Creeping Calvinism...

Christianity Today has put out some decent articles on the reawakening of Calvinism among Evangelicals, including Young, Restless and Reformed, a great look at the trend toward Reformed theology among younger Christians. Their latest article is not one of them. Titled TULIP Blooming, the focus is on the growing concern among many old school, Arminian Southern Baptist leaders about the rise of Calvinism in the SBC, especially in our seminaries. The article is too short and very shallow. If you can't do justice to a subject, you ought not bring it up. The opening story is priceless:

The pastor of First Baptist Church in Pauls Valley, Oklahoma, for 27 years, Joe Elam only encountered Calvinism once during his ministry—and it left a bitter taste in his mouth.

Though forbidden to do so, a former youth pastor at his church secretly taught predestination to teens, Elam said, sowing seeds of lingering division among several families.

"It was a wake-up call for us," said Elam, who recently led the Arbuckle Baptist Association to adopt a motion calling on the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma to rebuke Reformed theology. It sent copies of the motion to all members of the Southern Baptist Convention's executive committee.

"We would like to see Southern Baptists become aware that [their] money is being used to teach Calvinism in our seminaries," Elam said.

I love the tone, secretly teaching predestination as if the unnamed youth pastor were starting some cabal of young Calvinists, meeting in secret in the dark of the night, wearing black robes and chanting in dungeons lit with candles. Talk about overreaction! (I especially like that he was "forbidden" to teach predestination. Imagine forbidding someone in a pastoral role from teaching a Biblical doctrine!)

Timmy Brister responded to this assertion in the article by Southern Baptist President Frank Page:

"The totality of history shows the vast majority of Baptists have not been [Calvinists], so why go back to the founders?" Page said. "I think we need to go back to the Bible."

Clearly that is not accurate. Those who insist that Calvinism is derived strictly from R.C. Sproul books and John Piper sermons, rather than the Bible, are either painfully ignorant or willfully and maliciously misrepresenting Calvinism. I am not sure which possibility is more disturbing in Frank Page's case. Brister makes a great point in this statement:

Of course, with Page’s argument, we are led to believe that what the Founders of the SBC believed and taught was something contrary to the Bible. As a president of the SBC, I find it remarkable that our top figure would state that our convention adhered to doctrines not founded in Scripture. Now it is apparent to all that Dr. Page has had trouble with TULIP, and that is fine if he disagrees or has differences (though I think his arguments are presumptuous and problematic). However, having trouble with TULIP should not thereby constitute trouble with Baptist history.

Precisely! To suggest that Calvinism is not based on Biblical theology (you may disagree with the conclusions, but you can't deny it's basis in Scripture), or denying that the founding fathers of the SBC were largely Reformed (as demonstrated in airtight citation by Founders Ministry) or that it leads to anti-missionary fervor (tell that to the father of modern missions and Calvinist William Carey) is ignorant. The biggest obstacle to honest discussions among Evangelicals about soteriology is the refusal by Arminians to move past empty assertions and strawmen and get down to Scripture. For Page to suggest we get back to the Bible is great advice, but not if you are dealing with presumptions that leave no room for dialogue. I came to Reformed theology not because I was brainwashed by Al Mohler and John MacArthur, but in reading the Word of God. Through the Bible my stubborn insistence on my own autonomy in salvation was shattered by the overwhelming weight of Scripture that God is Sovereign, and I am not.

The anniversary of an American holocaust

Today we "celebrate" the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that created a "right" to have an abortion on demand whole cloth from the Constitution, a decision that only using the most tortured of logic can make sense. According to National Right to Life, the death toll of legalized abortion in America is approaching 50 million. Dwell on that number.

50,000,000

For comparison purposes, it is estimated that approximately 60 million people died in World War II. So in the course of 3 1/2 decades, we have systematically wiped out whole generations of Americans, sacrificed on the bloody altar of choice.

There is no lack of commentary on both sides of the abortion debate. But in the annals of ignorant commentaries, this one from the Cleveland Plain Dealer may take the cake. Titled Sorry, boys, but abortion is a women's issue, the author Connie Schultz attempts to make the case that men have no say in the abortion debate, due to our lack of wombs.

Every spring, a local boys' high school makes me their class project.

A stream of anti-abortion e-mail suddenly fills my inbox, courtesy of male adolescents whose time would be better spent focusing on their own role in preventing pregnancies they will never have to bear.

How do these boys figure that a woman's womb is any of their business? How do men, for that matter?

