"Calvinism as I see it" and the problems that it causes
I cannot help but wonder where Lonnie Wilkey has been the last several years. What has he been reading? To whom has he been listening? Where does he get the information on which he bases his opinions? The reason I wonder is due to the fact that Mr. Wilkey is the editor of the Tennessee Baptist Convention's state paper, the Baptist and Reflector. He resides in a high place of influence among Tennessee Baptists. His opinions are widely published and probably carry a lot of weight with many of his readers. So the source of his opinions and how he formulates them are important.
His latest published editorial will leave many Southern Baptists seriously concerned about his ability to understand important theological discussions that are taking place among us. It is another hit job on Calvinism. What makes it stand out so much is that it seems about 5-7 years out of date. Even the title betrays the depth of editorial misunderstanding behind the article: "Calvinists have no sense of urgency--Jesus did."
As I said, at best, Mr. Wilkey's article is way past its "best if used by" date. Such scurrilous misrepresentations were common-place twenty years ago. Then, a man of reputed authority could stand up and declare that "Southern Baptists have never been Calvinists," or "Calvinism kills evangelism" or "No great evangelist has ever been a Calvinist," or "Spurgeon was not a Calvinist" or any number of other demonstrably inaccurate statements, and basically go unchallenged. Today, that is virtually impossible. With the ready availability of information through the internet, any inquisitive high school student with a modem can debunk such claims in a matter of minutes. That is why such broad accusations have lessened over the years--at least within academia and publishing houses (granted, some pastors and others are still a little slow on the uptake, but they also are learning to be more careful in their comments if they do not want to lose all credibility with the wifi generation).
It has been a few years since I have read these kind of broad-brush untruths about the doctrines of grace in a reputable Southern Baptist publication. Mr. Wilkey is way out of step. The article does not need a serious rebuttal, largely because the silly claims that it makes have been so frequently and thoroughly refuted in various places that anyone who can find google and spell "Calvinism" and "evangelism" will instantly have more than enough information to expose the superficiality of what Wilkey has written.
In his defense, Mr. Wilkey does offer this timid caveat: "Now, keep in mind I am writing from a layman's perspective with no seminary training." He is writing from one layman's very skewed perspective. You do not need a seminary degree to avoid the kinds of mischaracterizations that Wilkey has perpetrated. You do need a willingness to look beyond your own feelings and do at least an hour's worth of research.
Again, I am not going to review the article. Others can, and I am confident will do that. But I will resist the temptation even to address some of the more egregious statements he makes. Instead, I will highlight only one of his remarks, one which may well reveal the source of all his deep misunderstanding.
He writes, "The danger with Calvinism as I see it is that it could cause Southern Baptists in the pew to think they do not need to witness, give through the Cooperative Program to missions, or pray for lost souls. That would be a tragedy." Mr. Wilkey's problem is that he is reacting to "Calvinism as I see it" rather than the real thing. He does not understand historic Calvinism, historic Southern Baptist theology--which was thoroughly Calvinistic--or the relationship of the doctrines of grace to evangelism. The Calvinism that he sees is not true Calvinism. It is a straw man. Straw men are easy to construct, easy to destroy and other than leaving the one responsible for them feeling good about his work, they serve no useful purpose.
I am sorry to see this editorial get distributed. Not because it will hinder the cause of God or His truth. But because it will discredit Mr. Wilkey and probably confuse some of his readers who do not have access to all the information that is available on the subject. I regret both of these consequences.
I wish Mr. Wilkey no ill. I do not know him. If I did, I assume I would like him. Neither do I take any delight in exposing his serious errors. But he is in a position of sacred trust as an editor of a state Baptist paper. He should know better. He has published his errors publicly. It is appropriate that they should be held up to the light of public scrutiny.
His latest published editorial will leave many Southern Baptists seriously concerned about his ability to understand important theological discussions that are taking place among us. It is another hit job on Calvinism. What makes it stand out so much is that it seems about 5-7 years out of date. Even the title betrays the depth of editorial misunderstanding behind the article: "Calvinists have no sense of urgency--Jesus did."
As I said, at best, Mr. Wilkey's article is way past its "best if used by" date. Such scurrilous misrepresentations were common-place twenty years ago. Then, a man of reputed authority could stand up and declare that "Southern Baptists have never been Calvinists," or "Calvinism kills evangelism" or "No great evangelist has ever been a Calvinist," or "Spurgeon was not a Calvinist" or any number of other demonstrably inaccurate statements, and basically go unchallenged. Today, that is virtually impossible. With the ready availability of information through the internet, any inquisitive high school student with a modem can debunk such claims in a matter of minutes. That is why such broad accusations have lessened over the years--at least within academia and publishing houses (granted, some pastors and others are still a little slow on the uptake, but they also are learning to be more careful in their comments if they do not want to lose all credibility with the wifi generation).
It has been a few years since I have read these kind of broad-brush untruths about the doctrines of grace in a reputable Southern Baptist publication. Mr. Wilkey is way out of step. The article does not need a serious rebuttal, largely because the silly claims that it makes have been so frequently and thoroughly refuted in various places that anyone who can find google and spell "Calvinism" and "evangelism" will instantly have more than enough information to expose the superficiality of what Wilkey has written.
In his defense, Mr. Wilkey does offer this timid caveat: "Now, keep in mind I am writing from a layman's perspective with no seminary training." He is writing from one layman's very skewed perspective. You do not need a seminary degree to avoid the kinds of mischaracterizations that Wilkey has perpetrated. You do need a willingness to look beyond your own feelings and do at least an hour's worth of research.
Again, I am not going to review the article. Others can, and I am confident will do that. But I will resist the temptation even to address some of the more egregious statements he makes. Instead, I will highlight only one of his remarks, one which may well reveal the source of all his deep misunderstanding.
He writes, "The danger with Calvinism as I see it is that it could cause Southern Baptists in the pew to think they do not need to witness, give through the Cooperative Program to missions, or pray for lost souls. That would be a tragedy." Mr. Wilkey's problem is that he is reacting to "Calvinism as I see it" rather than the real thing. He does not understand historic Calvinism, historic Southern Baptist theology--which was thoroughly Calvinistic--or the relationship of the doctrines of grace to evangelism. The Calvinism that he sees is not true Calvinism. It is a straw man. Straw men are easy to construct, easy to destroy and other than leaving the one responsible for them feeling good about his work, they serve no useful purpose.
I am sorry to see this editorial get distributed. Not because it will hinder the cause of God or His truth. But because it will discredit Mr. Wilkey and probably confuse some of his readers who do not have access to all the information that is available on the subject. I regret both of these consequences.
I wish Mr. Wilkey no ill. I do not know him. If I did, I assume I would like him. Neither do I take any delight in exposing his serious errors. But he is in a position of sacred trust as an editor of a state Baptist paper. He should know better. He has published his errors publicly. It is appropriate that they should be held up to the light of public scrutiny.

