I was perusing the Biblical Recorder website just minding my own business when I came across the following two letters to the editors.
LETTER 1
The mumbo-jumbo theories about differing "elections" God uses for mankind's destiny has no meaning among missionary Baptists!
Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism are errors of interpretation. They're not biblical "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Otherwise, why have missionaries, evangelists and preachers?
I believe sound hermeneutics of God's word for biblical scholars is accurate and dependable exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, which disproves claims about "election" in the recent Recorder article (Jan. 5).
The scriptures teach Christ died for all! Many passages speak of man's freedom to accept or reject God's overtures for eternal salvation, starting with John 3:16. God offers salvation by freely giving us faith, that we may respond by believing Him, or not.
My personal understanding about God's "election" is this: The scriptures speak three times about "names blotted out of the Lamb's Book of Life."
1. Exodus 32:32-33: "But now, if Thou wilt, forgive their sin - and if not, please blot me out from Thy book which Thou hast written. And the Lord said to Moses, Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of my book."
2. Psalms 69:28: "May they (adversaries) be blotted out of the book of life ..."
3. Revelation 3:5: "I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father, and before His angels."
This I deny to be proof-texting, for it covers the Holy Bible in three specific sections.
Christ died for all! Everyone is "elected" into the "book of life." Only those denying Christ will have their names removed.
Ray W. Benfield
Winston-Salem, N.C.
LETTER 2
Why are Southern Baptists so adamant against Mormonism and blase about Calvinism? The recent issue of Facts and Trends promotes Max Lucado's book 3:16, and offers cantatas, music and CDs. This year's Vacation Bible School program "Cactus Junction" is built around John 3:16.
Calvinism cuts the heart of the gospel - John 3:16 - right out of the Bible! Scary heresy. I think I know why but perhaps someone could explain it to us. The "Building Bridges" conference only muddied the theological waters beneath them.
Gene S. Carnell
Ridgecrest, N.C.
For those of you who say we're overstating the attacks on Calvinism in the SBC, I offer these letters as an indication that these attacks are real and continuing. When folks use words like "heresy," "mumbo-jumbo theories," "not biblical truth," "cuts the heart of the gospel," I call that an attack. It's obvious that neither writer has a clue about the meaning of evangelistic Calvinism.
If I used these same terms to describe Arminian belief and the syncretistic merging of part Calvinism and part Arminianism of so many Southern Baptists, I would be called to account by my fellow bloggers and rightly so.
The militant anti-Calvinism that is rearing its ugly head in the SBC is mean-spirited and unchristian.
The mumbo-jumbo theories about differing "elections" God uses for mankind's destiny has no meaning among missionary Baptists!
Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism are errors of interpretation. They're not biblical "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Otherwise, why have missionaries, evangelists and preachers?
I believe sound hermeneutics of God's word for biblical scholars is accurate and dependable exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, which disproves claims about "election" in the recent Recorder article (Jan. 5).
The scriptures teach Christ died for all! Many passages speak of man's freedom to accept or reject God's overtures for eternal salvation, starting with John 3:16. God offers salvation by freely giving us faith, that we may respond by believing Him, or not.
My personal understanding about God's "election" is this: The scriptures speak three times about "names blotted out of the Lamb's Book of Life."
1. Exodus 32:32-33: "But now, if Thou wilt, forgive their sin - and if not, please blot me out from Thy book which Thou hast written. And the Lord said to Moses, Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of my book."
2. Psalms 69:28: "May they (adversaries) be blotted out of the book of life ..."
3. Revelation 3:5: "I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father, and before His angels."
This I deny to be proof-texting, for it covers the Holy Bible in three specific sections.
Christ died for all! Everyone is "elected" into the "book of life." Only those denying Christ will have their names removed.
Ray W. Benfield
Winston-Salem, N.C.
LETTER 2
Why are Southern Baptists so adamant against Mormonism and blase about Calvinism? The recent issue of Facts and Trends promotes Max Lucado's book 3:16, and offers cantatas, music and CDs. This year's Vacation Bible School program "Cactus Junction" is built around John 3:16.
Calvinism cuts the heart of the gospel - John 3:16 - right out of the Bible! Scary heresy. I think I know why but perhaps someone could explain it to us. The "Building Bridges" conference only muddied the theological waters beneath them.
