Piper On God's Sovereignty

Speaking on Isaiah 46:9-10

Great stuff!

Sustaining Grace, How Sweet The Sound!

I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, that in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge— even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you— so that you are not lacking in any gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 1:4-8, emphasis mine)

I read this passage last night and I just love the message here. I know I sometimes breeze through Paul's introductions to his epistles and I do so wrongly because his introductions have as much theology as a year of sermons from a lot of pulpits. If only I were a fraction as thankful as Paul for my fellow believers. When was the last time you gave thanks to God for your brothers and sisters in Christ? If you are like me it has been far too long. But what I wanted to look at was verse 8 where Paul speaks of what I call sustaining grace. From verse 7 into 8 we see the critical portion:

....our Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The NIV renders what the ESV translates as "sustains" like this "keep you firm to the end". Both the NASB and the KJV translates it as "confirm". The imagery Paul uses is of preserving something, keeping it safe, affirming finally. That is not Greek scholarship, just what I glean from what Paul says here and elsewhere and how it is rendered by actual scholars. What is just as important is not merely the word "sustain" itself but what we are being sustained for. The ESV speaks of being sustained to the end as "guiltless", or as "blameless" in a lot of other translations (NKJV, KJV, NIV, NASB, etc.). That is chock full of New Covenant imagery which has as the ultimate promise: For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.” (Hebrews 8:12). That is what grace is all about, mercy for our iniquities and a forgiveness of sins. So putting that together, Jesus sustains us to the end and in the end we are guiltless of our sins. That promise is inextricably linked to any understanding of grace.

We typically have a schizophrenic view of grace. When it comes to saving us, it is all powerful to save us but when it comes to keeping us, it is extremely limited. On the other hand, in some groups like most Baptists grace is subservient to our "free will" when it comes to saving us but "once saved, always saved" when it comes to sustaining us. Neither view makes much sense but they both come from creating a division between "grace that saves" and "grace that sustains". Why would God make it impossibly hard to be saved when we are dead in our tresspasses and sins on the one hand but then promise to keep us saved once we save ourselves via our "free will"? Or why would God make it as easy as walkin' an aisle or raisin' a hand or putting your name on a card to get saved but then leave it up to our own strength to stay saved? It is very important to keep in mind here that Paul makes this claim and this promise to the church in Corinth which was perhaps the most messed up of the churches he wrote to. If it is true for Corinth, it is true for your church too!

If grace is not powerful enough to sustain the believer, the same believer who was incapable of saving himself in the first place, it isn't grace at all and is anything but amazing. Believer know this if you know anything. The same grace that can pardon and cleanse will sustain you until the end when you will stand guiltless before God. That is the sort of grace you can sing about!

Free People > Free Will

This is a great although brief treatment of the idea of "free will" from John Piper, Is God Sovereign Over My Free Will?. The key paragraph in his podcast comes here:

So instead of speaking of the will as free or not, I prefer to speak of people as free or not, because that is the way the Bible does. “For freedom Christ has set us free,” Paul says in Galatians 5:1. Christians are free from the bondage to sin and from the oppressive demand of having to perform our own salvation.

A lot of people get all in a twist over the idea of God messing with "mai free will!" but I have long felt that the truer description is not "free will" but "free people". The sovereign grace of God frees people from slavery to sin (Romans 6:17-18), meaning not that He overrides their "free will" but rather than He frees them from sin so that they have a true free will. Someone who is a slave to sin, dead in sin and trespass cannot have a "free will" because they are bound by sin. It is only when God supernaturally frees them from sin that they are free people who are free to follow Christ. Here is the link to the podcast, and you can read the transcript in the link above.

Why So Many Leave The Calvinst Club

No, I am not talking about the doctrines that make up Calvinism proper, when it comes to that I am more solidly in agreement than I have ever been in spite of my more new found affinity for Anabaptism.

I am talking about the subculture that surrounds Calvinist thought, the subculture that charges around with pixels formed into torches and pitchforks to smite anyone who is insufficiently "Reformed". Calvinism attracts all sorts of people from all over the spectrum, I would argue as James White does in the video below, because a consistent hermeneutic reflects divine sovereignty, election, predestination, eternal preservation of the redeemed, etc. It also tends to attract people who are eggheads and argumentative, quarrelsome people for whom Calvinism is a way to lord over the little people just how intellectually superior you are. Like James in the video below I just have little use for the Reformed subculture and it is really a shame because I am sure a lot of people just reject out of hand anything to do with Calvinism without much study because they have run into a few of these frothing at the mouth types (and I used to be one, I admit to my shame).

The Cage Stage: Not just for Calvinists Anymore!

There is a well known phenomenon that occurs when a generic evangelical discovers Reformed Theology/Calvinism. It even has a name: the cage stage. I will turn to R.C. Sproul, Jr. to explain in more detail. From the article Cage-Stage Calvinism: What Is It and What Causes It? :

“Cage-stage” describes an all too common phenomenon wherein a believer comes to embrace the doctrines of grace, and for a time becomes an obnoxious lout in defending the doctrines to all comers, whether they are interested or not. It suggests that such a newbie should spend some time in a cage until they calm down. If you are a Calvinist, you likely have been through this stage. If you are not, you surely have encountered those who were infected.

Yep. I remember that stage. Like Sproul, Jr. says, what causes it is a lack of belief in Calvinism. Read the whole article if you are interested.

I can go back to my earlier posts when I was even less wise than I am now, which is hard to believe, and a newer Christian and you can see the cage stage pretty dramatically on display. I even used to spend a lot of time arguing with other Calvinists about what constituted legitimate Calvinism!  Get a couple of younger Christians who hold to the Five Points and they will find something to argue about. As I grew older, I grew (mostly) out of that stage. That doesn't mean I hold less firmly to the five points or Reformed theology proper, if anything I hold to it even more firmly. It just means that I don't wander the back alleys of the internet looking for a fight. Again, as stated above, the cage stage is not a flaw in Calvinism, just a somewhat understandable overreaction when someone is introduced to an alternative to the easy-believisim, semi-Pelagian hokum that passes for theology in most of evangelicalism.