145 Comments:
Dear Tom, many laymen in my church have a problem with the word "Calvinism". They have read so many articles of the type published in the Tennessee Baptist paper that they actually believe this caricature of Calvinism is accurate. As one deacon told me not long ago (when I mentioned my Reformed theology), "reformed theology is fine...but we can't have that Calvinism here."
Thank you for this gracious, yet pointed exposing of this man's error.
A man in his position should know better. I get very weary of hearing these same things by people who should know better.
May the Lord give us the patience to continue to write and speak corrections to these kinds of untruths.
[sigh] Yeah, I typically refrain from using direct terminology (such as "Calvinism" or "Predestination") because the well has been so readily poisoned by ill-informed and divisive sentiments like this.
I heartily concur with your posting Mr. Ascol, and the above comment by Mr. Turner...
May we seek to strengthen and uplift one another - even in these sorts of theological disagreements, which can so quickly inflame prideful emotions.
Tom....
This is only the beginning. Calvinism- the amorphous unreal kind- is going to be blamed for everything wrong in the SBC. Correctives and responses are fine, but this is just the beginning of what will be a full blown attempt to let the vast numbers in the middle know that Calvinism is the reason for every decline in SBC life. Sad, and untrue, but it will be the theme of many more editorials.
I am not a big fan of using the word "Calvinism" either because it has been so confused by so many in our day. Whether we like it or not, that is the tag that is being thrown around by those who misrepresent our views.
Michael:
You may well be right. My hope is that as more and more people realize that they can check out what they are hearing about this boogey man of Calvinism, that they will be made aware that the caricatures are just that. Whether that happens or not, God's truth will triumph still.
I would comment but I just don't have any urgency to do so.
[sigh] Yeah, I typically refrain from using direct terminology (such as "Calvinism" or "Predestination") because the well has been so readily poisoned by ill-informed and divisive sentiments like this.
...
I am not a big fan of using the word "Calvinism" either because it has been so confused by so many in our day. Whether we like it or not, that is the tag that is being thrown around by those who misrepresent our views.
And the sad thing is, my friends, that Calvinism's detractors will on the one hand berate you for using these words and on the other deride you for not using these words so they know where you stand. Either you're a fanatic or dishonest. Take your pic.
I'll give my brethren at SBF time to respond to this. We're having a chat about 1 Cor. 11 on my other blog @ present.
Sigh. Perhaps somebody should send him the link to Monergism.com and ask him to read carefully. If so, make yourself available to this brother to answer his questions.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I appreciate you bringing this to our attention as it reaffirms the reason for our blog, The Reformed Evangelist, and the many others similar to it. The fact of the matter is that Calvinists make good evangelists and since we've started blogging we've found a lot more living proof other than ourselves.
Jeff Fuller
The Reformed Evangelist Blog
www.reformedevangelist.com
perhaps someone should get wilkey's address and mail him copies of "let the nations be glad" by piper and will metzger's "tell the truth", two staples of evangelism literature written by, of all people, calvinists. that stress the urgency and high priority, and *obligation* of all christians to evangelize
tom,
i think the wrong thing to do is to ignore it. i think a letter to the editor would be more appropriate. i think you misjudge the avg. reader of the b&r. what they read in that paper will become the final word on the matter.
i will start working on a letter to the editor, as well as trying to find out how to contact mr. wilkey directly to point out the gross mischaracterization that was published.
of course, this should be done with humility and in order to lovingly instruct, not to belittle those who are uninformed. but i think the approach of "ignore it and the true side will emerge" will never work, because we are always being silent.
in the spirit of love, we should correct wrong teaching, whether it is done out of malice or ignorance.
-stephen
As a Tennessee Baptist and 4-pointer, this article is embarrassing to me from my own state paper. We should insist on editors being better than this.
Dr. Tom:
Once again, your candor and gentle spirit comes through as you seek to correct those in error.
Thank you again for demonstrating a Christ-like attitude.
SDG,
DBH
Tom, In the Sept. issue of SBC Life, Frank Page pointed out that: "Most of our churches are plateaued or declining." Couple that with the results of LifeWay's recent survey on reformed Southern Baptists and one must conclude that no one can blame the waning evangelistic spirit that is prevalent in our convention today on the doctrines of grace or those who uphold them.
Perhaps, in time, as more serious thinkers investigate the claims of Scripture, the knee-jerk reactions of the ill-informed will diminish. We can hope so, right?
"The danger with Calvinism as I see it is that it could cause Southern Baptists in the pew to... give through the Cooperative Program to missions,"
Forget everything else in the article. This is really the bottom line for the elitist leaders in our convention...$$$$$$$$$
Is it any surprise when they embrace the televangelist world with folks like Pat Robert$on. That alone is enough to cause me not to support heresy through the Cooperative Program. The more contact I have had with the good ole boy system in the State and National Conventions, the more convinced I become that the Missionary Baptists have it right with the way they fund missions.
I have been ministering for Jesus Christ as a Southern Baptist for more than half a century, and can
not name one editor of any of our state Baptist newspapers who was the least bit sympathetic toward
those of us who believe and preach
the scriptural doctrine of salvation (commonly called Calvinism and often confused with its unbiblical perversion commonly called hypercalvinism.
All have manifested ignorance and most have been deeply hostile to the truth that salvation is of the Lord, from start to finish.
HOW SAD! These were the last words I spoke to my editor friend
E.S. James of the Baptist Standard of Texas - and I have repeated these same two words to many since
that day long, long ago.
HOW SAD!
Sure, we'd all prefer other terms to being labeled as "Calvinists," but it just shifts the label.
That church is Reformed.
What does that mean?
They're Calvinists.
Oh ... evildoers!
What I tend to find enjoyable is when the non/anti-Calvinist says something to distinguish various stripes of Calvinism with comments like "He's my kind of Calvinism" or "That Calvinism is too extreme."
What a concession ... willing to have a pet Calvinist friend, who is probably just an Arminian who claims to be one yet denies particular redemption (openly) and the rest unknowingly.
Consider this more positive future possibility:
1. Lifeway surveys our missionaries and finds a higher concentration of them holding to the doctrines of grace (than of pastors), especially among younger missionaries.
2. Our Reformed SBC churches finish weeding out all the dead names from our roles and begin growing again, this time with accurate numbers.
3. More Reformed SBC churches begin missions training schools similar to our Baptist (but not SBC) brothers at Bethlehem in Minneapolis.
I spoke with the missions pastor there, Erik Hyatt, and he told me they have had over 100 people enrolled in the school per year and have been placing 5 family units per year into full time missions among UNCHURCHED people groups. That number continues to grow. All that from a church of 3,000 people. My old SBC church of 3,000 people couldn't find 30 people to run an Upward Basketball program.
4. The lies become exposed as the Reformed churches stay strong among greater cultural hostility while the arminian churches shrink and fade into European style liberalism while trying to stay culturally "relevant".
5. The true believers among these churches wake up and realize the reason behind all their frustration with the politics, showmanship and manipulation, and come out from among them before their demise.