Since when do we legislate with only one gender in mind? Ms. Schultz essentially advocates disenfranchsing half of the population. Isn't that something that this country formerly did to women? Let's look at how that logic could be applied. Since technically only men serve in military combat roles, perhaps we should exclude women from voting for President? Or female members of congress could no longer serve on armed forces committees or vote on military expenditures. Should only certain ethnicities be allowed a voice on issue of discrimination? She goes on....

Recently, for example, I criticized in a column those who claim to be pro-life but did not care one bit for the plight of immigrants' children. I still loathe that kind of hypocrisy, but some readers who oppose abortion rights, most of them women, asked me not to lump them in with the extremists.

They, too, deplored the treatment of an immigrant mother who was separated for 11 days from her nursing infant. Many also agreed that men have too many opinions about an issue that affects only those with a womb.

As if only leftists and pro-abortinists care about those children fortunate to have escaped being butchered by abortionists. If you make it through the gauntlet of choice, we are your biggest advocates! Try telling that to the volunteers at crisis pregnancy centers who give time, money and love to scared young women, offering them a real choice other than aborting their child. Tell that to the volunteers at church food pantries, who pass out food cheerfully week after week to those in need, many of whom are single mothers. I guess they don't really care about children after all.

Abortion is a horror in and of itself, and a stain on the national honor of America, but demagogues like Ms. Schultz compound the scourge abortion with hypocrisy and misinformation. I pray America repents of the crime we have perpetrated in our nation and that God will forgive us all for the blood on our collective hands, the blood of innocents.

(There was an excellent discussion of this, sober and broken-hearted, on the Albert Mohler Show today...)

Where do we draw the line on heresy?

What makes one a heretic?

We have been discussing heresy in Sunday school at Indian River Baptist Church and it raised the question in my mind: what makes one a heretic? I mean besides the obvious things, when is it OK to call someone a heretic?

Heresy is a word we toss about, and I especially do, fairly cavalierly. Phil Johnson has a whole section on his webpage of famous heretics throughout the ages. It seems the easy thing to do, when faced with something we disagree with strongly, to throw down the heresy card to end discussion.

Some things are fairly easy to diagnose as heresy. Mormonism is clearly a heresy. The same with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Both cult groups deny such fundamental doctrines of the Bible that they stand clearly outside the pale of orthodox Christianity. The list of obvious heretics is pretty lengthy and easy to identify. What is far more difficult, and far more dangerous, is when we point the finger of heresy at someone within the church. On the one hand we don’t have the option to ignore or brush over false teaching and false teachers in our midst. Yet we also must be careful to not label genuine brothers and sisters in Christ as heretics without justification.

Just disagreeing with someone on a point of doctrine is not a sign of heresy. I feel baptizing infants is un-Biblical and constitutes an inaccurate way of administering the sacrament of baptism. I would not be a member of a church where infant baptism was performed. Yet some of my closest and dearest friends are paedobaptists. I would feel perfectly justified in telling them, cheerfully and in Christian love, that I think that baptizing their infant is improper, but to call them a heretic? Hardly. I would no sooner call R.C. Sproul a heretic than I would label John MacArthur the same. Both hold very different views on baptism and ecclesiology, but that doesn’t mean that one is right and one is a heretic.

Doing something differently is not a sure sign of heresy. The sign of orthodoxy is not that a church follows the traditions set forth over the last hundred years. Granted, a lot of heretical movements have very obvious oddities in their worship services, and the excessive exuberance can be a warning sign. But many heretical churches have very sober, somber services with a seriousness that would please the most starched shirt Baptist. But seriousness is not a marker of orthodoxy anymore than casual services are a sign of unorthodoxy.

Where does that leave us? What is the magic line that differentiates disagreement over doctrine with heresy. Is N.T. Wright a heretic because of his views on the New Perspective on Paul? Is Joel Osteen because of his refusal to address sin and his embracing the health, wealth and prosperity gospel? Men like Charles Finney are clearly heretics even though they are embraced by many in the church today, but as always popularity or acceptance is not a hallmark of orthodoxy. But where should we draw the line today? As hard as it is for me to admit, I am not sure I know the answer to that one...

What does South Carolina mean?

Looks like McCain wins South Carolina, with Huckabee in a close (but no cigar) second. If Huckabee was unable to even win over the evangelical population in a heavily Baptist state, and has yet to really draw from non-Evangelicals, what does that mean for his candidacy?

1. First that the elite in the conservative movement have poisoned people against Huckabee to the point that they parrot back "facts" about him with no real knowledge of what he has or does stand for. A substantial number of conservatives think that Huckabee is not a genuine conservative, falsely but perhaps fatally.