As I travel this life I have noticed that while the cage-stage Calvinist is still a thing, although the fervor seems to have cooled a bit as I have mentioned previously, it is not unique to Calvinism. While most people who embrace Calvinism sincerely find the tenets in Scripture, it also seems to attract people who are exceptionally bookish and prone to arguing over minutiae. I have also noticed a disturbing trend in my own past writing and in the writing of a lot of others who are part of the "house church" or "organic church" or "simple church" movement. Perhaps being in a sub-movement in and of itself is a problem but there are a lot of advocates for a simpler, participatory church that are fixated on that over anything else. Again my past writing demonstrates some of this and a lot of people out there still do. That doesn't mean that striving for a simpler, more participatory model of ecclesiology is wrong, no more so than being a Calvinist is. It does mean that while this group is full of lots of great people that I call friends, it is also home to some serious egos, a disturbing amount of bad theology and some flat out false teachers who seem to get a pass on damnable heresy because they say the right things about ecclesiology.

I guess my point here is that it might be a good idea for more mature and wiser heads to help talk down some newly awakened folks who feel betrayed by the institutional system (probably with cause). Perhaps a little time in the cage to work out what this all means and ask some critical questions like "What do I do if I can't find exactly what I am looking for?" and "What are the boundaries of acceptable theology?". Like newly minted Calvinists, new house church types need some time for reflection before canonizing the works of Frank Viola and singing the praises of other house church advocates, many of whom are involved in a disturbing number of ego and power driven squabbles. Take what you have learned brothers and sisters and let it percolate for a while before you decide to conquer the world under the banner of 1 Corinthians 14:26 and assume everyone you meet is dying to hear why the way they do church is wrong.

A Little More About That Book

A while back I announced some exciting news, specifically that I am going to be working on a solo book project. At the time I was kind of vague but I am ready to give some additional details.

The book is going to be tentatively titled: Reuniting the Step-Brothers Of The Reformation. That title might be a bit unwieldy so it is subject to change and is a less than clever play on the title of the polemic work by Leonard Verduin The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, I don't see the Anabaptists as the stepchildren of the Reformers, rather I see the Reformers and the Anabaptists as estranged stepbrothers in dire need of a reconciliation.

The genesis of this book project was a blog post I wrote back in October 2013, What The Anabaptists Can Learn From Their Reformed Brethren. My point at the time was that these two groups, the Reformed and the Anabaptists, while historically at odds with one another, have a lot of teach and learn from one another and both groups are poorer for their historic antipathy. I was encouraged by Dave Black to consider expanding on those initial thoughts and after a lengthy period of hashing it over I have finally decided to move forward with the partnership of Energion Publications as my publisher.

My goal and my desire is to spark a conversation between two groups that have historically been at odds, the Reformed and the Anabaptists.

It is my belief that these two groups are the most significant and most representative of the descendants of the Protestant Reformation. Reuniting in a meaningful way these two groups is not an insignificant hurdle. The history of antipathy between these two streams of the faith goes way back.Tracing their lineage directly to the earliest days of the Reformation movement, these two groups represent the most central facets of that era but they have also been at odds since the earliest days, often violently.

The driving for behind my desire to see these two groups find common ground or at least have open communication is two-fold.

The first reason is more pragmatic in nature. The general state of the faith in the West and particularly America demands that the church come together. We stand at the brink of a seismic shift in the culture surrounding the church and most of the church, I might say virtually all of the church, is utterly unprepared for what is coming. The shock, anger and bewilderment of most of the church is understandable but it is also unhelpful. I think that both the Reformed and the Anabaptists have their own unique strengths to teach one another that I believe are critical to how the church will face the years to come.

The second reason is a little more difficult to explain. Since the split between these groups, followed quickly by one-sided persecution and mutual denunciation, the Reformed and the Anabaptists have developed largely in isolation from one another. In between the two is the great, mushy middle of American evangelicalism with all the negatives that accompany it. In growing more or less disconnected from one another the two great traditions that flowed from the Reformation have had little impact on one another and both are poorer as a result.  It is high time for these two tribes to interact with one another, test their assumptions and both grow as a result. I am actually starting to see some of this happening thanks to the internet and I am also seeing some predictable backlash against it. I hope to add my voice to those who wish to see this conversation happen. I am under no illusion that Presbyterians and Mennonites will suddenly start to merge churches but there still is so much that they can learn from and encourage one another in.

If I am being honest, there is a third reason. I am someone who finds myself astride both streams of the church and, while I am not unwelcome, I am also certainly not comfortable in either. I love the Anabaptists for their understanding of the church and their commitment to non-resistance. I love the Reformed for their robust theological scholarship and boldness. Perhaps if we can get past some of  the old enmity and suspicion we can also see more crossing over and cooperation between the two.

More details will follow in the weeks and months to come. I expect the publication date to be sometime in early 2016 but I would also like to post thoughts on my blog and incorporate those conversations into this book as I go. It should be an exciting journey, the first of hopefully many more to come.

Finally, what would an announcement dealing with reuniting be without a little Peaches & Herb?

Calvinism and Pacifism?

I read a post by Thomas Kidd a few weeks ago and it really stuck with me. The title alone, Why Aren't Calvinists Pacifists? and being posted on the Gospel Coalition page makes for an interesting article. Alas as I have been censored for opinions not conducive to the mission of the Gospel Coalition I was not able to join the conversation but it seemed odd to me that it only drew 8 comments. Odd but not unexpected. This is an uncomfortable topic for Christians and especially for Calvinist/Reformed Christians with a decidedly checkered past when it comes to supporting state sponsored violence. The post gets to the heart of what might lead to Calvinist rejecting "pacifism" although I tend to avoid the term "pacifism" because it a) understandably carries so much political baggage in our culture and b) doesn't truly encompass the broadness of the Biblical message on non-resistance which goes way beyond warfare. As Kidd points out, a lot of the defense of Christians engaging in and otherwise supporting state violence comes from reading the Bible in a "flat" manner. He wouldn't call it that but I feel free to do so. In contrast to the Anabaptist hermeneutic which accepts and reveres all Scripture as God-breathed but also recognizes that the New Testament is a more complete revelation and ought to be used to guide the interpretation of the Old, the Reformed tend to see too many similarities between the church and Israel:

Reformed Christians have similarly tended to see certain continuity between the Old and New Testaments. Although Israel and the church are distinct entities, they contend, there are similarities between the way that God related to Israel and the way he relates to the church. Thus, if God at times commanded Israel to take on military assignments and conquer territory, it isn’t a stretch to think he might ask Christians to do the same things through the agency of the governments under which they live.

That is exactly why I prefer a type of New Covenant theology to the two main camps, the Dispensational theory which can't get the church and Israel together and the Covenant Theology camp which can't get them apart. There is continuity between the church and Israel but there are also critical differences. While I think Dispensationalism is wrong on just about every single distinctive point, I do have a deep affinity for Covenant theology but refusing to see the differences between the Old Covenant and the New gets us in trouble every time.