I hope I have that dream tonight. Good night!
Tom, In the Sept. issue of SBC Life, Frank Page pointed out that: "Most of our churches are plateaued or declining." Couple that with the results of LifeWay's recent survey on reformed Southern Baptists and one must conclude that no one can blame the waning evangelistic spirit that is prevalent in our convention today on the doctrines of grace or those who uphold them.
and
Our Reformed SBC churches finish weeding out all the dead names from our roles and begin growing again, this time with accurate numbers.
The scary thing is that, given the way statistics have been cited in the past in this area, that they will find a way to blame shrinking church rolls on Calvinists, saying they are running people out of the church or killing churches, etc. Take for example, one church that I know of that is about to turn in an ACP that reports a loss of 1000 members, simply because they purged the roll. As this happens, the Convention's numbers go down. The more churches that get on board, the more this happens. Strikingly, my experience is that this happens in churches where Calvinists and Amyraldians are pastoring. It makes it look like the churches where Calvinists are located are "shrinking," but the irony is that they aren't shrinking because of "Calvinism," but because they have chosen to get on board with honest statistical reporting and church discipline. Mark my words, if the ACP numbers in "Calvinist pastored churches" decrease enough, somebody, somewhere will bring this issue up.
Dr. Ascol,
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Also, I especially liked your "Again, I am not going to review this article" line and then state the article as "a hit job", "editoral misunderstanding", "scurrilous misrepresentations","broad-brush untruths", "silly claims", "superficiality","very skewed perspective","mischaracterizations", "egregious statements", "deep misunderstanding.","straw man" and "serious errors".
I really wish you had reviewed it so we could know your real opinion of it :)
BTW, at least Wilkey linked to a succinct, yet worthy explanation of TULIP, do you not agree?
Have a grace filled day. With that, I am...
Peter
Gene,
Yes, Calvinists can't be blamed for a declining denomination. As I have said before who makes up the majority of the pulpits in the SBC( Answer= NonCalvinists). Also, who was in the pulpits when the Liberals came a " Blasting through" or the rise of the Charismatic movement through Southern Baptist life( Answer= NonCalvinists).Also, who has been in our pulpits in the SBC the last 95 yrs which have shown how " Weak" our Senior Adult members are across our churches which if you will follow closely you will find majority of the problems with this age group that has run off many Pastors from churches that are smaller to medium size. It's amazing how many Pastors have told me about how many problems they have had with this age group when they Pastored. They generally don't understand many things dealing with the church. Why is this so? They have had many years on this earth but what are they being taught and why do they strive for power in our churches? Again, what Pastors were in the pulpits the last 95yrs? Why are are graduating High School seniors not returning to our churches( What theology mainly stands in our pulpits today) ?
Peter,
I followed several of your posts on this blog and other places where " Let's say one who does not represent Spurgeon or Baptist Confessions" correctly.
I want to ask you if you would let me buy you a book and pay for the postage? The title of the book is Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association by A. D. Gillette.
You will notice some very interesting things about " Early" Baptist life with the following:
1. What was the confessional beliefs of our early Baptist .
2. What did the ministers preach on and send as a circular letter to the churches of the association.
3. What theology books did the Laymen reccomend that all their Pastors should have in their library. ( Hint= Dr. John Gill).Page 228, 282,and 439
4. You will notice how this Association affected the Charleston Association.
5. You will notice their compassion that churches not move away from the Confession and the harm it would cause if they did.
Let me know if you will let me buy you a copy. If not then I will be happy to buy two more copies of this book and mail them to anybody if they will read it and share with our brothers and sisters of the SBC. The first two people to email me at scottmorgan33@yahoo.com will get their copies for free and the postage.
Gene, the truth is that the more I preach the truth of God's sovereign authority, majesty, holiness, righteousness, and grace, and our call to humble obedience, reverence, and accountability to God's Word, the more people just sort of stay away.
Yes, we've experienced negative numerical growth this year, so someone may criticize me for producing such results; but I foresee positive spiritual growth coming which results in the addition of those who are being saved. The people who are coming in have said they've never heard anyone present the Word of God the way I do.
I'm pleased that some people want to hear the uncompromised gospel; but I grieve for my brothers in the pulpit.
James Smith of the Florida Baptist Witness is a graduate of Southern Seminary and a (former?) member of Riverbend Community Church which is among the largest 5 point calvinist churches in the SBC.
He has written friendly editorials such as "Salvation is of the Lord" and others. However, he walks lightly and I know that he has disappointed some of us in other areas.
Chris
We have two winners for the free books entitled Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist association by A. D. Gillette. These men were the first two respond to my offer:
1. Pastor Gary Fore
2. Pastor Chris Redman
Your books are on their way !
However, I'm willing to give a copy to Dr. Emir Caner, Dr. Ergun Caner as well only if they promise to read some of the material. If one of the brothers will email me and say that they would like a "Hardback copy" I will mail it to them and postage for free. My email is scottmorgan33@yahoo.com .
Attention Liberty, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary,Southern and Southeastern Students and Professors:
The first two from each school to email me at scottmorgan33@yahoo.com will get a free hardback copy of the Minutes Of The Philadelphia Baptist Assciation by A. D. Gillette. This book will prove to any " Honest" one seeking the truth about the theology of early Baptist. This book is not the opinion of men but the actual facts about Baptists. Don't be lied to anymore about our past! I will pay the postage but again the first two from each school that emails me at scottmorgan33@yahoo.com will get a copy right away. I will post the winners on this blog but you have to email me at my address.
Also,since my Auburn Tigers will be playing Steve Spurrier and the South Carolina Gamecocks on ESPN tonight at 7:30pmET I'm in a nice mood to our South Carolina friends. My offer to all South Carolina folks is that since you will be suffering from a loss to Auburn I will give one free hard back copy as well to a South Carolina fan or resident. This offer is not valid to any Clemson fans since the SEC does not recognize ACC football( Sorry).
Scott:
I love the way you are giving away copies of the Philadelphia Association Minutes! Your ads almost remind me of "Crazy Ray's Furniture Barn" commercials where once-in-a-lifetime offers are made each week, at prices so low, he's practically giving them away (which is why they call him crazy, ya know!).
In all seriousness, these are incredibly generous offers and I am hopeful that you will get enough takers to keep you running back and forth to the post office for weeks!
Placing good books in the hands of those who commit to read them is a great way to strengthen the work of reformation.
Tom,
Thank you for your kind words! I will keep everyone posted on who are the winners from the following schools: Southwestern,Southern,and Southeastern . Personally I'm worried that Dr. Nettles students may be jumping on my offer since he puts great books in their hands.Hope he is not offend that I was not offering By His Grace and For His Glory.I gave one away last night to one of our new church members. His name is Chad Denson and we meet once a week to discuss Dr. Gill's Body of Divinity, Wayne G Systematic, and one Spurgeon sermon a week that we pick that deals with the present topic. We are studying Church Government. Chad is a 22 yr old student at Emory University in Atlanta and his claim to fame is that not only is he the only conservative on campus( As far as we know) but the only Calvinistic baptist as well.