2. Second that it is time to start looking soberly at what the future holds with Super Duper Tuesday coming up, money no doubt dwindling fast and the really expensive advertising states on the horizon.


3. Huckabee may no longer be viable for the top spot, but could be a king-maker and a solid VP candidate (which is what I have thought for some time given his kid gloves approach to McCain)

While a McCain-Huckabee ticket may not be ideal, it sure beats having Romney or Rudy on the ticket. Evangelical voters (I think) can get behind McCain because of his generally pro-life stance and his notable service as a veteran. With Huckabee alongside, it becomes a ticket that will draw evangelicals, moderates and independents. It may not shake out that way, but Huckabee could be potentially one of the most influential VP candidates in a long time, delivering the evangelical vote while not scaring off the more secular middle.

I am not giving up on Huckabee yet, but he needs to win Florida REALLY badly or he better start picking out curtains for the Old Executive Office building. He is running in fourth in Florida according to Real Clear Politics, and a fourth place finish means the end for Huckabee's candidacy.

As a side note, Romney apparently spent $4 million in South Carolina and came in fourth behind Fred Thompson who never really started running. He may lead in the delegate count, but outside of states like Michigan where he has name recognition and Western states like Nevada and Wyoming with overwhelming mormon populations, he hasn't fared all that well. According to the Real Clear Politics national poll, despite winning three states outright, Romney is in a distant third nationally behind McCain and Huckabee. Rudy is fourth and his strategy to wait seems to be backfiring, which is just as well because Evangelical voters have a pretty visceral reaction against him.

Viva la mormon solidarity!

No doubt Mitt will crow over his virtually unopposed win in Nevada. What is getting some attention is that the sizable mormon population in Nevada went for Mitt in a huge way.

On the Republican side, Mormons comprised a quarter of those attending Nevada's GOP caucuses, and more than nine in 10 were voting for Romney. Romney is a Mormon, and his religion has been cited as a problem by some Republican voters.

About half of Romney's overall vote in Nevada came from Mormons.

With Huckabee, McCain and Thomson fighting it out in South Carolina, Romney had Nevada to himself with Ron Paul. The real horse race has nothing to do with the state where betting on it is legal. It is all about South Carolina and the upcoming Florida race. But like everything else about Mitt, the Nevada win is all show and no substance.

Ergun Caner, sole arbiter of being a "real" Baptist

Dr. Caner posted a blog entry about Liberty University reinserting the name "Baptist" into the seminary name. I am an on again, off again student in the Distance Learning program of the seminary and I didn't know the name had been dropped...

In an era when denominational identification is anathema, the Liberty Theological Seminary has retrofitted its name to the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. The irony is the man who lead the seminary to take Baptist out of the name is also the one who lobbied to reinsert it, the President of the Seminary, Dr. Ergun Mehmet Caner.

But as is normal with Dr. Caner, he can't avoid taking shots at the evil Calvinist hordes pretending to be Baptists!

“However, since 2004, much as changed, both here at Liberty University and in the Southern Baptist Convention. Too many schools have Baptist in their name but not in their doctrine. Some have drifted into liberalism and cultural relativism; still others remain orthodox, but have drifted toward non-Baptist reformed doctrine and cultural isolationism. For us, this was our line in the sand. We want to build bridges to a lost world without burning the bridges of our doctrinal heritage. We are putting Baptist back in our name, and taking back a term that has been misused.“We want to train students from across the evangelical spectrum, in the classic Baptistic stance of our Anabaptist tradition and Sandy Creek revivalistic heritage. These doctrines include:

• The inerrancy of Scripture

• General atonement

• Free church polity and pastoral authority

• Missions obsession

• Imminent return of Christ

It just made sense, following the vision of our founder and the new chancellor, to proudly state that we are Baptist with a capital “B.” Since 1525, the word Baptist has meant something and it still does at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.”

I guess what "it means" is that anyone who doesn't hold to Arminian general atonement just isn't Baptist enough for Dr. Caner. It should have been clear from the title of the blog post "Liberty Baptist Seminary and “Building Bridges” that Caner was freaked out by the recent Building Bridges Conference and the idea, the horror!, that good, authentic Arminian Baptists would speak civilly and attempt to build bridges with the unwashed hordes of Calvinist pseudo-Baptists! I imagine he wrote each of the Arminian speakers and suspended their status as real Baptists for six months.

I would ask if that means that Dr. Caner doesn't believe that Charles Spurgeon was an authentic Calvinist, but having listened to his lectures in a History of Baptists course I realize that like Michael Pearl and so many others, Dr. Caner refuses to recognize that Spurgeon even was a Calvinist. Dr. Caner's quest has so infected his thinking that he refuses to even consider Reformed Baptists to be "real" baptists.