I think he really gets at the core of the problem here:

Herein lies the more problematic factor in the relative absence of a Reformed pacifist tradition: Reformed Christians have often been too comfortable with state-sanctioned violence. Since the Reformation, many Protestants have seen an important role for nations, kings, and militaries in advancing the ends of the kingdom. If one believes in providence, then of course the acts of nations do somehow fulfill God’s plans for humanity. But Reformed Christians could borrow a dash of pessimism from Christians such as Anabaptists (Mennonites and others), and theologians such as Stanley Hauerwas, who are inherently skeptical about the agenda of any nation-state and its military pursuits.

This comes with ample evidence in the history of the church where a lot of Reformed Christians have a bit of a black eye when it comes to being unequally yoked with the state, leading all too often to the persecution of fellow Christians. You aren't going to see many writers for TGC speaking positively about Hauerwas but that is an issue for a different day. I am starting to think that the vitriolic response from some Reformed Christians to  the Anabaptists has a touch of guilt hidden deep down. In the end Kidd comes away rejecting pacifism but kudos to him for at least raising the issue.

Anyway, I think it is an interesting read and hopefully it got some people thinking. I believe in non-resistance for the same reasons I believe in the doctrines of grace, simply put they are both the most direct understanding of the Scriptures on their respective topics. Ironically I found both positions to be distasteful initially but now I see them as the best understanding of God's revelation in the spheres they cover. I don't see a contradiction in being a "Reformed Anabaptist" who believes in divine, sovereign election of an elect people and at the same time seeing that God calls us to a life of non-resistance. Many people do but if you try to see past your traditions and cultural church baggage you might just see that these two positions are not only not incompatible but are in fact two truths that stem from the same faithful trust in a sovereign God.

We have no right to sit in judgment of God

I haven't blogged about Reformed theology in a long time. I kind of beat it to death. That doesn't mean I don't pay attention to stuff. I was checking out the blog from Peter Kirk, a Brit that wrote an interesting guest post for Alan Knox. He linked on his blog to a different post by Roger Olson wherein Roger seems ambivalent about whether universalism is really a heresy or at least if it is a heresy, it is kind of a mild one (i.e. that every single person is saved, in direct contrast to some of the most explicit Biblical langauage on a topic on can find on any topic) but Roger is sure that Calvinism is a heresy, at least if one actually believes it. Here is part of what he wrote...

Someone once asked me whether I would still worship God if somehow I became convinced the Calvinist view of God is correct. I had to say no. Sheer power is not worthy of worship. Only power controlled by love is worthy of worship.

Well, that sounds dandy. No Scripture to back it up mind you, but lovely to our ears. What about sheer power coupled with love? What Olson is promoting is "love" that is divorced from power. God is either impotent to save whosoever He wishes or doesn't care enough to do so for fear of being labelled "unfair" or worse being referred to as "monstrous" by one of His creatures. That is so grotesquely inaccurate a portrayal of Calvinism that it hardly deserves notice.

Peter wrote a response, in a head scratchingly titled post: Better a universalist than a Calvinist

Indeed. Universalism born from optimistic hope may be unrealistic but it is not a serious heresy. Believing in a God who condemns most people to everlasting torment without offering to them the grace they would need to be saved is a serious heresy because it turns the God of love into a monster. Like Olson, I could never worship a God like that.

So universalism which directly contradicts the overall teaching of the Bible and the explicit teaching of Christ, a heresy that has been universally condemned by the church for 2000 years, is preferable to Calvinism, which has been held by Christians in some form for centuries and which has ample Biblical support? Which is more "monstrous", that God elected a certain people out of the mass of humanity lost in sin to effectually save and passed over the rest? Or that He really, really wants to save everyone but leaves the eternal fate of billions of people in the hands of sinful humans, knowing full well that billions of people will live and die and never hear the Gospel and be lost all in the name of "free will" and fairness? How is that just?

Both Peter and Roger make the same categorical error. We don't worship God because we find Him acceptable to our sensibilities. Our worship of God is a result of who He is, based on His acceptance of us in His Son, not on His acceptability to our sinful and limited notions of fairness. That any human, and especially a born again Christian, would stand in front of God and dictate the terms of our worship to Him makes me shudder.

Did God sit on the shore of the Red Sea hoping His people would decide to flee Egypt and that the Pharaoh wouldn't pursue them?

Did God sit around hoping Saul would have a change of heart and stop persecuting Christians?

I am not going to spend a lot more time extolling Calvinism. I think there are more important things to worry about and I am uninterested in convincing people of it. I do however question those who both misrepresent Calvinism and make it an issue of heresy, thus painting people like me and millions of other brothers and sisters in Christ as heretics.

A different perspective on the five points

Bobby Auner recently put together a nice series of post on the "Five Points of Calvinism". I thought the series was excellent and it is more than the usual "here is my list of proof texts to prove my point you stinkin' Arminian!" style that often accompanies such discussions. Bobby dug a little deeper into the five points. Here is his series...

Calvinism and God's eternal purpose: introduction...

Calvinism and God's eternal purpose: "T" is for treasure

Calvinism and God's eternal purpose: U is for unity

Calvinism and God's eternal purpose: "L" is for liberty

Part 5: "I" is for infatuated

Part 6: "P" is for plural

He kind of dropped part of the title on the last two. Just saying. Anyway, I am sure some of the self-appointed guardians of what is or is not Reformed would quibble about some of what he wrote but no one really cares what they think anyway! Check out his series, whether you are a Calvinist or not (or agree with Calvinism and reject the label as many people are starting to do). Hopefully it will give you a different perspective on Calvinism and show that you can hold to the Five Points without a lot of the traditions that come along with the Reformed theology culture.

In Praise of Calvinism and Calvinists

I have been pretty critical of my fellow Reformed Christians of late. From the large number of Reformed Christians, especially among the newly converted, who see everything through the lens of “But is it Reformed” to the irritating assumptions of the church that leaves the church “un-Reformed”, the clergy overworked and the laity mute and apathetic, there are lots of places I have taken shots at the Reformed. I also am deeply troubled by the tendency among some in Reformed circles to attack and devour those who dare espouse doctrines other than Reformed theology and when they run out of Arminians to attack, turn on one another for not being sufficiently Reformed. Finally there is a deep running tendency toward hero worship of men, whether those men are long dead saints like Calvin or Spurgeon or living leaders like Sproul, Horton or Piper.