Crazy Scott just is so tired of " Some" men in how they are misleading our SBC in our historic theology. We have written documents that prove we are strongly" Calvinistic" from our foundation so crazy Scott will do the " Whosoever Deals" on a regular basis now so are SBC people will see the truth behind the " Lies"! War Eagle!
ANY ADVICE ON WHAT I SHOULD OFFER NEXT WEEK AS FAR AS BOOKS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE SBC?
Tom,
I have a man( Who's name I will not share) has told me yesterday that I can continue giving away books that only prove that the current SBC leadership has been misleading the people of the SBC on historical theology of the Baptists. He has told me to go to great lengths do get these books out to Liberty, Southwestern, Southeastern, and Southern students and professors. I have bought some personally however, this man can keep them coming for sometime( As God has ordined). The books have to be used to show how the current SBC leadership has mislead the people of the SBC at Conventions, Bailey Smith Conferences and etc... about our Historical theology. I will probably give away next week : Dr. John Gill's Body of Divinity, Baptist Confessions of Faith by Lumpkin,and The Reign Of Grace by Abraham Booth.This is just a start. So, this gentleman will only buy books that prove that " Some" current SBC leaders have been misleading the people of the SBC on Historical theology and I will buy the others. I will throw in some deals for Texas AM fans such as yourself and others!
Scotty M! What about Southern Baptists and The Doctrine of Election by Selph? That one is probably going to be about as inexpensive as they get. Lot's of good quotes.
By the way, who was it that knocked Auburn football out of the top 5 last year? That's right! It was the Wisconsin Badgers. Go Cheeseheads. Bet you southerners don't even know what a badger is. :)
So I wonder what would happen if some men who were calvinists and baptists decided to form a convention. What would they call it? And how would the theology of these founders be taken hundreds of years after their death? Would these men and their positions be honored, upheld and never misrepresented? I think even the recent Joshua Convergence stated something about honoring those who've fought for the baptist faith.
Oh nevermind, those are just crazy thoughts that would never happen. =)
Scott, I think we should get together and take Peter to lunch. Maybe we could even get Marty Duren to come along. Although I am just a simple layman maybe we could have the Atlanta Judas Convergence. Okay, so maybe the name needs some work.
With that I am...about to listen to the Dividing Line.
Mark
Hey Bill:
A badger? Isn't that what you call your wife's commments when she really wants you to clean the garage and won't be quiet about it? My wife has said atleast 5 badgers to me this week about the garbage! LOL
On the otherside, a cute cuddly looking animal that will rip your guts out in .5 seconds if you get to close to it.
Greg as South Carolinian exiled in Richmond VA
The article does not need a serious rebuttal, largely because the silly claims that it makes have been so frequently and thoroughly refuted in various places that anyone who can find google and spell "Calvinism" and "evangelism" will instantly have more than enough information to expose the superficiality of what Wilkey has written.
mr. ascol,
being a fourth generation sbc minister in tennessee, i would have to say that the vast majority of people i know and have known in sbc churches where i have attended, been a member,and been on staff, simply read what is in the B&R and take it at face value.
i honestly do not think that most readers would go to the trouble to look up any information at all. if the editor of the B&R says it, then it must be true.
i have been very troubled about this editorial since i first read it earlier in the week. i have gone back and forth over what i, as an individual, can do to help educate those around me.
i have very close friends, and many family members, who are antagonistic to calvinism because their only knowledge of it comes from the vitriol from the pulpit and the pejorative comments and remarks in publications like B&R.
i am concerned that if we all sit back and assume that people will find the truth by their own research, that we will find ourselves in an even deeper whole that we ourselves have helped make deeper by not speaking up and educating.
i in no way endorse the militant, love-less approach that lacks humility and reeks of pride that so many have tried in trying to "convert" people to calvinism. but we do need to act, and act with confidence in the truth of god's word, and the record of true historical data. i am optimistic enough to believe that, given time, people will evaluate and weigh the facts if they have them. but i do not think it is wise or helpful to hope that they go and get those things on their own.
i would be interested in your thoughts, dr. ascol. perhaps i have assumed too much regarding your comments. if that is the case, my apologies.
thank you for your time and commitment at your church, and with this ministry.
-stephen lee cavness
Your posting on this was both needed and well-handled.
I'm a 5-pointer myself, just to describe it as quickly as I can, and I have never, ever known what the article says to have been the case. In fact, the overwhelming majority of folks who have ever asked me "If you died tonight....", were Presbyterians.
Two thoughts: Calvinists witness (to use an overgeneralization) because God says to and if we don't we sin. Baptists witness because we should be burdened for souls, if we don't tell them, they'll die lost, etc.
So .. how's that working?
I just read a book about Jesse Mercer. I graduated from William Carey University. I am not a Calvinist myself but don't see why so many people are upset. We need to talk without all the straw men and red herrings.
I realize Scott's FREE BOOK OFFER was limited, and not universal. It was not intended for all, but you wanted the offer to be for all. Only a few recipients will be the chosen, select, elect, elite [preordained before the foundation of the world] to receive the [predecreed] papyrus of which you speak. But here's THE GOOD NEWS for all to hear: ONLY SOME WILL GET THE BOOK by Scott's Sovereign choice. Most of you won't get the book. Just think: there was a limited amount of ink. Not one drop of ink was in vain. But you won't care you didn't get the book since you never wanted it anyway. Some of you thought you had the book, but you really didn't. This was all part of Scott's plan. Wow, Scott, you're awesome! How unsearchable and unfathomable is your manifold wisdom! I don't know why you mailed me the book. You just did. I didn't even ask for it. I didn't even want the book 'til you wanted me to have it. I was just minding my own business and one day I just had the book. Praise Scott. I'm sad that everybody didn't get the book, but Scott isn't. Don't boycott Scott - he's blameless. You all hated Scott and deserved not to get it. I get the book and you don't. See how humble I am?
Bookborn, I understand where you are at right now. I don't feel the slightest bit angry with you but are saddened for you instead. I was like you for a long time. I thought the doctrines of grace made God look heartless. But, after a 20 year battle with what I could never explain away in scripture and couldn't simply ignore, God gave me peace.
I believe with all my heart that, if it was the best thing God could do, He would save all men. I also don't believe anyone would be saved if God didn't cut out our heart of stone and give us a new one. Yes, without our permission, but I'm thankful He did. Otherwise nobody would come.
I don't know why it's isn't best that He give all men a new heart. I just trust He's doing what is best for all eternity.
Look deeper my friend. You think you're attacking a fictitious God, but you're not. You've got your middle finger stuck straight up in the face of the Holy One. I pray you'll bow and repent.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
If you guys don't mind me joining in, it seems like Cavinists always say that non-Calvinist do not understand Calvinism. Usually this is used as a technique to win a debate on the topic.
Is it possible for a non-Calvinist to understand Calvinism?
Anyone?
