at the stage of only beginning to explore the issues of Calvinism. If this is you, may I recommend the following list of texts, and what they may have to teach us about the origins of faith and repentance. These are in addition to a few entire chapters of the Bible (Romans 9-11 and Ephesians 1) that lay out the doctrine of Election.

My desire is that you would use these texts as launching points for your study and exploration of these issues. Please do not ignore their contexts, either! Take your time through these, maybe print them off and keep them in your Bible for handy reference.


Where does Faith come from?

Ephesians 2:8; 2 Peter 1:1; Luke 17:5; 1 Timothy 1:14; Romans 10:17 and 12:3; Acts 14:27; 2 Timothy 3:15; Galatians 3:22-23; James 2:5; Acts 3:16; Hebrews 12:2; 1 John 5:4

**** In addition, are all men given this gift? See 2 Thessalonians 3:2****

Where does Repentance come from?

Acts 5:31 and 11:18; Romans 2:4; 2 Timothy 2:25; Psalm 80:3, 7, and 19; 1 Samuel 2:25

Where does Belief come from?

John 6:45 and 12:39-40; Romans 6:17 and 11:30; 1 Corinthians 3:5; 2 Thessalonians 2:10-13; Acts 13:48; Deuteronomy 29:4 and 30:6; Philippians 1:29

What is the ultimate source of Gospel obedience?

1 Peter 1:2 and 2:8; Jude v.4; Psalm 65:4; 2 Thessalonians 3:13; 2 Peter 1:3; John 15:16, 19

Does God hate anyone?

Psalm 5:5 and 10:3 and 11:5; Proverbs 6:16-19; Romans 9:10-16

Does God actively blind or harden anyone, so that they will not receive the Gospel?

Isaiah 44:18; 2 Thessalonians 2:11; Matthew 13:10-16; Romans 9:18 and 11:7-10


As a note of caution: Let me stress that the goal in our study of Scripture is not that we should amass a load of proof-texts in the hopes of countering or cancelling out the proof-texts on the other guy's side of the debate. Our goal is to harmonize all of Scripture, and my personal experience was that before I became a Calvinist, I lightly skimmed over all the references I have given above. It's not that there were just as many references that proved Arminianism, but it's that I simply ignored whatever did not seem to fit.

You have to allow your theology to "fit" all these verses! They're inspired too! :)

Armchair Synergism: Don't Try This at Home

Edit: Matt Shultz has given me permission to link back to the post in question below. He wanted me to remember that he is not the author of the list I'm looking at, but did post it because he agrees with it.

The synergist in question has arranged his Core Beliefs under the familiar TULIP acrostic. This is helpful in one sense (ease of evaluation and comparison) and very unhelpful in another. That is, one of the biggest problems with the whole Calvinistic Resurgence in the SBC is the fact that many on the non-Calvinist side seem to arrogate to themselves willy-nilly the right to re-define theological terms as they please, with no reference to the way those terms have historically been used. That happens here.

Here is his first statement:

"1.Total Depravity

Man is totally depraved. Every facet of man’s nature and faculties is corrupted by the sin nature. There is nothing in man that can enable him to earn or deserve eternal life. God, in grace, draws all men (John 12:32; Titus 2:11), Man is able to receive and respond to the grace of God (Mt 23:37;John 5:24-25; Eph. 2:8-9). Man is a free moral agent with responsibility to respond to God’s grace (John 1:1-9; 3:16-17). Man can respond to God’s grace and come to Christ and he is called to do so (Rev. 22: 17)!"

Calvinists would agree with much in the first three sentences. I would demur and say that it’s not the sin nature that corrupts man’s faculties: it is the judgment upon the Fall of Adam that both corrupts our faculties and gives us a sin nature. One could argue that the sum total of our corrupted faculties is, in fact, our sin nature.

I don’t want this to turn into a huge thing, but let me simply assert that not a single one of his referenced texts actually supports the ideas he has referenced them for. Just as an example, nothing in John 1:1-9 or 3:16-17 teaches that man is a “free moral agent,” especially if by that phrase something like Libertarian Free Will is meant. Those texts simply show some people having faith in Jesus and some rejecting Him. They do not speak at all to the issue of man’s ability to choose righteousness in his fallen condition, or where faith comes from, etc.

But there is in this short statement a very glaring contradiction, apart from the spoof-texting.

After affirming that “There is nothing in man that can enable him to earn or deserve eternal life,” our author then states (three times) that totally depraved man does in fact have the ability to do the one thing that is needful for him to receive eternal life.

He may want to quibble about words like “earn” and “deserve,” but the bottom line is that he has man in his natural state possessing the ability to procure salvation for himself, by making the right choice. This is neither Calvinism, nor Arminianism; it is semi-Pelagianism. Pelagius was a heretic, for those keeping score.

Somewhere, apparently, within this totally depraved man, there still resides the ability to weigh the claims of the Gospel and come to the righteous decision. This is, of course, in direct contradiction to the apostolic teaching.

At the end of his extended discussion of how the Gospel is viewed by the world, in 1 Corinthians 1-2, Paul brings it all to a sum with this statement:

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (2:14)

This is a pretty fundamental truth of Scripture: the natural, or fallen man is completely and utterly opposed to the righteousness of God, so the idea that a man in this state could give the glorious Gospel of Christ a fair hearing is frankly laughable.

I hope that is not what our erstwhile author is trying to teach, even though, if he did he’d merely be joining our denomination’s President: that wouldn’t make it right, though.