Having said that, the reason I am so hard on the Reformed is not that my fellow Reformed believers are bad people. Quite the contrary, some of the finest Christians I know hold to the Doctrines of Grace. Nor is it because Reformed theology proper (the Five Solas and the Five Points of Calvinism) is wrong or weak. Again, the opposite is true. My study of the Bible has led me to a deeper conviction on these issues although I reject much of the culture of “being Reformed” that goes hand in hand with the Five Points/Solas. I am still greatly concerned when I hear people declare Calvinism to be a heresy and then proceed to demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of what Calvinism teaches. So I am in no way rejecting the core theological underpinnings of Calvinism/Reformed theology even as I question the cultural traditions that surround Reformed theology.

I am so hard on my fellow Reformed believers because I see among them fertile ground for continued Reformation in the church and because of that I take pains to poke at the sacred cows of Reformed culture whenever possible. I think that among the serious students of Scripture in the Reformed camp are many future leaders of the church in ways unimaginable and unacceptable to the giants of that tradition. I am not saying that most non-Calvinists don’t take Scripture as seriously but I do think that among the Reformed study of the Scripture takes on a fever pitch and it is through studying the Scriptures that I and many others have found the weakness of the traditional church model. I am greatly encouraged by the numbers of people who see Reformed theology as correct and proper and also see it as a door opener to a Reformation or more properly put a Restoration of a Biblical church model in terms of how and why we gather, how we see our responsibilities to the least of these all around us.

So here are some of the things that I most appreciate about my fellow Reformed believers…

• A recovery of a proper view of the sovereignty of God in all matters, including and especially the salvation of elect individuals. Calvinism is NOT the Gospel but it does provide a faithful framework for understanding the process of salvation.

• A renewal of a high view of the Triune God, seeing God as both loving and holy, merciful and just and seeing Jesus Christ as more than good buddy or a galactic concierge on call to meet our every whim and need. The doctrine of God and especially Jesus Christ have fallen on hard times in much of the church but among Calvinists I often find a proper balance in viewing God as He has revealed Himself.

• A resurgence of zeal among some important demographics that are in short supply in most of evangelicalism: men in general and young men especially. Look around most evangelical churches and what you are likely to find are lots of women, often by themselves, and lots of elderly. Adult men are typically a minority. Show up at a Reformed theology conference and the place will be packed out with dudes. The danger is that young men leap into Reformed theology with the same zeal they do fantasy football and video games, so older men who can mentor and temper them is vital but having buckets of overly enthusiastic young men is a problem any evangelical church would love to have.

• A stalwart defense of the functions, roles and restrictions regarding men and women in the church. I am all for removing the cultural traditions that impede church life but in doing so I am concerned that we don't ignore or explain away clear teachings of Scripture in areas like gender. I appreciate the stand against the prevailing winds of the culture and that many of these brothers cherish and encourage the calling of women instead of degrading that calling and encouraging sisters to function in the Body in a way that is prohibited. I believe that abandonment of Biblical authority on these matters is the theological equivalent of a gateway drug that leads in many cases to an abandonment of Biblical orthodoxy (see: Protestantism, Mainline)

So as you can hopefully see, far from abandoning Calvinism, I fully embrace that theological school. It is my great desire to see more and more Christians glorifying the sovereignty of God in salvation while meeting in a more Biblically faithful model and purpose. Neither Calvinism nor simple church are ends in and of themselves but rather tools to advance our understanding of who God has revealed Himself to be and in carrying out our tasks of mutual edification and equipping so that we can minister to those in need and fulfilling the Great Commission, proclaiming the Goods News of Jesus Christ to every creature on earth.

So three cheers for Calvinists! May our tribe increase (and may that tribe meet in a simpler, more Biblical manner)!

Very interesting video

Check out this conversation between Ligon Duncan, Al Mohler and Kevin DeYoung.

DeYoung, Duncan, Mohler: What's New About the New Calvinism from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.

Very interesting stuff. Here you have a very traditional older Presbyertian leader, a young Reformed guy and a Baptist leader. I found the way they were dressed amusing as well. DeYoung, the Young, Reformed, Restless guy is wearing an open collared dress shirt. Duncan is also but he has a sports coat on. Mohler as always is wearing a suit and tie. I am not sure I have ever seen Dr. Mohler NOT wearing a tie. I liked what Ligon had to say in the middle, we are in an increasingly secular culture and as Christians look around we are perhaps more concerned about fellowship with other believers than we are with feuding over secondary doctrines.

If I may be so bold, I see a "new, New Calvinism" taking root among those who hold to the Five Points of Calvinism to varying degrees, the authority of the Scriptures, a high view of God's holiness and sovereignty as well as His mercy and grace and the Five Solas of the Reformation (faith alone, grace alone, Scripture alone, Christ alone, to God alone be the glory!) but don't hold to the church culture and traditions normally associated with being "Reformed". It is that jettisoning of these church traditions that makes arbiters of "Truly Reformed" so incensed because in spite of the calls for semper reformanda, that only applies as far as constantly returning to the confessional standards in the eyes of the "Truly Reformed".

It is encouraging to see that so many people are embracing the Doctrines of Grace but see no need to cling to the traditions that surround it. These three brothers hold to those traditions but they have been profitable to learn from for many who don't. Our focus should be on the sovereignty of God in salvation, not on whether piano playing is allowed or the mode and recipients of baptism.

The latest salvo on the Calvinist resurgence

The Christian Science Monitor is the latest publication to examine the resurgence of Calvinism in the church. The article, Christian faith: Calvinism is back, takes its readers to Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., home of one of the T4G founders, Mark Dever, and parent church of 9 Marks Ministries. There is little that is new in the report, it includes many of the same talking points we see over and over including the obligatory quote from Colin Hansen.

In spite of the clamor from the small group of self-appointed watchmen in places like Westminster Seminary in California, the energy in Calvinism is in places like Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minnesota and in conferences like Together for the Gospel and the Gospel Coalition. Those are places where the great doctrines of grace are given their proper preeminence and the myriad extra-Biblical baggage that comes with the Reformed tradition take a backseat. That doesn’t sit well with some corners of the church that see that as a betrayal of Calvinism. In doing so they demonstrate a troubling misunderstanding of what Calvinism is all about or at least what it should be about. Calvinism at its heart should be about recognizing and giving all glory to God instead of exalting Reformed church traditions over all other traditions.