Bill, Glad you’re not angry, as charity is not easily provoked (I Cor. 13:5; Psalms 119:165). To borrow a phrase from the Lord, “Weep not for me, but for yourselves, and for your children.” Why speak with such high and lofty euphemisms as ‘the doctrines of grace’? You mean Augustinian Calvinism? You mean to say you believe every word that proceedeth from Calvin’s two lips (TULIP’s)? You mean baby-baptizing, baby-in-outskirts-of-hell-burning, God’s-through-with-the-Jew, sizzlin’-Servetus, infants-can-be-born-again (RC Sproul, Reformation Study Bible, page 1664), God-takes-pleasure-in-the-death-of-the-wicked (Ezek.18:32), Calvinism-IS-the-Gospel (Spurgeon, Apologetics Group, etc.), God-is-in-control-of-my-sin, God-hates-most-people, Satan-is-God’s-puppet, all-sins-are-predecreed-in-eternity REFORMED faith? (Would DEformed be a better term?) There are Reformed alcoholics - and then there are Reformed Catholics. Is that what you are? How do you REFORM a CULT? You don’t. You ‘come out of her my people.’Any endeavor to reform a cult is a fundamentally flawed undertaking. You can’t mend a sinking ship with a gaping hole in the hull; you must abandon ship. Imagine REFORMING the Catholic Church! (Hence the Roman Catholic leftovers in Reformed circles…) After twenty years of hammering this ‘gospel’ out, you finally understand it? I’ve been studying it for almost 20 years now, but if I’ll ‘look deeper,’ the Gospel of Calvinism will be made manifest? This must be the faith of a little child to which Jesus referred, eh? You see, God must have preordained before the foundation of the world that I would NOT believe Calvinism. Why would you pray that I repent? Are you acting independent of the Sovereign’s will? Are you more merciful than God? Peradventure God predecreed that I NOT believe Calvinism and that He would not grant unto me the aforesaid repentance so He can hold this against me on Judgment Day (to the praise of His glorious justice)? Interesting choice of words re: the middle finger in the face of the Holy One. Profound & potent poetic prose. You have a real gift in waxing eloquent. You should seek literary pursuits. Perhaps you could pen some musical lyrics for… say… a Christian heavy metal band or something... But if indeed I did have a middle finger in the Holy One’s face, it would be the result of His eternal decree (ALL things that come to pass are decreed in eternity past, right? Go to the confessional & confess your confusion with the Confession). “God has also predestined the fall into sin… And it ought not to seem absurd for me to say that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his descendents, but also meted it out in accordance with his own decision… God willed, not only permitted, Adam’s fall and the rejection of the reprobate, but with justice.” And “God so uses the works of the ungodly, and so BENDS THEIR MINDS TO CARRY OUT HIS JUDGMENTS” And “Men can accomplish nothing except by God’s secret command.” (Institutes Chapter 18 and 23). I found these in my one of 3 different translations of Calvin’s Institutes. Besides being a great cure for insomnia, they reveal that Calvin was actually simply a HyperCalvinist. Don’t ride the fence, Bill. Love Calvin with all your heart, soul, and body. I typed this by God’s secret command. “Look, Ma! No free will.” Rapists, sodomites, pedophiles are all following God’s secret command. Forget Hypercalvinism, HyperTextMarkupLanguage is all God’s secret command. Every porn site (over 60% of cyberspace) is God’s secret command. Wonder how God will secretly command you to respond? (Nutshell definition of Calvinism (a.k.a. ‘doctrines of grace’): EVERYTHING IS GOD’S WILL.
A slave to God’s secret command,
Bookborn.
What a vitriolic strawman of a post!
Deuteronomy 29:29
29The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
Psalm 25
12Who is the man who fears the LORD?
He will instruct him in the way he should choose.
13His soul will abide in prosperity,
And his descendants will inherit the land.
14The secret of the LORD is for those who fear Him,
And He will make them know His covenant.
Romans 8:28
28And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
-JD
I posted a layman to layman response to this article on my blog (such as it is.) Personally, I have discovered that if anyone takes the time to take the meat of some of these things up rather than just nursing at the pulpit the light comes on.
Much Grace
Josh
Mr. Arminius spelled backwards....
Yes, non-Calvinists can understand Calvinism. However, as you can see from the anonymous "bookborn" post, there is often much ignorance and emotionalism to overcome.
I know several folks who disagee with Calvinism, and we have very good discussion because they base their disagreements from the writings of the Reformers and from Scripture.
Whenever I meet someone who wishes to discuss (not debate) Calvinism, I try to frame it around either a discussion of a passage of scripture that deals with depravity, election, predestination, or something like that. Or I might copy a paragraph from Spurgeon, Boettner, or Luther on an interpretation of a particular verse, and proceed from there.
If the confrontation comes from someone who is hostile (I've experienced much worse than bookborn) then I usually ask which of the Reformers they have read. Often times, it is none of them. Then I simply point out the need to properly understand what Calvinism actually teaches by examining the primary sources.
I have had several people return after reading a book or article I recommend. To this day, I have never "converted" someone to Calvinism, but I have been edified many, many times by brothers in Christ who no longer view my soteriological beliefs with hostility.
-John
scripturesearcher -- I was the editor of the Indiana Baptist for 5-plus years and I subscribe whole-heartedly to the Doctrines of Grace. Of course, I resigned from that position in mid-2003 and, like you, can't name a single current editor who is sympathetic toward Calvinists. But once upon a time, for a while, there was one.
Here is a copy of the letter I sent to Lonnie. I am a Tennessee Baptist and was disappointed by his editorial.
Lonnie Wilkey,
I have read your editorial concerning Calvinists, their lack of missions involvement and their possible impact upon the Southern Baptist Convention. I do believe the summary (given in the front page story) of the five points of Calvinism, also known as the Doctrines of Grace, was fair to the historical perspective. I would agree with the 5 points; however, I am not a follower of a man’s theology but of the Word of God. I confess my ignorance to the Scriptures and the entirety of God’s plan. For that reason, I stop short of declaring those who do not share my belief in particular redemption and irresistible grace as wrong. I believe good men abound on both sides of the issue. Yet, I would say that an individual is wrong if they believe man is not totally depraved. The Scriptures declare, “All men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” I would strongly disagree with those who believe in conditional election. The Scriptures are clear as to God electing, in fact there is a group called the Jews who were elected by God. “You did not choose me but I have chosen you,” said God. Also, the Scriptures are clear that God is the author of salvation and that man is not saved by his own merit. As to perseverance of the saints, all good Southern Baptists believe once a person receives Jesus into their hearts He will never leave nor forsake them, this ties back into unconditional election. We as fallen people are never good enough to earn God’s salvation; therefore, we are never bad enough to loose His salvation. Salvation is a free gift from God. So I do believe the latter three doctrines I have written on are tenants of the faith. Although I love and fellowship with the many brethren who do not share that belief and I would never, I repeat never, question one’s zeal for evangelism based on their beliefs on the Doctrines of Grace.