Gene S. Carnell
Ridgecrest, N.C.
For those of you who say we're overstating the attacks on Calvinism in the SBC, I offer these letters as an indication that these attacks are real and continuing. When folks use words like "heresy," "mumbo-jumbo theories," "not biblical truth," "cuts the heart of the gospel," I call that an attack. It's obvious that neither writer has a clue about the meaning of evangelistic Calvinism.
If I used these same terms to describe Arminian belief and the syncretistic merging of part Calvinism and part Arminianism of so many Southern Baptists, I would be called to account by my fellow bloggers and rightly so.
The militant anti-Calvinism that is rearing its ugly head in the SBC is mean-spirited and unchristian.
Posts
9 comments:
I agree Les.
Agreed. This is sad. It's worse than Dave Hunt.
I'd add that Lucado is, if I recall, a Campbellite, though not of the kind who affirms their version of baptismal regeneration. So, it appears these people prefer Campbellitism of a sort to historic Southern Baptist theology. By the way, Lucado would qualify as a real Arminian. Does the person who likes him deny the BFM on eternal security?
Also, one wonders if any of them have read John 3:14 in light of Numbers 21. For whom was the serpent made? (a certain portion of those bitten, the repentant ones). What was it's effect? How many in Israel were bitten? (Answer, not all of them). How many of those for whom it was made actually died? (Answer, none of them). How many repented? (All of them).
One also wonders if they've ever bothered to read John 3:16 - 18. The subsequent verses to 16 are epexegetical to 17.
But we can play with "world" as "everybody without exception" to demonstrate their poor thinking:
God so loved everyone without exception/all in unbelief that He gave His one and only Son that all the ones believing might not perish but have everlasting life.
Hmmm, this text is a proof of particular, not unlimited redemption when considered by itself. If we look at the text, we see that the provision in Christ is not “for anyone who might believe” but “all the believing ones.” It is not for a hypothesis or formula that Christ died, but for the elect: identifiable as those who believe. Continuing...
For God did not send the Son (to)to the everybody without exception/all in unbelief to judge everyone without exception/all in unbelief, but that everyone without exception/all in unbelief might be saved through Him.
What's the problem? If we take "world" to mean "everyone without exception" we wind up setting 16 at odds with 17, for 16 says that He came so that "all the ones believing" (not everyone without exception) might be saved. John 3:16 does not say that God so loved the world, He invited the world, but rather that he so loved the world that he gave his Son to save the elect. His purpose in coming into the Creation (this time) was a saving purpose. Next time he comes it will in judgment. That’s the sense of the verse, not that Christ came for the purpose of saving each and every person. To suggest that such was Christ’s purpose is tantamount either to (a) affirming universalism, or (b) denying Christ’s success in his purpose.
A friend of mine has just debated this himself, in part, by simply plugging the offered the definition of "world" above where the General Redemptionists and others place it as I have done. I'll quote him:
We can see that this interpretation is obviously absurd.
Why is it absurd?
1) Because “Kosmos denotes apostate mankind, all men in unbelief and rebellion” is clearly not a literal sense of the word “kosmos” but a figurative sense, and yet it is clear that the first use in verse 17 is really literal, meaning "the created order" not figurative (people in unbelief). Thus, Christ in verse 17 is sent literally into the created order. That is to say, Christ is literally incarnate.
2) Because the proposed figurative use of “kosmos” creates a clash between verses 16 and 17, as well as with in verse 16 itself.
a) Between verses 16 and 17, the proposed figurative use of “kosmos” creates a clash because verse 16 says that the to-be-saved group is “all in belief” whereas the to-be-saved group in verse 17 is “all men in unbelief.” The two groups are, by definition, mutually exclusive.
3. Additionally, within verse 16 there is a clash, because the flow of thought is gone. God loves group A, and therefore gives his son to save group B, where group A is “all men in unbelief” and group B is “all men in belief,eg, the elect - under any model of election” two mutually exclusive groups. It breaks up the flow of the sentence and the logical progression of thought therein.
4. Finally, the use of “Kosmos denotes apostate mankind, all men in unbelief and rebellion” creates a further contextual problem, namely that verse 15, immediately preceding makes the same point as the latter half of verse 16, namely that it is “all in belief” that will be saved. So the flow of the passage would be:
Group A will be saved; Because God loves the opposite of Group A, therefore He gave his Son to save Group A; For His son was not sent into the opposite of Group A to condemn the opposite of Group A but to save the opposite of Group A.