I think the article exposes the good and the bad in the resurgent Calvinist movement. On the one hand, I like this:

In addition to Sunday worship and Wednesday night Bible study, they spend hours each week in small-group study or one-on-one "discipling." They say those sessions – a time for confessions, encouragement, and prayer – are the most challenging and rewarding feature of church life.

"Christian fellowship is so much more than hanging out with friends," says Claudia Anderson, a magazine editor. "It involves spiritual intimacy, support, learning, counseling, and stunning acts of kindness."

Christopher Brown, a lawyer, concurs. "I came for the theology but stayed for the community," he says. "As Americans, we're so individualistic. But the New Testament rebukes this 'rugged individualism.' We're not saved to be lone rangers."

It is very interesting that they see the time outside of the Sunday morning service as "the most challenging and rewarding feature of church life". On the other hand …

Membership at CHBC isn't for the faint of holy. Classes on theology and Christian history are required before joining. At the "Lord's Supper" once a month, members stand and recite an oath that ties them to one another.

An oath before sharing the Supper? Where is THAT in Scripture? The teaching at CHBC is described as “preaching for PhDs” and I can attest that the sermons are very meaty. I fear that many men fall into the trap of trying to emulate what they hear from Dever, Al Mohler and others and in doing so are teaching way over the heads of most people (and frankly way over their own heads). Simple teaching is often the best teaching.

So there is good and not so good in the article. I think that anytime we see people getting more serious about their faith, about Scripture and ultimately about God, that is a good thing. There is no doubt in my mind that the renewed emphasis on Calvinism is a boon to the church. Of course it has its downside. There is a very real sense that a lot of what we find in Calvinism, old and new, is quite academic and cerebral. In place of action we see lots of studying. There is a lot of knowledge about God but not as much action on behalf of God, if that makes sense. My big concern is that Calvinism becomes the end in and of itself. As long as you are Reformed and getting more Reformed, you are good. I have fallen prey to that thinking myself but I have since come to a somewhat different mindset:

Reformed theology/Calvinism is not the pinnacle of Christian maturity. It is the beginning.

A recognition of the sovereignty of God over all creation and particularly over salvation is the beginning of our understanding of God. It is the foundation but a building is more than a foundation. Soteriology is not the final piece of the puzzle, it is the first. Calvinism, new or old, should spur us to study the Scriptures more deeply and in doing so I have found that many of the traditions that I have held don’t match up with the Bible even though they sound good. It drives me nuts when people ask “Is it Reformed to do such and such” instead of “Is it Biblical”? The answer may be the same either way but in many areas, especially ecclesiology, what is traditionally Reformed is not terribly Scriptural. My hope is that as people respond to the ancient doctrines of grace, they will search more deeply in the Scriptures. Not just for proof-text regarding predestination and election but also about the fellowship of the saints in the community of the elect, the Lord’s Supper as a meal among the redeemed instead of a religious ritual, a real and functional priesthood of all believers instead of a hierarchical ministry. I pray that the “New Calvinists” will keep searching backwards to guide our path forward, not merely to the 16th century but all the way to the 1st. That is what real reformation looks like!

God desired to save Pharaoh?

I was listening to a talk purporting to refute Calvinism the other day. It was all in all a poor presentation of Calvinism and I wanted to look at a commonly misunderstood passage. This is the spin put on the story of the Exodus in this talk on Calvinism, specifically regarding Pharaoh and why that story refutes total depravity and Calvinism in general: God was "sincere with Pharaoh" and desired to save him but Pharaoh hardened his heart in spite of the evidence and refused God even though God tried ten different ways to convince him.

Is that even remotely accurate? Let’s take a look. This is important because if it turns out that, as I will argue, this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how God relates to humans and human ability to respond to God, it brings into question the entire scope of this man’s teaching. There are few things more fundamental to the understanding of the Gospel than understanding the state of mankind, the nature of the Gospel, how men are saved and how God relates to His creatures.

Does Scripture teach that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart or that Pharaoh hardened his own heart? There are some verses that seem to support both sides, but it can’t be both so we need to figure out which is which. Exchanging proof-texts is not exegesis, it is lazy, so let’s look at the bigger picture here, from when God commands Moses to return to Egypt and let His people go all the way to the New Testament (emphasis added):

And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son, and I say to you, “Let my son go that he may serve me.” If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son.’” (Exodus 4: 21-23)

Note that God here is telling Moses, before he even steps foot back in Egypt what His purpose is in sending him and that He will harden Pharaoh's heart.

And the Lord said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet. You shall speak all that I command you, and your brother Aaron shall tell Pharaoh to let the people of Israel go out of his land. But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, Pharaoh will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and bring my hosts, my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great acts of judgment. The Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring out the people of Israel from among them.” (Exodus 7: 1-5)

But for this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth. (Exodus 9: 16)

Is God hardening Pharaoh’s heart because Pharaoh first hardened it or is God hardening Pharaoh’s heart for His own purposes? The story of Exodus is not that God really wanted to be friends with Pharaoh but he just wouldn’t listen. It is the story of God hardening the heart of a wicked man such that even in the face of incredible miracles and judgment he refused to release the Israelites until God smote his son. The message here is that the human heart is sinful and hardened against God and it remains that way unless God softens it. Here is where we come to the crux of the issue:

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go in to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs of mine among them, and that you may tell in the hearing of your son and of your grandson how I have dealt harshly with the Egyptians and what signs I have done among them, that you may know that I am the Lord.” (Exodus 10: 1-2)

If Pharaoh, in his own “free will” had elected to just let the people go when Moses asked, would the Exodus have had the same lasting impact? The miracles were not just for Pharaoh but also for the Israelites. When Moses and the other Israelites speak to their children and their children’s children, they will remember how God struck down Pharaoh. That message kind of loses something if Pharaoh had agreed before God smote him and the Egyptians.

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (Romans 9: 14-18, emph. added)

Paul is saying that God raised Pharaoh up so that He could show His power as a testimony by striking him down. God never intended Pharaoh to turn and come to Him, in fact He did just the opposite and hardened his heart so that he would not! Moses was not an evangelist trying to convert Pharaoh, he was commanding Pharaoh to let the Israelites go to worship their God. That is a world of difference from God hoping that Pharaoh would let the Israelites go, giving him a bunch of chances and finally striking down the first born when all else fails. God knew, God always knew that Pharaoh would not let the Israelites go because He was going to harden Pharaoh’s heart. There is no injustice here on God’s part and there is no warrant here for us to reinterpret what God has said to fit our sinful notion of what is fair.