In the closing of your article you said we should assume Calvinists are wrong. Why? I gathered you said this because from your perspective Calvinists do not witness and those who do share their faith without a sense of urgency. 85% of Southern Baptists do not accept all five of the Doctrines of Grace; yet, baptisms have declined in the past few years and even when the President and Convention have focused on evangelism the past two years with the “Everyone Can…I’m It” evangelistic thrust. Does this mean that 85% of Southern Baptists do not desire to share their faith? Should we assume it is the vast majority (85%) who have it wrong? After all 10% of Southern Baptists believe in all five points of the Doctrines of Grace, that percentage could not lead to a steady decline even if they never witnessed.
You wrote a blanket statement and for that you should apologize. If one believes in the five Doctrines of Grace they cannot be evangelistic.
“To be fair to Calvinists there are some who say that there is a need to witness and share the gospel. But they do not seem to have that sense of urgency that Jesus had.”
That statement deserves a public apology. You said you had no formal training. So I guess you were speaking from ignorance; yet, ignorance does not allow character assassination or misrepresenting history. Who led the 1st Great Awakening? Historians credit Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield as the leaders of the movement. Both affirm the Doctrines of Grace. The modern Baptist missions movement was birthed through the actions of Adeniram Judson and William Carey both five point Calvinists. The pastor of the first modern mega church and the “Prince of Preachers” Charles H. Spurgeon called himself a Calvinist and throughout his ministry affirmed all five points. W. A. Criswell and Stephen Olford considered themselves five point Calvinists. According to you they may have believed in the need to witness but did so without urgency. Perhaps one of the greatest mission books Let the Nations be Glad was written by John Piper, the most visible five point Calvinist today. Yet, according to you he hasn’t a passion or ‘urgency’ to see the lost come to Christ. Al Mohler, the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is a five point Calvinist. His constant television appearances, radio show and conference schedule all in which he shares the gospel to a national audience, his constant sermons to the seminarians of Southern exhorting them to witness and be prepared to give their lives for the gospel; urging students to go to the mission field and to the places where they must be smuggled in and out apparently display his lack of urgency for evangelism?
I’m very disappointed by the blanket statement you have made. You did not say some or even a majority but all of those who would affirm the Doctrines of Grace are either not witnessing or do so without urgency. I’m surprised an editor would make such a blanket statement. I hope you would do the right thing and tell Tennessee Baptists you made a blanket statement and you were wrong. I encourage you to study and learn Church history and theology before you throw your hat into the discussion on such an historical orthodox view like the Doctrines of Grace. Ignorance is not bliss. George A. Jackson
Mr. Wooten,
I guess Arminius backwards is a bit obvious. I couldn't log in as AV for some reason, so I picked that name quickly. I thought it may work, since I am kind of a backward Arminian. I believe Christ died for all mens sins, as he sent the apostles to every creature in all the world to preach his gospel. I believe also though that while all men can be saved, God insures that some men will be saved (remnant). Also that men can "lose" their salvation. This seems to be the only way to believe what the bible says and not contort it and do acrobatics while trying to explain contrary verses as is done in both camps.
That being said, it seems like many people claim that non-Calvinists do not understand the deep intricacies of Calvinism. And basically if they understood it they would believe it. A good example is your dismissal of Bookborns post. If you omit the emotive idioms from his post he seems to be applying the logical ramifications of reformers statements. He even quoted Calvin, and RC Sproul. How does he exhibit ignorance of Calvinism?
Thanks.
Greetings. I tried to use specificity regarding some unscriptural doctrines espoused by Calvinists (realizing the differing degrees of ‘Doctrines of Grace,’ I concede the net was thrown rather wide). JD and others, instead of EXCLUSIVE use of ad hominem species of argumentation, why not direct our attention to which of these doctrines are indeed ‘straw men.’ (You imply all). No wonder Calvinism is so mysterious; it’s adherents rarely place all their cards face up. Vitriolic? I’ll grant you that. Emotive? Indeed. [E.g. Making Satan to be God is blood-boiling blasphemy (Does Satan act independent of God’s will?)] Now, what have you really said? Deut. 29:29? A personal favorite verse & thanks for the reminder (Heb. 2:1; Philp.3:1; 2 Pt.1:12,13,15;3:1; Jude5) but what are you actually saying? Every assertion was a straw man and if I was privy to the ‘secret’ or had the fear of the Lord (Ps.25), I could get it right? Arminius backwards raised an important question. The rather abrupt implication is repeatedly this: NonCalvinists just simply don’t understand Calvinism. Only the ‘initiate’ can truly understand. This is esoteric at best – egotistical at worst. “I” can see and you just haven’t studied enough (Reformers, etc...) (Stop nursing at the pulpit and the light will come on?) The “NonCalvinists are ignorant and unlearned” (Acts 4:13), or the ‘my library can beat up your library’ approach is amusing. If you could only just read more Reformers, you could understand? (What saith the scriptures? Gal.4:30; Romans 4:3)). Escalate through the scholarly Echelon for Education/Enlightenment. My feeble library contains more pro-reformed books than most Calvinists I’ve met. To name a few: The Reformation Study Bible, The Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible, The MacArthur Study Bible, All of Arthur W. Pinks works, Luther,s Bondage of the Will, Complete works of RC Sproul and most of his MP3 audios, Most of James White’s MP3 audios and many of his books, 3 different versions of Calvin’s Institutes, most of Jonathan Edwards and much Spurgeon, Amazing Grace documentary by Apologetics Group, etc. Not to imply that I’ve read all of it, but a substantial amount over the years. Are you blind to the highmindedness amongst many in Reformed groups and the constant inSINuation that NonCalvinists aren’t well-read & are Bible blockheads? It reminds me of when you can give somebody several verses to support a doctrinal position, and they’ll with one fell swoop negate it all with “You quoted them all out of context.” Of course one must quote the entire chapter to be ‘in context’ technically. Same with the ‘strawman’ rebut. What did I say you believe that you don’t? You’re not helping NonCalvinists to understand when you don’t sit still long enough to discern your doctrine! I gave you some specific quotes from Calvin. Agreest thou? What about Sproul’s comment in the Reformation Study Bible page 1664 “Regeneration precedes faith. Infants can be born again, although the faith that they exercise cannot be as visible as that of adults. For many Christians, the moment that they were born again is clearly known; but for others, it may not be, especially if they received new life in childhood.” Believest thou this? How can you tell if an infant is born again and exercises faith? Patient perseverance through polluted Pampers? Is he teething or is he just unregenerate? Can man accomplish nothing but by God’s ‘secret command’? And wouldn’t that include murder, rape, etc.? Is there anything that Satan (or you, or me) does that is not pre-decreed by God? Be specific and don’t just holler ‘Misrepresentation!’