I am hopeful that I've merely misread some things.

Defeating Calvinistic blogs

The following is a reprint from my personal blog, a post that has become, by far, the most popular one I ever wrote. I have resisted the temptation to go back through and update it, or to add to it. No doubt, we'll soon see in the meta that an Arminian has done a version of this from the other side... And, I've also learned, to my surprise, that I need to actually say that what follows is supposed to be halfway humorous.

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

As a public service to all the anti-Calvinistic Christians out there in the blogosphere, I am publishing a selection of pre-written comments that you can leave in reply to Calvinist postings of whatever kind.

Save your brainpower for more important things and just copy this list and have it handy, so that you can cut-and-paste wherever it becomes needful. However, I must be clear that I have not come up with the substance of any of this myself, but have simply collated what I have found in the blog world as people try to argue with the Bible's teaching on the sovereignty of God in salvation.

And don't worry about actually fitting these into the flow or context of whatever debate happens to be going on: I've found them all over, and so must conclude that they are wonderful, powerful arguments wherever they may be placed...so...have a blast!

1. "Y'know, if you Calvinists spent as much time and energy on evangelism as you do on bashing your brothers in Christ who are really out there preaching the gospel, then we might really see revival!"

2. "When's the last time you actually witnessed to someone?"

3. "How many folks have you saved in the last six months?"

4. "Calvinism is one man's theology, one man's system. I prefer to listen to Jesus."

5. "The only JC I follow is not John Calvin, but Jesus Christ."

6. "You guys are so mean. Even if you're right, no one listens because you are snooty and arrogant. Always name-calling."

7. "I'm not Calvinist or Arminian. I'm Baptist."

8. "Calvinism splits churches and puts a screeching halt to evangelism wherever it becomes prominent."

9. "I don't know about all your complex theology. I just believe John 3:16."

10. "I just can't believe that someone will be kept out of heaven, even if they loved Jesus with all their heart, just because they weren't part of the chosen few."

11. "You guys are mean. You think you know everything. You just want everyone to think like you do. You just want to win arguments and have everyone admit you're right. You have no business judging someone's thoughts or motivations."

12. "Calvinism is a virus that kills good churches."

13. "Calvinists are worse than Moslems."

14. "You can bet that anyone who wastes time reading or writing at your blog is being disobedient to the Great Commission."

15. "Why can't you just put aside your differences with Arminians and work together for the greater spread of the Gospel? All this arguing about how a man is saved...let's stop arguing about it and just preach the Gospel. As long as we agree on the important things, like the pre-trib Rapture, why can't we just get along?"

16. "Calvinists hope dead babies go to hell."

17. "Calvinists hope innocent people in Africa who haven't heard of Jesus will go to hell."

18. "Calvinists hope all non-Calvinists go to hell."

19. "Calvinists don't want to preach the Gospel too much, for fear that some people who are destined to go to hell might actually believe and wind up in heaven."

20. "You guys are mean. You think only your interpretation of Scipture is correct. You refuse to submit to the Catholic Magisterium."

21. "You guys are mean. You think only your interpretation of Scripture is correct. Unlike me. I know I'm wrong. But still, you're mean."

22. "Mean people suck."

23. "I know a guy who became a Calvinist. Now, he is mean."

24. "I know a guy who became a Calvinist, and now he doesn't have altar calls at his church."

25. "I know a guy who became a Calvinist, and now he bakes babies into his communion bread."

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

Okay, I realize this is not a complete list, but it will certainly suffice for its intended purpose. You will now win every debate on Calvinism you get into. Just use one of the above, as all 25 of them are beyond argument and positively prove that Calvinism is unbiblical. However, if you run into a really smart Calvinist, of which there are a tiny handful, you can completely bamboozle them by combining several of these arguments into one comment. Try also using the same comment over and over again, but just change the wording a little.

No need to thank me. I do what I can.

CAN'T

Can't continue with the detailed review of Frank Page's Trouble With the Tulip.

It's too infuriating, and it feels like wasting a bunch of time answering objections that are too purile to deserve any time at all.

If there was any, and I mean any, meaningful interaction with the text of Scripture in this entire book, I'd feel differently.

But here's what I think is the most egregious example of Page's "closer examination" of the issues.

On page 56, he is trying to prove his assertion that God actively desires to save every single individual.

He writes, "Can these verses be any clearer?"

And then he simply quotes 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:3-4, and 4:9-10.

End of discussion. No exegesis at all. The verses must obviously mean what he thinks that they clearly mean.

The thing that winds up bugging me the most is the subtitle of the book:

A Closer Examination of the Five Points of Calvinism. That's what it claims to be. In actuality, as I have said, the Scripture is not interpreted, but merely quoted (infrequently) and more often simply referenced in the form of proof-text addresses.

This doesn't even rise to the level of a popular introduction to the issues.

A closer examination? I want to scream, closer than what?

I am left disappointed and mildly infuriated. Dr. Page has only proven that he is more Pelagian than the average, educated Arminian; and he's displayed huge lapses of scholarship, with regard to precision and argumentation. What's more, for one who is still lauded for his part in the SBC's "Conservative Resurgence," which is billed as the battle for the Bible, Dr. Page can't seem to trouble himself to actually use the Bible to make his case, or to show in any detail why the Calvinist's interpretations are wrong.

I've been reading a lot of blogging lately which laments the low state of Bible knowledge and doctrinal understanding among Southern Baptist laymen, and it occurs to me that maybe it's because the shepherds can't lead where they themselves refuse to go.