This is the problem of dueling proof-texts. One person says: Well this verse say God hardened Pharaoh’s heart but another person says: But that verse says Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Dueling prooftexts is not literal interpretation, it is poor exegesis. Step back from the verse at hand, look at the context and the supporting Scriptures. Literal interpretation doesn’t mean blindly reading the Bible one verse in a vacuum at a time.

When someone says stuff like: It is possible to be elect and go to hell, that shows a dangerous line of reasoning in Scripture.

Paul was a Calvinist

I thought I would throw out an intentionally inflammatory title just to spice things up. I am tired and cranky this morning while I am writing this so I am feeling blogo-cheeky. I also haven’t had a good old fashioned Calvinist rant in a while, so here goes.

I know that title seems silly on its face since Paul lived and died almost fifteen centuries before Calvin was even born. What I meant is that I am asserting that Paul would in essence affirm the doctrines we call Calvinism.

What do I base that assertion on?

First, Paul’s doctrinal statements in Ephesians and Romans especially are unmistakable in their presentation of a God who predestines, elects, effectually calls, regenerate and preserves a select remnant of lost mankind and Paul is equally clear on the lostness and utter inability and complete lack of desire on the part of unregenerate man to even look for Christ, much less make a decision for or “ask Jesus into your heart”. Paul would affirm Calvinism because Calvinism draws as its foundation the teachings of Christ as well as the writings of Paul.

Second and perhaps even more importantly is the account of Saul’s conversion in Acts 9:

But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank. (Acts 9:1-9)

What is on display here? God’s sovereign grace or man’s free will? Paul is an especially delicious example because he assumed that he already was doing God’s will. He was a highly educated and fervent Jew. He was not “making a decision for Christ”, just the opposite he was persecuting Christ (Note that Christ said Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting ME?). As anyone who was leading an atheistic life or following a false religion knows, the intrusion of Christ into your life is the sweetest, most wonderful thing that can happen to you but it is also jarring and unexpected. If you are a kid in a Christian home, it is kind of expected that at some point you will come to Christ. You are surrounded by “God-talk”, grow up in church, hear the Bible read. Christ is comfortable because He is at least academically familiar to you. For the radical unbeliever, finding Christ inserting Himself into your life is a world altering event. I am not saying that it is not for a “church kid” but it is doubly so for those who rejected God or followed a false god.

So my point? Just that those who have a problem with Calvinism have a problem with Paul and with Christ Himself. Not the various traditions that have grown up around the Reformed movement but the actual doctrines of Calvinism itself. It is easy to confuse the baggage of Reformed denominational traditions with the doctrines of grace known as Calvinism. There is a small but vocal minority of people in the church who use Calvinism as a straw man to conquer and who decry both Calvinism as heresy and its adherents as heretics. What Paul experienced and what he wrote are far more in line with what Calvin wrote and what Calvinists believe than the man centered doctrines of Arminianism and decisional regeneration popular in the church today. If I have to choose between the followers of Jacob Arminius and the apostle Paul, I am picking Paul 100 times out of 100.

The unscriptural illogic of free will

The Lord’s Prayer as it should be read in most churches:

Our Father, who art in heaven
Hallowed be thy name
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done (except when it comes to salvation)
On earth as it is in heaven

It is quite popular to speak of “free will” as if that is some wonderful gift of God. My daughters have a book by Eric Metaxas, Everything You Always Wanted to Know About God (but were afraid to ask) that I skimmed through this weekend and the book is just full of glowing references to free will (and is generally a horrific book that paints a picture of an impotent God). I wish I had a dollar for every person who told me that free will is God’s great gift to us, not forcing us to be saved but leaving the choice up to us as if that is somehow loving.

I say no thanks. I don’t want a free will because left to my own devices I always get in trouble. I prefer God’s will to my own will. Many people speak of free will as if it is this wonderful thing that God has given us, leaving the ultimate choice of salvation in our hands. I say there is no one I trust less for my own salvation than myself. Thank God that He didn’t leave salvation up to me, not one iota, not one step. Let me be clear. I am not talking about free will in choosing what you wear today (although I wish people had a little less free will there). I am talking about Free Will when it comes to coming to faith in Christ. I am talking “making a decision for Christ”, “inviting Him into your heart”, etc.

If man truly had a free will in the sense taught and preached in most of the church, Abraham would still be Abram and would have died in Haran. Peter and Andrew would have kept on casting their nets in the sea. Paul would still be Saul. I would still be caught up in mormonism. There would be no churches to be critical of because there would be no Christians.

What it really comes down to is one question: did Christ die to make salvation possible for all men without exception, leaving the ultimate initiator of salvation up to men or did Christ die specifically and purposefully to save a remnant of lost and sinful mankind?

The Bible itself gives us the answer. For example, John 3:16 is one verse that people love to throw out as if it somehow is a refutation of Calvinism. Nothing could be further from the truth because John 3:16 is part of a greater discourse. If we read just John 3:16, we read:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Sure, you can argue that John 3:16 supports “free will”. The Bible is not a series of unrelated verses pasted together and we can't read it that way. John 3:16 is part of a greater discourse which includes things like:

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:18)

The world and everyone in it is already condemned and only through faith in Christ can one be saved. But doesn’t that still mean that man has free will to choose Christ? Not when you look at the way this discourse to Nicodemus starts:

Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3: 3-8)

Unless you are born again by the Spirit, you cannot see the Kingdom of God. Not that you don't choose to see, you cannot see. The unregenerate heart cannot come to Christ because it has no idea that it needs Christ. In other words, you are not born again because you choose Christ, you are born again because Christ chose you. You didn’t change your heart, God changed your heart in spite of your free will. You don’t come to Christ unless Christ first comes to you (John 6:44). The order this happens in is so important because it tells you who initiates and completes salvation, you or God. So in a nutshell, John 3:16 can only be used as a defense of “free will” if you choose (pun intended) to ignore the context that precedes and follows the verse.

All of the verses that people love to throw out in defense of man’s sovereign free will like John 3:16, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 John 2:2 are perfectly compatible with God’s sovereign grace and shame on the Calvinist who suggests that there are verses in the Bible that refute election. The overall theme of Scripture is that God has chosen a remnant of lost mankind to redeem and we are redeemed from a fate that is already determined. Free will aside, your fate is sealed as a sinner and that fate is an everlasting hell. It is only through the particular redeeming grace of God that any escape the fire. From the Garden to the Cross, the story is one of God's sovereignity, not man's free will.