Here is a copy of the letter I sent to Lonnie. I am a Tennessee Baptist and was disappointed by his editorial
jackson magazine,
where did you send your response to lonnie wilkey? i would like to send him one as well.
thanks,
-stephen
Suinimra:
A good example is your dismissal of Bookborns post. If you omit the emotive idioms from his post he seems to be applying the logical ramifications of reformers statements. He even quoted Calvin, and RC Sproul. How does he exhibit ignorance of Calvinism?
Excellent question.
In the case of Calvin, the first quote bookborn provides is the title of the 18th chapter of the first book. The second quote is a sentence found in the middle of the first section of Chapter 1 of Book 1.
Book 1 deals with the theology of God as Creator, and chapter 1 deals explicitly with the problem of evil. Election and Predestination are not brought up until Chapter 21 of Book 3. So to make someone think those quotes are applicable to Calvin's soteriology is misleading.
If bookborn has read so many pro-Reformed books, yet he cannot differentiate Reformed theodicy from Reformed soteriology, then someting is wrong.
Similarly, Sproul has written extensively about Calvinism. Yet the quotation is dealing with his beliefs regarding paedobaptism, not soteriology.
Here is where bookborn gets off track:
You mean to say you believe every word that proceedeth from Calvin’s two lips (TULIP’s)? You mean baby-baptizing, baby-in-outskirts-of-hell-burning, God’s-through-with-the-Jew, sizzlin’-Servetus, infants-can-be-born-again (RC Sproul, Reformation Study Bible, page 1664),
Simply put, this type of rhetoric is classic bait and switch. It lures you in thinking its a refutation of Calvinism, but then it doesn't deal with Calvinism at all.
The actual "logic" applied in the previous post is this:
Calvinism is wrong because R.C. Sproul believes in Infant Baptism.
Here's the deal, if you and I sat down and compared beliefs, we'd probably have more in common than we would disagree about. (I agree with much of your last post.) And of course, we'd find issues other than Calvinism over which we disagree. The same thing goes for the relationship between Calvinists and the Reformers, Sproul, Spurgeon, James White, etc.
I'm assuming you're a Baptist. Obviously we can agree about an issue like baptism while disagreeing on soteriology. Bookborn's post attempts to confuse the two, then write both of them off.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I just noted a mistake in my post:
For the Calvin quotation, the second quote and the chapter on the problem of evil are both Chapter 18 of Book 1, not Chapter 1.
Mr. Wooten
Thanks again for your post. I am a bit curious what you found in my post that you agreed with. I was assuming you were a Calvinist.
Thanks again.
Why do I feel like we've been hit by the Caners ("Canerized"?) when I read bookborn's posts?
The question was raised (to the effect of): do you believe non-calvinists are not calvinists because they don't understand calvinism?
My answer is: no.
I DO believe that most non-calvinists do not understand it, though.
It has nothing to do with mental ability, and more to do with a mental block that can't seem to step outside of one's normal, presumed thought and grasp a view different than one's own...without simplifying it to a few one-liners and straw men.
If men like Hunt, the Caners, bookborn, etc are representing their knowledge of calvinism...all they've demonstrated is that they don't understand it. If they DO understand it, then their crime is much worse because they are deliberately misrepresenting it.
Their statements (bookborn's on this thread are a great example) are misrepresentations. Calvinists don't believe what they say they believe. If that is what they truly think Calvinism is...then they don't understand it.
If they are purposefully misrepresenting (which I hope is not true, though I think is true in some cases) then that is sinful.
So, I think most non-calvinists DON'T know what Calvinism is. They reject it because they "heard" they should reject it.
I do think there are some leaders who might be a little more underhanded in their dealings...either that or they spout off their ignorance without regret.
(Neither is an enviable position.)
gray,
If I could respond, actually I was the one who asked the question. But the question was not as you framed it "do you believe non-calvinists are not calvinists because they don't understand calvinism?"
What I asked was "Is it possible for a non-Calvinist to understand Calvinism?" And the reason I asked was that many say, as you have for example, that Calvinism is misunderstood and misrepresented, as Bookborns post illustrates. What does Bookborn misrepresent?
Also you said:
"So, I think most non-calvinists DON'T know what Calvinism is. They reject it because they "heard" they should reject it."
My experience has been that people reject it when they understand that in Calvins doctrines of grace Christ only died to save a minuscule number of people, and chose to damn the vast majority. This somehow doesn't comport with 'God is love' in most peoples minds (as in my own).
Thanks.
suinimra,
I apologize for misstating your question.
To answer your real question: Yes, it is possible.
But the hang-up is, most people have already decided they disagree with calvinism (whatever it is) before they even start to study and find out what it is. That ends up skewing their understanding so that they don't really understand what calvinists believe.
For example, you said calvinism believes that "Christ only died to save a minuscule number of people, and chose to damn the vast majority". I don't think I've ever seen that taught in calvinistic thought. What I see in Scripture is a number saved so great that it is like the sand on the shore and the stars in the sky. Not a "miniscule number" by any stretch.
See, you didn't pick up that misrepresentation from calvinists...you made it up yourself. If you understood calvinists and calvinism you wouldn't have made a statement like that.
Now, as to the number saved...is that really a calvinist/non-calvinist distinction? I think not.
As for the errors of bookborn (I'll only mention a few):
1) calvinism = paedobaptism implication.
At the very least, he tries to poison the well by making Sproul and other Presbyterians out to be not trusted on any doctrine because they have a poor understanding of another doctrine. Feeble attempt.
2)He says Calvinists believe in a God that takes pleasure in the detah of the wicked. Misrepresentation.
3) He throws out the TIRED Servetus reference as a means of throwing off real discussion of issues.
4) His tone is mockery and not seeking to discuss this with respect due other Christian brothers. (Which is reminiscent of the Caners.)
5) Accusing calvinists of believing they have a secret knowledge is quite unfair (and hypocritical?).
Bookborn wants to argue and throw flames....he does not approach this issue with the seriousness due it. One of us has a wrong view of God, that is not a laughing matter nor one to poke fun at. If it is me, then I would hope he would give the courtesy of a brother who actually has a concern for my soul and not as a mocker trolling boards only to get a reaction. If he really believes he is right, and if he is consistent with his theology, then my spiritual well-being (and everyone here) depend on him showing us our errors. (My blood will be on his hands!) Yet he mocks.
Greetings,
Talk about strawmen! Please demonstrate from my post where I said any of the following of which I’m accused:
1. Reformed Soteriology is no different than Reformed Theodicy (I didn’t mention Soteriology, or for that matter Saturnology, or Sasquatchology; I didn’t mention Theodicy, or for that matter Idiocy, Adventures in Odyssey, or 2001 Space Odyssey)
2. Calvinism must be wrong because Sproul believes infant baptism.
3. The quotes from Calvin I provided were exclusively related to Election and Predestination or Calvin’s Soteriology (Where did I say that? I simply provided some quotes. However, what part of “Men can accomplish nothing except by God’s secret command” excludes soteriology?)