A very important Albert Mohler show...

Dr. Mohler addressed, by name, one of the most famous religious personalities in the world on today's Albert Mohler show. The personality? Joel Osteen and Dr. Mohler didn't hide his concern over what comes out of Osteen's mouth. He pretty much called him a heretic and pointed out that he teaches what amounts to "another gospel".

Dr. Mohler made two great points that really strike at the heart of what is wrong with Osteen's "ministry"...

1) Would anybody listening to Joel Osteen messages possible come to a knowledge of his or her need as a sinner for a savior and how to be saved through Jesus Christ?

2) You can’t talk about the Gospel without talking about sin.

Both of those should give pause to anyone who follows Osteen and his featherweight, prosperity gospel message and cause them to delve into His Word and see if what Osteen teaches resembles what God has said. Osteens apparent ignorance of any semblance of Christian teachings and his refusal to stand firm for the Gospel, in season and out of season, reveals his ministry to be a sham.

Osteen's book carries the title: Your best life now. Joel, this is not our best life now, or at least I hope it is not. Our best life is to come. If this is as good as it gets, you are setting your sights too low. If we have nowhere to go but down, where does that lead?

This is kind of cool...

The Washington Post has an interactive map showing county by county results for the Michigan primary. Huckabee didn't do as well as I expected in Western Michigan...

For shame Michigan...


Congrats to Romney and his supporters for their win yesterday.


What is sad is the way Romney positioned himself and that people ate it up. The whole auto jobs not coming back to Michigan kerfuffle by McCain was dead on. Instead of lamenting the loss of high paying auto industry jobs for low skilled workers, we better as a state start to figure out how to replace those jobs. Otherwise we can wallow in our 7%+ unemployment indefinitely. Those jobs really are gone and aren't coming back. The UAW and weak-kneed auto executives have made sure of that by pricing the auto industry out of competitiveness through ridiculous salaries for relatively low skilled workers, untenable promises of pensions and health care and union rules that make auto plant jobs into entitlements.

Promising to fight to bring those jobs back is shameless pandering. Recognizing that the world has changed and so must Michigan is the honest approach, but apparently honesty is not what people want to hear.

Primary Day in Michigan!

Just got back from the polls, we were voters number 125 and 126 which is a pretty decent turnout for the northwoods of Michigan. Two more votes for Huckabee!

Why not Ron Paul?

He seems pretty smart, very honest, unafraid to say what he thinks. His supporters are more like disciples, a rabid following who would go to the wall to fight for Ron. He openly supports homeschoolers. He is strongly pro-life.

Quite frankly, while Ron Paul seems like a good guy, and someone we need in Congress, his quest to be President is quixotic.

1. He is unelectable. He barely registers in state and national polls. He is at 3.7% national among Republicans according to the latest Real Clear Politics average. He may be a swell guy but he is never going to be President. I think I would be a great President but I have about the same chance of winning the election as Representative Paul.
2. He supports doing away with the Federal Reserve. While the system has it's faults, it also keeps inflation in check and prevents us from having the enormous swings in interest rates of the past. Want to go back to 18% mortgages?
3. His foreign policy borders on isolationism. Guess what, hiding in America will not make Muslim terrorists hate us less. We didn't force them to attack the World Trade Center, and a head in the sand foreign policy will not make America more secure, but less.
4. His greatest strength is his biggest weakness. His supporters are rabid to the point of being almost cultish. They tend to be arrogant and condescending to those who have not sipped the Ron Paul Kool-Aid. Maybe they aren't all that way, but the ones I have met in person, around town and on the internet always are. They seem personally offended if you don't support Paul. I recognize that Mike Huckabee has faults, as we all do. But to hear Ron Paul supporters tell it, the man is the greatest American politician to ever live.

For all of those reasons and more, Paul is just not the guy. There are candidates who are a serious part of the debate, but Paul is not one of them and is probably a few primaries away from not getting invited to further televised debates. It was amusing and refreshing while it lasted, but it is time to let go. Paul is not the answer, unless the question is "Name the most unelectable man in the Primaries"

Huckabee on marriage



A great response to a pointed question in a Fox News debate on gender roles in marriage. The question hit at the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message's call for wives to sumbit to their husbands leadership: A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.

I doubt any other candidate could or would answer that question (or be asked it) in a humble, humorous and Christ-honoring way.

Why again do evangelical leaders not like Mike?