In his Gospel account John records the Great Shepherd discourse which gives a clear explanation of God’s electing grace.

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father. (John 10: 11-18)

Christ laid down His life for His sheep, His sheep who know His voice. They know His voice because they are His sheep and they are His sheep because the Father gave them to Him and that is who Christ died for. They are not His sheep because they chose Him, they were given to Him by the Father.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one. (John 10: 27-30)

We didn’t put ourselves in Christ’s hands, God the Father gave us to Him. Another great passage is in Romans 5. Christ’s death on our behalf was not based on some perceived future righteousness on our part. In contrast, Paul tells us that Christ died for us when there was no reason to do so. Our faith has for its source God’s gift to us, our faith doesn’t have as its source our own dead, sin laden hearts. While we were still weak, while we were still lost in our sins, Christ died for us.

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. (Romans 5:6-11)

The death of Christ was not predicated on our future choice of Him. Christ didn’t die for me because He could see that I would choose Him of my own free will. When Christ looked at me, I am sure that he saw that I (and every other Christian) would die lost unless He not only died to pay for our sins but ensured that the Spirit would regenerate our hearts. Christ died for me when my salvation was hopeless and through the Word and the Holy Spirit ensured that I would come to faith. Free will always ends in the same place: an eternal hell. If you are a Christian, thank God that His grace overcame your stubborn heart, that His will was done and not your own. God’s great gift to His people is not free will, it is His will.

He who hates his brother is a murderer

I don’t spend tons of time addressing people who try to debunk Reformed theology anymore. I used to leap into the fray at any chance, but it has lost most of its appeal to me. Many times I came across as arrogant and angry, and on the flip side I found few people really interested in debating the issue. Then I came across a post today by a guy in Kansas, Dave Noffsinger of Northwest Baptist Church in Leavenworth, Kansas, and for some reason it just rubbed me wrong. What is missing, no surprise, is any sort of attempt to engage either the text of Scripture or the arguments of Christians who hold to Calvinism. This is nothing more than a run of the mill hit piece on Calvinism, full of broad and baseless assertions and empty accusations. But what set this apart from other misrepresentations of Calvinism was this:

I am an enemy of the doctrinal teachings of John Calvin or any that line up with his heresy.

Now that just crosses a line. Perhaps he meant something else, but it certainly appears that he means that he is an enemy of anyone who holds to Calvinism. That covers a lot of ground and a lot of Christians. Using “heresy” is kind of the nuclear option in discourse and it is a charge one should use sparingly and carefully. Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, was a heretic. Michael Servetus, who denied the doctrine of the Trinity was a heretic (which doesn’t excuse his being burned at the stake). People who preach the health, wealth and prosperity “gospel” are heretics because they proclaim a different gospel. I would say that Arminians by and large, while they are dead wrong, are not heretics. Their doctrine of man and of salvation are faulty but where they proclaim the risen Christ and faith in Him as the only hope of salvation, apart from works, they are not heretics. I have come very close to crossing the line and at least implying that they were heretics and for that I repent of my sinful attitude.

The Bible minces no words when it comes to this. The mark of a disciple of Christ, how people know we are His, is that we love one another (John 13:35). For those who do not love their brother, John has some strong and troubling words:

Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. (1Jn 3:15)

If you don’t love your brother, you are essentially a murderer. Declaring a brother to be your enemy is tantamount to hating him, and that is an awfully serious issue. Casually declaring not one man but a multitude of your brothers to be your enemy and heretics is something to repent of.

Let those of us who proclaim and love the doctrines of God’s sovereign grace admit that we bring some of this upon ourselves with our speech and conduct toward those who are not in agreement. All too often we are far too eager to kick sand in the face of Arminians and in doing so we can be cruel, mocking and spiteful. Nevertheless, the failings of some (myself included) and the overstatement of others is not cause for us to draw lines in the sand and declare those on one side to be enemies when brothers disagree.

Again, where my speech has been cruel and angry, I repent of that sinful behavior. If Mr. Noffsinger is indeed a follower of Christ, as his brother I call upon him to repent of his slander toward those who he should love. I hope someday that he will be with me in the presence of our Savior, and arguments like this will have faded away into irrelevance. I don’t expect to be “proven right” in eternity, I full expect to be so filled with the glory of Christ that being “right” will mean nothing to me. Here and now as we wait for Christ to come, our words to one another need to be gentle and loving, not hateful.

(Hat Tip: Jeff Peterson Jeff does an excellent job dismantling this post by Dave Noffsinger)

Lest I be misunderstood

I think maybe I left the wrong impression in my previous post, Reformed Rhetoric. Let me clarify….

I love studying Reformed theology! I am looking forward to Together for the Gospel 2010 like I can’t even tell you. I am looking forward to the first meeting of the Mid-Michigan Reformation Society in August and having Dr. Beeke come speak to us in November. I love reading articles on monergism.com and I love reading (most) Reformed bloggers! I don’t find myself less convinced of the tenets of Reformed theology, I am actually finding myself more drawn to these great truths and the exaltation of a holy and sovereign God who loves His elect so much that He sent His Son to make propitiation for them on a cross. I certainly am not having a bonfire and burning my Calvin’s commentaries and Sproul books!

What I find less appealing is the subculture of being Reformed that has grown up around those who hold to some flavor of Reformed theology.

I don’t like the “us versus them” mentality, a school of thought that I have been a part of for a long time. I don’t like the smarminess and condescension we sometimes exhibit and that has been raised to the level of an art form by some. I really dislike the pomposity of some people who espouse their flavor of Reformed theology and denigrate others. I am very concerned about the hero worship of Reformed pastors/preachers/authors past and present. I don’t care for the blurring of the lines between actual Reformed theology and “Reformed” church practice as championed by certain bloggers (most notably one with the initials RSC). I am concerned most of all when we elevate being a “Reformed Christian” over being a non-Reformed Christian.

There are plenty of things that concern me about the Reformed subcultures we have developed, whether of the “old skool Dutch” Reformed traditions we see in bastions like Grand Rapids or in the more recent “young, restless, reformed” subculture. None of those concerns is a fault inherent in Reformed theology. All of them are the result of pride, something I am a bona fide expert on. There is nothing inherently incompatible with seeking a Biblical ecclesiology and holding to Reformed theology. Now if I can just convince my Reformed brethren of that….