4. My post attempted to confuse Soteriology with Baptism.
5. My post “doesn’t deal with Calvinism at all.” (Are you sure you were reading the same post as the rest of us?) Who was I talking about? Calvin Klein? Calvin and Hobbes? Was I addressing Arminian Theology? Jehovah’s Witnesses? Branch Davidians? (No wonder you thought Arminius Backwards’ comment on one ‘losing one’s salvation’ quickened the assumption that he was Baptist. Please pray about such oversight and inattention, my brother.)
6. My post attempted to write both Soteriology and baptism off. (????)
It’s interesting how people deny their roots. The phrase ‘Calvinism’ or ‘Reformed’ or ‘Doctrines of Grace’ carries inescapable connotations. I admitted the net was thrown wide, but nobody so far has delineated where I have misrepresented them. Are you inSINuating that NOTHING IN MY POST represents Calvinistic Theology? There are 5 common cries of Calvinists: Mystery!, Misrepresentation!, Man-centered!, Manuscript/Mistranslation!, and Moron!. When we try to get you to face the end of your stream of logic, you cry Misrepresentation and/or Mystery (Secret Mystery of God’s will, etc.). You then state that any NonCalvinistic worldview is Man-centered b/c man must believe or receive. (Ironically, people who call themselves “Calvinists” often call others ‘Man-centered’ and their belief system is named after/centered around the teachings of A MAN (John Calvin)!) When faced with verses that snip away at TULIP’s (the flower thereof falleth away), the Manuscript/Mistranslation cry arises stating something to the effect that if one could just study the linguistic/man-u-scrap evidence he could then change his Bible to read Reformed (i.e. The verse is Mistranslated; eg. ‘freewill’ in those 17 verses doesn’t mean ‘free will’ etc.). The Moron cry has come up continually on this blog which in essence says NonCalvinists just don’t read enough Reformers or they are pulpit-milk-saps with no light, ignorant, etc. Those are the 5 point cries of 5 point Calvinists. (I was tempted to include another M cry like “Mean!” since this blog contained so many thin-skinned responses like ‘hostility’ and ‘vitriolic’ etc.; but I’ll refrain.)
Wootten, Did you bother to even look up the R.C. Sproul reference in the Reformation Study Bible? You falsely assert that Sproul is referencing pedobaptism. While he does suscribe to this “pedobaptism replaces circumcision” doctrine elsewhere, the passage I gave you is a comment re: Jesus talking to Nicodemus. Sproul says in separate notes at the bottom that the ‘born of water’ IS NOT a reference to baptism. Soteriology is indeed the context of the Sproul quote. Don’t assume. Read it. The quote I gave you was from a section titled “Regeneration:The New Birth” in the middle of the John 3 Nicodemus discussion and reads: The Reformation Study Bible page 1664 “Regeneration precedes faith. Infants can be born again, although the faith that they exercise cannot be as visible as that of adults. For many Christians, the moment that they were born again is clearly known; but for others, it may not be, especially if they received new life in childhood.”
You couldn’t find pedobaptism here with a flashlight, seeing eye dog, and Hubble Telescope.
.
By the way, Calvin does mention election as early as Book One.
For example:
Book One, Chapter 16, section 6.
“Will it now be said that man is moved by God according to the bent of his nature, but that man himself gives the movement any direction he pleases? Were it truly so, man would have the full disposal of his own ways. To this it will perhaps be answered, that man can do nothing without the power of God. But the answer will not avail, since both Jeremiah and Solomon attribute to God not power only, but also election and decree.”
And How about this for vitriolic?:
Book Two Chapter 14, Section 5 Servetus is a monster.
“But in our age, also, has arisen a not less fatal monster, Michael Servetus…”
Why name yourself after a man who had the ‘monster’ Servetus BURNT AT THE STAKE? Aren’t there more worthy names by which you could be called? Say, ‘Christ’ for example? (Acts 11:26;James 2:7).
Gray and others. Point by point, what part of my 2nd post on this page did not describe your beliefs? In what way did I misrepresent you?
Once again, don’t just holler “Misrepresentation!” but demonstrate.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Oh, there Bookborn goes again! Just because a man EXECUTES A MAN has no bearing on how he EXEGETES A PASSAGE. The Master Execute...Uh,er... Exegete, John Calvin.
Why keep bringing up this TIRED argument that we shouldn't name ourselves after a murderer?!
First take the beam out of thine own eye, then thou shalt see clearly to burn Servetus upon it.
Gray said, "Bookborn just wants to argue and throw flames." Maybe one day I'll be more like Calvin and not 'argue and throw flames.' Oh, there I go again, pointing out that tiny ink blotch on Calvin's Resume'. It was just a minor breech of etiquette. Bookborn is just straining at a gnat. Calvin was really saddenned that the 'monster' was burned.
Thanks for the delineated points, gray, and I shall answer them as time permits.
bookborn - wow - your rhetoric is very "stream of consciousness" – is that your debate technique? Throw out ad homs about Calvin and drag out every dead horse that has been beaten about the Doctrines of Grace with enough vigor, venom and volume that it is virtually impossible to parse out coherent arguments to rebut?
Question to anyone: Is this “Modified Parliamentary” debate style?
-JD
I'm wondering how the people who constantly bring up Calvin's horrible sins look at King David. How does having an adulturous relationship with a man's wife and then sending him off to be killed NOT compare to Calvin's failure? Was God wrong when he called this adulturous murderer a "man after My own heart"? How could Jesus ever have referred to himself as the Son of David? Seems to me David had other situations where he was quick to take up the sword.
I'm not excusing anything Calvin did. Yet I find it interesting that when I use the phrase doctrines of Grace I'm blasted for not using the term Calvinism and accused of trying to hide the truth. Use the name Calvinsim and....damned if you do....!
Lord, if You count our transgressions who would stand?
Gray,
I appreciate your response, but I hope you would see the dilemma that I am expressing in black and white and not gray the matter with word games. It is a bit disingenuous to plead the number of those saved is actually large and not small, when the problem people have with Calvinism is that compared to the total number of people it is indeed a "little flock" and "few there be that find it". I am sure you understand the problem and that I am not misrepresenting Calvinism. I understand that you prefer to state the view within a prettier frame, but most people don't see TULIP as an elegant flower. But you restate it to ease your conscience. You then say:
"See, you didn't pick up that misrepresentation from calvinists...you made it up yourself. If you understood calvinists and calvinism you wouldn't have made a statement like that."
Size is relative as a child would know, and the bible itself speaks of a "remnant". So don't try that game here and waste everyones time. I understand Calvinist atonement is very limited, and that is the reason people have trouble reconciling conceptually a God who is love when the vast majority of people know him in Calvinism as hating more than he loves by an enormous margin, relatively speaking.
Of course it is not needful for me to post this as you know what is being stated. People reject Calvinism mostly for this reason. And some for the confusion of the commission to preach the gospel (how that Christ died for our sins- 1 Cor 15:1-3) to every creature. This in Calvins system would be to bear false witness (Christ statistically did not die for your sins). And please don't say I don't understand Calvinism. I know Calvinists do not follow the system logically, and they do preach the gospel t