It is not we who cut out John 3:16 from our Bibles.
It would be good Les, in response to these statements, for a man like you, and the Founders movement, to affirm brother Al Mohler's nomination for SBC president. There is no one who has made a calvinistic position more appealing to the average SBCer than Dr. Mohler or Dr. Akin, as had been demonstrated by the recent Lifeway statistics. Their clear commitment to exposition of scripture highlights the need of all to be committed to the Word of God, no matter what it says, nor no matter how it contradicts our own positions.
Steve
If you can't win your argument--then yell louder. Did you read the links on Debbie's site? Man people are grasping at anything. Personally, I think this is all predestined! :)
I think that it is really sad. As we spoke last week Les, and I told you how God led me to the doctrines of grace, I thought it was kind of crazy at first. But I looked at both sides points, weighed them against the only Truth, God's Word, and let God help me discern what I beleive today.
I just wish that the writers of these letters, and other Reformed Theology Bashers would do the same, and if they feel that God is leading them towards the other side of the fence, then that's fine. But don't beat me up because how I feel God has led me to understand His word.
The way in which I understand the scriptures today has given me more security in my salvation, has led me to better understand God's Sovereighnty, has inspired me to want to read His Word more, has helped to enjoy Him, to be satisfied in Him, and has even led our family into full time International Missions.
If all of that is bad, then maybe I should re-think Christianity. But I don't think that is going to happen.
Appreciating the work of you Les, and that of Reformed brothers within the SBC and outside it, but not sharing Reformed theology helps I think, me understand where they are coming from.
Those who have been lifelong SBC members and pastors are becoming increasingly distressed over what they (and to a certain extent I'd use "we" to include me) as a "takeover" of the SBC.
You can throw all the pictures you want on your masthead of dead guys with beards and say that's the SBC's theological heritage, but I don't go back that far, and I think like the average SBC'er, I'm more of a mongrel than a pureblood. The appeals then to "Historic" Baptist theology leave me cold as the main influences I remember being referrenced growing up SBC were names like Truett, Havner, Sunday, Moody, and Graham rather than Spurgeon, Calvin and the like.
So they/we see whole Seminaries teaching a system of theology at odds with that, and quite frankly we see those who should be giving voice to their different (and majority held) beliefs and working to help guide everyone to a working relationship with all views instead spending time quibbling over private prayer languages, alcohol, and the like. In the conservative resurgence there was unity, now, even though they see Reformed theology as a threat, unity cannot be taken as a given.
The traditional (and again by that I mean in the life of the typical SBC'er) Baptist is a frustrated soul. And as an aside, a Mohler election will only acerbate and accelerate the effects of this.
The tension theologically has always been there, in part due to the trying to straddle the fence between Arminian and Calvinist POVs. Stand in the middle of the road and you get run over.
The key for all of us, as the example you've provided for us Les, is to love each other through it all. I may disagree, and I certainly have the capacity for being disagreeable, but because I know your heart, I just cannot allow that to happen.
We have to help others find better ways to dialogue - better words to use while doing it - if we're to maximize our work for the Kingdom.
Again, I appreciate your, Tom Ascol's, and others work in this vein.
Blessings,
David Wilson
Like David, I am also a non-Cal... But I have always found that those who attack another person's, different, yet orthodox theological position are the most insecure in their own beliefs.
I'm just tired of all the bashing. And all of it seems to come from the Non-Calvinist side and for that I am sorry.
The two letters you quote do display what I consider a number of misunderstandings. "Heresy" is of course incorrectly and wrongly used in one of them.
But how are you able to determine the difference between them being passionate in these letters vs. "mean-spirited" and "unchristian" that you say they are. Doesn't sound any more productive to me than them saying "heresy".
Karen,
When a Southern Baptist compares what another Southern Baptist believes as "heresy", you don't find that to be mean-spirited?
When a Southern Baptist compares what another Southern Baptist believes to be the same as a cult, you don't find that to be something other than Christian behavior?
Perhaps we have different views of what is mean-spirited and unchristian. :)
Les
Post a Comment