Some things never change

One of them is the tendency of some of the old guard in the Southern Baptist convention to use the spotlight to advance their vendetta against Calvinism. This year had the spectacle of Morris H. Chapman, from the SBC Executive Committee making the following comment:

The Southern Baptist Convention is experiencing a resurgence in the belief that divine sovereignty alone is at work in salvation without a faith response on the part of man.

Some are given to explain away the “whosoever will” of John 3:16. How can a Christian come to such a place when Ephesians says, “For by grace are you saved through faith” (Eph. 2:8)? I do not rise to become argumentative, or to change minds already convinced of one perspective or the other. But I do rise to state the obvious. Man is often tempted to design a theological theory in light of a biblical antinomy in order to clarify what God is trying to say.

Man’s system will be inferior to God’s system now and forever. Why is it so difficult to accept from God what we cannot fully explain? After all, He didn’t begin to tell us everything He knows, but what we need to know to be redeemed and live righteously. The belief that sovereignty alone is at work in salvation is not what has emboldened our witness and elevated our concern for evangelism and missions through the ages. This is not the doctrine that Southern Baptists have embraced in their desire to reach the world for Christ.

If there is any doctrine of grace that drives men to argue and debate more than it drives them to pursue lost souls and persuade ALL MEN to be reconciled to God – then it is no doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man both are taught in the Bible. Both are necessary elements in the salvation experience. A healthy tension (an antinomy) exists in the Bible with regard to these two important biblical truths. Both are present in the salvation experience.

Egad! I haven't heard such ridiculous rhetoric and blatant caricatures since the last time Ergun Caner embarrassed himself by attacking the sovereignty of God in salvation. I love that Mr. Chapman quotes the first half of Ephesians 2:8 and not the second half. Pretty convenient, check out the whole verse with the second half in bold:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, (Eph 2:8)

I always get a kick out of people using verses to attack Calvinism that in reality support one or more of the five points. Even the faith you have is not found in yourself, or your righteousness, or your piety or your "decision to ask Jesus into your heart". The faith that any Christian possesses is a gift from God, sovereignly enacted through the regeneration of our stony hearts, making those who were dead in our sins (Eph 2:1) and enemies of God (Eph 2:3) reconciled to His Son. It is fun to see what happens when you actually read a verse in it's entirety and in it's context instead of plucking it out to make a point.

I like the plain spoken way Tom Ascol referred to these remarks:

It may be that the anti-Calvinist messenger was emboldened in his opposition by the foolish remarks of the president and chief executive officer of the Southern Baptist Convention's Executive Committee, Morris H. Chapman which were made earlier in the day during his report.
-----
Dr. Chapman's comments were out of place and sounded more like the incendiary rhetoric of years past than the more respectful kinds of exchanges that have tended to characterize the Calvinist debates since the Building Bridges Conference in 2007.

Amen Tom! Foolishness should be called what it is.

When good theologians do bad things

In the 500th anniversary year of John Calvin’s birth, Calvin is getting lots of attention. Expect that to approach a real frenzy in a few weeks on his birthday, July 10th when I would expect to hear all manner of reports and stories about John Calvin as one of the great influences, not just in Reformed theology but in Christianity and indeed Western Civilization as a whole. Around the world there are a substantial number of celebrations going on, from Geneva to East Lansing. I have been to one conference exclusively on Calvin this year and I am going to another one in August. So 2009, at least in the Reformed ‘hood, is “All Calvin, all the time” even more so than usual.

Inevitably, whenever Calvin comes up so does Michael Servetus. The Michael Servetus thing frankly drives me batty in two respects. First, the way that people who either misunderstand or misrepresent Calvinism throw Servetus out as an argument against Calvinism. People, Calvinism stands or falls on it’s faithfulness to the teachings of the Bible, not on the character or actions of John Calvin. Calvinism would be true even if John Calvin had never been born. Second is the way that some who cherish the teachings of the Geneva Reformer try to defend the execution of Servetus.

Some of the details are sketchy. What we know is this. Servetus was an open and unapologetic heretic who denied the Trinity. That seems like a minor thing today when “pastors” who deny the Trinity have bestselling books in “Christian” bookstores and show up routinely on lists of the most influential Christians. But in the 1500’s, denying the Trinity along with a list of other heresies was punishable by death. Calvin also wrote a book defending the legitimacy of executing heretics (I have not read the book) after the death of Servetus, so he was fully aware of the consequences of a man put on trial for the supposed crime of heresy. Regardless, in 1553 Michael Servetus showed up in Geneva and was arrested, tried and burned at the stake as a heretic.

Whether Calvin enthusiastically encouraged the execution of Servetus as some suggest or he merely stood by mutely while it happened as others imply, it was the wrong thing to do. It is my understanding that Calvin had Servetus arrested which led to his trial and his execution, an outcome that Calvin had to know was likely. Calvin also reportedly pled for Servetus to be beheaded instead of burned, a quicker and more humane death than being burned alive at the stake but asking for a nicer way of execution is hardly the same as a plea for mercy. All of that is irrelevant to the value of Calvin for the church. It is not a news flash that Calvin was a sinner! Christians from Paul to Augustine to Calvin to John Piper have all recognized their own sins and flaws. I would hope that people who examine my beliefs base their judgment on the truth of what I say and how it conforms to the Word of God, not on my personal flaws and foibles which are myriad.

Let’s enjoy the 500th anniversary of John Calvin without the small minded attempts to paint him as a murderer nor the knee jerk reflexive defenses of him that are unnecessary. His work and his thoughts stand on their own. Let’s celebrate the life and legacy of a man who is arguably the greatest theologian the church has known in all of his brilliance and in all of his flaws.

Magnifying God: The Legacy of John Calvin Break-Out Sessions

Calvin for the Whole Church: His Influence Among Baptists, Anglicans and Beyond

I chose, no surprise, the session on Calvin's influence throughout the church, not just in traditional "Reformed" denomination traditions. It was moderated by one of the organizers of the conference, Doug Phillips from South Church in Lansing. The focus was on how Calvin has influenced the entire church, not just the Reformed denominations. I would have liked to spend more time in discussion in the smaller setting, but it was still a good lecture.

Calvin is important not just for those who adhere to every jot and tittle he ever penned, but is an influence on all sorts of Christians. I love much of what he wrote and even where I disagree with him, I still marvel at his love for the Word, how Scripture saturated and how carefully he handled the Word of God. We could all learn to emulate Calvin in the way we handle the Bible, Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike.