Vines on Calvinism
Dr. Jerry Vines, former pastor of First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Florida, preached last Sunday night in First Baptist Church of Woodstock, Georgia on "Calvinism: A Baptist and His Election." This is the second in a series of messages his is preaching there on Baptist Battles.
Keep your eye on on the Strange Baptist Fire blog because I understand that a series of careful evaluations of the sermon will be appearing there in the near future. I am not going to offer an extensive evaluation but rather simply give some passing thoughts on some selected quotes and points made by Dr. Vines.
I encourage everyone to listen to the message for several reasons.
I do not know Dr. Vines. From what I know of him he is a wonderful man of God who has served faithfully as a pastor for many years. That is enough for a man to be shown great respect in my book. When I point out his mistakes and correct his errors, I do so not as a critic of the man, but of his message. As he indicated at one point in his message, there is no need to get personal in vigorously discussing these biblical issues. I want to appeal to all who add comments to this post to keep them on a high level and engage only the message, not the messenger.
This is seriously and demonstrably false. Simply read the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689). Or, if you just want the highlights, read only these chapters from that confession:
On Southern Baptist life: Southern Baptists through the years have had a series of confessions that have been known as the Baptist Faith and Message. There are elements of Calvinistic doctrine there (BFM 2000) of course, because there are elements of New Testament truth in Calvinistic doctrine.
But it is very very difficult to prove that there has ever been a time in history or today when the majority of Southern Baptists were what we would call five point Calvinists. Dr. Paige Patterson, President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, says that there have been two tributaries from which the Southern Baptist river flows: the First Baptist Church, Charleston, South Carolina; the Charleston SC Association stream, and Sandy Creek, North Carolina stream. Charleston was more Calvinistic in its emphasis. Sandy Creek was more evangelistic.
The Sandy Creek tradition, as Dr. Patterson admitted in his dialogue on election with Dr. Mohler last summer at the Pastors' Conference before the Southern Baptist Convention, is more Calvinistic than is often claimed. This has been documented in various articles in the Founders Journal (read here and here) as well as in a little booklet I wrote years ago. Also, the upcoming issue of the journal will shed more light on this whole question with articles by Gene Bridges and Tom Nettles.
On the reasons for the resurgence of the doctrines of grace in Southern Baptist life: 1. reaction to weak theology; 2. reaction to dead churches; 3. many have attended conferences and listened to popular and articulate spokesmen for Calvnism; 4. others have been influenced by the schools they attended.
I think all of these are valid reasons but to them I would add these more important reasons:
1. The inerrancy controversy has driven many to reexamine the message of the Bible with a reverence and desire to understand its message, not assuming that we already know what that message is.
2. The controversy has also sparked a real interest in our Baptist heritage and especially in our Southern Baptist heritage, which, despite Dr. Vines' claim to the contrary, had a theological consensus of commitment to the doctrines of grace at its beginning in 1845 (see Tom Nettles' forthcoming 20th anniversary edition--revised and expanded--of By His Grace and For His Glory, from Founders Press).
3. A rising generation has a fresh passion for integrity and authenticity in life and ministry and they have longed for a more substantive faith than that which they inherited. Many are finding such substance in the Bible's teaching on God's sovereignty in salvation.
In the section of his message that he identified as "theological exposition," Dr. Vines speaks of the tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility before addressing each of the so-called five points of Calvinism. He states that both are seemingly taught in Scripture.
On divine sovereignty: God is in control of all things. That is very clear in the Bible! But now, it is possible to push this matter of the sovereingty of God, that God is in control of all things to extremes. Philosphers call it determinism; hard determinism and soft determinism.
I could not help but think of this question while listening to Dr. Vines make this point: If all means all and that's all that all means, how can one push God's control of all things to extremes? The danger is not that we will take God's sovereignty too seriously. Rather, the danger is that we will hold it without holding with equal conviction the responsibility of man. To sacrifice any degree of God's sovereignty on the altar of protecting human freedom is to fail to understand what the Bible says about the reality, nature and extent of that freedom. God is absolutely sovereign. People are absolutely responsible.
On total depravity: Man is born with a sinful nature; every facet of our being stained by sin.
Calvinists go a step further than that and say that your will is dead and you are totally unable to respond. Ephesians 2:1, man is spiritually dead, therefore, Calvinists say, how can a dead man repent and have faith, so he has to be regenerated before he can have faith; in the calvinist system regeneration precedes faith.
"That brings up some interesting questions: if you're born again before faith, what does faith accomplish? Which means then that if you are born again before faith that means that, by grace are you saved through faith, that means then, if you're born again then you're born again before you're saved. Did I miss something there? I know I'm just from the country but, did that make sense to you?"
I think what Dr. Vines missed is the fact that regeneration is not equivalent to salvation, but rather, is a subset of salvation, a part of the whole. The better way to think of this is the relationship between the constituent elements of salvation: regeneration, justification, sanctification, conversion, glorification, election, etc. The real question is what causes what? Does faith cause regeneration or does regeneration cause faith? John 3:3, 5, where entering and seeing are used metaphorically for faith answer the question. Unless one is born of God's Spirit, he can neither see nor enter the kingdom.
The calvinistic view pushes the biblical analogy too far. Dead men can't believe. But it is equally true that dead men can't sin.
It is not pushing the analogy too far to assert what the Bible teaches, namely, that spiritually dead people cannot please God, nor obey God, nor come to God (Romans 8:7,8; John 6:44). Simply let the Bible speak and remember that "can" (Greek: dunatai) is a word of ability. Read those verses above by simply substituting "is able" for can and hear what the Bible says about the spiritual ability of lost people.
"It also raises questions about the character of God. Because, listen, in Acts 17 verse 30 it says that God commands all men, all men everywhere to repent. But now wait a minute. If they can't repent until they're born again and yet God is commanding them to do something which they are not able to do, what does that say about the character of God?"
Dr. Vines leaves the implication unstated that it would be unjust of God to require what a person is not able to do. Yet, Jesus clearly commands us to do what we are presently unable to do when He says, "Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). Interestingly, and no doubt unwittingly, Vines' objection is based on the the philosophical foundation that drives both Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism. Both of these errors claim, just as Dr. Vines indicates, that a man's responsibility extends only as far as his ability does. The Arminian sees this and says, "Yes, and we know that sinners are held responsible to repent and believe, therefore they must have the ability to do so." The hyper-Calvinist sees this and says, "Yes, and we know that sinners do not have the ability to repent and believe, therefore they are not responsible to do so."
It is the Calvinist who refuses to accept the rationalistic presupposition. Rather, Calvinism recognizes that the Bible teaches that sinners are both morally unable and yet spiritually responsible to repent and believe.
"Now man has total inability to do anything to save himself but he does have the God-given ability to receive salvation by faith."
Dr. Vines did not explain if that ability is given in nature or through some kind of universal grace. I wish he had.
On unconditional election: Is election unconditional? From the standpoint of God the giver, yes; but from the standpoint of the receiver it is conditioned by faith. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says you believe the truth of the gospel and you are one of the elect.
If Vines means by this that one's faith determines one's election then he is clearly in the Arminian camp at this point.
On limited atonement: After citing many verses that use universal language in relation to the atonement (including 1 John 2:2) Vines addresses this question, If Jesus died for the sins of the whole world and the whole world is not saved, then did his death fail? He answers by giving an analogy. If a man offers to pay for the meals of 20 people and only 15 take him up on the offer, then his provision has not failed, it simply has not been accepted.
So the meal is analogous to full atonement, forgiveness of sins and eternal life--that which Jesus accomplished or paid for by His death. If Jesus fully atoned for the sins of 20 people and only 15 of them accept it, then on what basis are those other 5 condemned and kept out of heaven? Isn't refusing to accept Christ and His salvation a sin? And yet, in Vines' analogy, didn't Jesus pay for that sin along with all the rest? The problem with this understanding is that it inevitably undermines the nature of the atonement--something which the history of theology substantiates. Did Christ propitiate the Father for every person who has ever lived, is now living or ever will live? If the answer is yes, then universalism is the necessary consequence.
I find it very interesting that Dr. Vines goes on to employ the language of Dort by affirming that Jesus' death is sufficient for all but efficient only for those who believe. This struck me as very confusing and completely unnecessary in light of his previous statements.
He also deals with irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints, taking exception to the former completely and to what he perceives to be Calvinistic extreme expressions of the latter. I will simply pass over his comments on these points.
In his conclusion Dr. Vines employs a very interesting analogy to explain how God's sovereignty and foreknowledge operate so as to leave man's freedom intact. He says,
"It's like a chess match between a master chessman and a beginner. The beginner is free to make any move he wants to, but the master chessman is going to win every time."
Though my guess is that he has no idea of the origin of this analogy, I find it very disconcerting that a man of his lifelong devotion to the authority of the Word of God would employ the precise argument popularized by the open theist, Greg Boyd. Here is what Boyd writes,
Here are a few more of his final comments as he concluded his message:
On systematic theology--"That is a man's attempt to systematize that which cannot be systematized. We ought to try to do it but we ought to recognize the fact that man's theology is a system which he himself has devised."
In churches where Calvinist doctrine is taught, there is a tendency to neglect witnessing and evangelism and not win souls.
The fact that Spurgeon, Carey, James Kennedy were/are zealous evangelists while being Calvinists [simply serve to show that] the exception proves the rule. "If a Calvinist is a soul winner it is in spite of Calvinism, not because of it."
Some Calvinists are doing away with a public invitation. "Something had to happen on the day of Pentecost... You can't tell me that three thousand people just stumbled along and fall into the water and got baptized. Somewhere along the way there was an invitation."
"What's the use of preaching fervently, weeping earnestly over souls if God knows they won't repent?"... "Why give the free offer of the Gospel? The nonelect can't receive it. The elect are already sovereingly regenerated without it."
"Calvinism eats the life out of our churches."
There seems to be a tendency when people get into these areas (of doctrine) to have an intellectual pride.
This last comment is worth heeding as an important warning. The doctrines of grace are indeed intellectually satisfying. There is a danger that that is all they are to some. To hold to the doctrines of grace without exhibiting the grace of the doctrines is spiritually deadly. God deliver us from intellectual and spiritual pride.
One final observation: Dr. Vines' message screams for a response from denominational leaders who never hesitate to issue warnings to Southern Baptist Calvinists whom they label "Calvinazis" and charge with being more willing to fly across the country to debate Calvinism than to cross the street to witness to a lost person. Wouldn't it make sense that those who issue such warnings should feel some compulsion to issue them in both directions? Will this kind of complete misrepresentation of the theological heritage of the Southern Baptist Convention and the theological convictions of thousands of Southern Baptist pastors be given a pass by denominational leadership? If recent history is any indicator, that is exactly what we can expect.
Keep your eye on on the Strange Baptist Fire blog because I understand that a series of careful evaluations of the sermon will be appearing there in the near future. I am not going to offer an extensive evaluation but rather simply give some passing thoughts on some selected quotes and points made by Dr. Vines.
I encourage everyone to listen to the message for several reasons.
- It is, I think, representative of what many Southern Baptists think Calvinism actually teaches.
- Dr. Vines speaks from a manuscript because he has done a great deal of research and wants to be very precise, so what he says cannot be easily dismissed as a slip of the tongue.
- The spirit of Dr. Vines comes across, for the most part, as very helpful in promoting honest discussion among brothers who disagree on the doctrines of grace.
- Some of the points he makes are very good and are worth seriously considering.
- The caricatures and misrepresentations that he employs are typical and are not likely to die very easily in our day despite the fact that most of them are very easily exposed as fallacious.
I do not know Dr. Vines. From what I know of him he is a wonderful man of God who has served faithfully as a pastor for many years. That is enough for a man to be shown great respect in my book. When I point out his mistakes and correct his errors, I do so not as a critic of the man, but of his message. As he indicated at one point in his message, there is no need to get personal in vigorously discussing these biblical issues. I want to appeal to all who add comments to this post to keep them on a high level and engage only the message, not the messenger.
*****
Speaking of Baptist Confessions: "...the London confessions, Philadelphia confession, New Hampshire Confession...these confessions bear a close resemblance to some of the five points although there is no clear cut evidence that Baptists in their confesssions of faith ever truly subscribed to everything that the five points of Calvinism would teach" (emphasis added).This is seriously and demonstrably false. Simply read the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689). Or, if you just want the highlights, read only these chapters from that confession:
Ch. 3-God's DecreeIt is hard to understand how anyone who is doing a studied presentation on Baptists and Calvinism can make this kind of mistake. Were Dr. Vines not reading from a manuscript, this is one statement that I would have lovingly chalked up to a slip of tongue.
Ch. 5-Divine Providence
Ch. 6-The Fall of Man, Sin and the Punishment Thereof
Ch. 8-Christ the Mediator
Ch. 9-Free Will
Ch. 10-Effectual Calling
Ch. 17-The Perseverance of the Saints
On Southern Baptist life: Southern Baptists through the years have had a series of confessions that have been known as the Baptist Faith and Message. There are elements of Calvinistic doctrine there (BFM 2000) of course, because there are elements of New Testament truth in Calvinistic doctrine.
But it is very very difficult to prove that there has ever been a time in history or today when the majority of Southern Baptists were what we would call five point Calvinists. Dr. Paige Patterson, President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, says that there have been two tributaries from which the Southern Baptist river flows: the First Baptist Church, Charleston, South Carolina; the Charleston SC Association stream, and Sandy Creek, North Carolina stream. Charleston was more Calvinistic in its emphasis. Sandy Creek was more evangelistic.
The Sandy Creek tradition, as Dr. Patterson admitted in his dialogue on election with Dr. Mohler last summer at the Pastors' Conference before the Southern Baptist Convention, is more Calvinistic than is often claimed. This has been documented in various articles in the Founders Journal (read here and here) as well as in a little booklet I wrote years ago. Also, the upcoming issue of the journal will shed more light on this whole question with articles by Gene Bridges and Tom Nettles.
On the reasons for the resurgence of the doctrines of grace in Southern Baptist life: 1. reaction to weak theology; 2. reaction to dead churches; 3. many have attended conferences and listened to popular and articulate spokesmen for Calvnism; 4. others have been influenced by the schools they attended.
I think all of these are valid reasons but to them I would add these more important reasons:
1. The inerrancy controversy has driven many to reexamine the message of the Bible with a reverence and desire to understand its message, not assuming that we already know what that message is.
2. The controversy has also sparked a real interest in our Baptist heritage and especially in our Southern Baptist heritage, which, despite Dr. Vines' claim to the contrary, had a theological consensus of commitment to the doctrines of grace at its beginning in 1845 (see Tom Nettles' forthcoming 20th anniversary edition--revised and expanded--of By His Grace and For His Glory, from Founders Press).
3. A rising generation has a fresh passion for integrity and authenticity in life and ministry and they have longed for a more substantive faith than that which they inherited. Many are finding such substance in the Bible's teaching on God's sovereignty in salvation.
In the section of his message that he identified as "theological exposition," Dr. Vines speaks of the tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility before addressing each of the so-called five points of Calvinism. He states that both are seemingly taught in Scripture.
On divine sovereignty: God is in control of all things. That is very clear in the Bible! But now, it is possible to push this matter of the sovereingty of God, that God is in control of all things to extremes. Philosphers call it determinism; hard determinism and soft determinism.
I could not help but think of this question while listening to Dr. Vines make this point: If all means all and that's all that all means, how can one push God's control of all things to extremes? The danger is not that we will take God's sovereignty too seriously. Rather, the danger is that we will hold it without holding with equal conviction the responsibility of man. To sacrifice any degree of God's sovereignty on the altar of protecting human freedom is to fail to understand what the Bible says about the reality, nature and extent of that freedom. God is absolutely sovereign. People are absolutely responsible.
On total depravity: Man is born with a sinful nature; every facet of our being stained by sin.
Calvinists go a step further than that and say that your will is dead and you are totally unable to respond. Ephesians 2:1, man is spiritually dead, therefore, Calvinists say, how can a dead man repent and have faith, so he has to be regenerated before he can have faith; in the calvinist system regeneration precedes faith.
"That brings up some interesting questions: if you're born again before faith, what does faith accomplish? Which means then that if you are born again before faith that means that, by grace are you saved through faith, that means then, if you're born again then you're born again before you're saved. Did I miss something there? I know I'm just from the country but, did that make sense to you?"
I think what Dr. Vines missed is the fact that regeneration is not equivalent to salvation, but rather, is a subset of salvation, a part of the whole. The better way to think of this is the relationship between the constituent elements of salvation: regeneration, justification, sanctification, conversion, glorification, election, etc. The real question is what causes what? Does faith cause regeneration or does regeneration cause faith? John 3:3, 5, where entering and seeing are used metaphorically for faith answer the question. Unless one is born of God's Spirit, he can neither see nor enter the kingdom.
The calvinistic view pushes the biblical analogy too far. Dead men can't believe. But it is equally true that dead men can't sin.
It is not pushing the analogy too far to assert what the Bible teaches, namely, that spiritually dead people cannot please God, nor obey God, nor come to God (Romans 8:7,8; John 6:44). Simply let the Bible speak and remember that "can" (Greek: dunatai) is a word of ability. Read those verses above by simply substituting "is able" for can and hear what the Bible says about the spiritual ability of lost people.
"It also raises questions about the character of God. Because, listen, in Acts 17 verse 30 it says that God commands all men, all men everywhere to repent. But now wait a minute. If they can't repent until they're born again and yet God is commanding them to do something which they are not able to do, what does that say about the character of God?"
Dr. Vines leaves the implication unstated that it would be unjust of God to require what a person is not able to do. Yet, Jesus clearly commands us to do what we are presently unable to do when He says, "Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). Interestingly, and no doubt unwittingly, Vines' objection is based on the the philosophical foundation that drives both Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism. Both of these errors claim, just as Dr. Vines indicates, that a man's responsibility extends only as far as his ability does. The Arminian sees this and says, "Yes, and we know that sinners are held responsible to repent and believe, therefore they must have the ability to do so." The hyper-Calvinist sees this and says, "Yes, and we know that sinners do not have the ability to repent and believe, therefore they are not responsible to do so."
It is the Calvinist who refuses to accept the rationalistic presupposition. Rather, Calvinism recognizes that the Bible teaches that sinners are both morally unable and yet spiritually responsible to repent and believe.
"Now man has total inability to do anything to save himself but he does have the God-given ability to receive salvation by faith."
Dr. Vines did not explain if that ability is given in nature or through some kind of universal grace. I wish he had.
On unconditional election: Is election unconditional? From the standpoint of God the giver, yes; but from the standpoint of the receiver it is conditioned by faith. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says you believe the truth of the gospel and you are one of the elect.
If Vines means by this that one's faith determines one's election then he is clearly in the Arminian camp at this point.
On limited atonement: After citing many verses that use universal language in relation to the atonement (including 1 John 2:2) Vines addresses this question, If Jesus died for the sins of the whole world and the whole world is not saved, then did his death fail? He answers by giving an analogy. If a man offers to pay for the meals of 20 people and only 15 take him up on the offer, then his provision has not failed, it simply has not been accepted.
So the meal is analogous to full atonement, forgiveness of sins and eternal life--that which Jesus accomplished or paid for by His death. If Jesus fully atoned for the sins of 20 people and only 15 of them accept it, then on what basis are those other 5 condemned and kept out of heaven? Isn't refusing to accept Christ and His salvation a sin? And yet, in Vines' analogy, didn't Jesus pay for that sin along with all the rest? The problem with this understanding is that it inevitably undermines the nature of the atonement--something which the history of theology substantiates. Did Christ propitiate the Father for every person who has ever lived, is now living or ever will live? If the answer is yes, then universalism is the necessary consequence.
I find it very interesting that Dr. Vines goes on to employ the language of Dort by affirming that Jesus' death is sufficient for all but efficient only for those who believe. This struck me as very confusing and completely unnecessary in light of his previous statements.
He also deals with irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints, taking exception to the former completely and to what he perceives to be Calvinistic extreme expressions of the latter. I will simply pass over his comments on these points.
In his conclusion Dr. Vines employs a very interesting analogy to explain how God's sovereignty and foreknowledge operate so as to leave man's freedom intact. He says,
"It's like a chess match between a master chessman and a beginner. The beginner is free to make any move he wants to, but the master chessman is going to win every time."
Though my guess is that he has no idea of the origin of this analogy, I find it very disconcerting that a man of his lifelong devotion to the authority of the Word of God would employ the precise argument popularized by the open theist, Greg Boyd. Here is what Boyd writes,
"We might imagine God as something like an infinitely intelligent chess player....Now consider that God's perfect knowledge would allow him to anticipate every possible move and every possible combination of moves, together with every possible response he might make to each of them, for every possible agent throughout history. And he would be able to do this from eternity past.When the "resident theologian" at one of the SBC's most conservative churches starts favorably employing the arguments of an open theist against predestination and the absolute sovereignty of God, we have serious problems.
Isn't a God who is able to know perfectly these possibilities wiser than a God who simply foreknows or predestines one story line that the future will follow?" (God of the Possible, p. 127).
Here are a few more of his final comments as he concluded his message:
On systematic theology--"That is a man's attempt to systematize that which cannot be systematized. We ought to try to do it but we ought to recognize the fact that man's theology is a system which he himself has devised."
In churches where Calvinist doctrine is taught, there is a tendency to neglect witnessing and evangelism and not win souls.
The fact that Spurgeon, Carey, James Kennedy were/are zealous evangelists while being Calvinists [simply serve to show that] the exception proves the rule. "If a Calvinist is a soul winner it is in spite of Calvinism, not because of it."
Some Calvinists are doing away with a public invitation. "Something had to happen on the day of Pentecost... You can't tell me that three thousand people just stumbled along and fall into the water and got baptized. Somewhere along the way there was an invitation."
"What's the use of preaching fervently, weeping earnestly over souls if God knows they won't repent?"... "Why give the free offer of the Gospel? The nonelect can't receive it. The elect are already sovereingly regenerated without it."
"Calvinism eats the life out of our churches."
There seems to be a tendency when people get into these areas (of doctrine) to have an intellectual pride.
This last comment is worth heeding as an important warning. The doctrines of grace are indeed intellectually satisfying. There is a danger that that is all they are to some. To hold to the doctrines of grace without exhibiting the grace of the doctrines is spiritually deadly. God deliver us from intellectual and spiritual pride.
One final observation: Dr. Vines' message screams for a response from denominational leaders who never hesitate to issue warnings to Southern Baptist Calvinists whom they label "Calvinazis" and charge with being more willing to fly across the country to debate Calvinism than to cross the street to witness to a lost person. Wouldn't it make sense that those who issue such warnings should feel some compulsion to issue them in both directions? Will this kind of complete misrepresentation of the theological heritage of the Southern Baptist Convention and the theological convictions of thousands of Southern Baptist pastors be given a pass by denominational leadership? If recent history is any indicator, that is exactly what we can expect.
posted by Tom at 10/16/2006 10:02:00 PM
103 Comments:
"The problem with this understanding is that it inevitably undermines the nature of the atonement..."
This is what really bothers me. You don't mess with the Cross. And yet it seems like we've been doing that very thing for a century now.
Thank you, sir, for posting this.
Josh
The thing that I find consistent amongst those labeled "Calvinists" is an unwillingness to compromise on what the Bible says. If the Word says it, they take it. They don't use their own logic and self made human wisdom to cut down the point the Bible is making.
Tom, good response. I too think we should consider seriously the charges that are being made about pride and about a lack of evangelistic effort. While neither of these is necessarily true of individual calvinists, it has tended to characterize the movement at least in some circles.
But I think your point about those who are faulting us for being more concerned about calvinism than conversion need to realize that many in the anti-calvinist camp are just as focused on defeating calvinism as many calvinists are on defending it.
Personally, I see this as a major theological distinction that needs to be discussed (or I would not be here). I would not say that it is more important than evangelism, but neither is it a topic we can ignore. All of our actions, including evangelism and theological discussions, should be done with this objective in mind: the glory of God's grace (Eph. 1:3-6). God and His grace are glorified in the salvation of sinners, and also glorified when we rightly understand what it means that salvation is God's gift by grace alone through faith alone in Christ Jesus alone.
Dr. Ascol
Thank you for this well articulated response to Dr. Vine's sermon. It was on the one hand intellectually honest and on the other very gracious and kind.
Chris
Thanks for this post.
When Dr. Vines sticks to exposition he's one of the great preachers in Baptist history. It saddens me to see that he too misunderstands the finer points of God's grace.
Let's be sure to argue against the misconceptions and not against the man.
Brother Ascol,
Thank you for the response to this sermon. I also watched it online and found myself shaking my head after many of Dr. Vines' comments.
At one point you respond to the following quote:
"Now man has total inability to do anything to save himself but he does have the God-given ability to receive salvation by faith."
You said, "Dr. Vines did not explain if that ability is given in nature or through some kind of universal grace. I wish he had."
Here is my question to you or anyone else who knows. I have a friend who believes that I am wrong for believing the doctrines of grace because, as he puts it, this all comes down to one central tenant: God is sovereign and has sovereignly elected to give man free will in regards to salvation. I cannot figure out where he gets this scripturally and he will not go any further. What is the source of the idea that God gives man free will to choose salvation? What scriptures support this specifically?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bro. Wall,
I use the analogy of where does it ever say in the Bible "I chose God"? I have challenged many people to this, and not one has found it yet. Conversely, I ask often for someone to find where it says "God chose...(me, you, etc.)" and will always find someone who will find it quickly enough. So agreeing with "brian" is that the Bible says it, and I accept it as plain language, without reading into it what I wished it said. No logic and no human wisdom to make it more palatable to my "itching ears".
Brother:
Thank you for posting this fair, balanced, and gracious response.
I watched this sermon, (along with the rest of the service) and witnessed very small children being baptized. It is interesting to me that Dr. Vines referenced calvinists (some) believing that babies go to hell. Yet obviously they believe that these very small children could go to hell, hence they believe they actually got saved, and needed baptism.
I bet if you stood one of these kids up and said, "If he dies right now without being saved they will go to hell." You would get the same response that Dr. Vines got from the crowd when he said that Calvinist believe that babies go to hell.
Well done, beloved brother and fellow Berean...
My prayer is that many will
listen/read Vines and your brief evaluation of this good man's mistaken (FALSE) statements regarding the scriptural TRUTH.
For many years, I have told
you and others that there is
no balanced and fair treatment of the differences between Calvinism and Arminism to be heard in most of the SBC schools today.
It is foolish to expect it from Vines, Patterson and others.
To my knowledge the nearest thing to fair and balanced teaching can be found only at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville.
Tom,
Your words and evaluation were indeed very gracious. I've known Dr.Vines since I was a baby. We were at Dauphin Way (Mobile) in the late 70s, then we moved to Jacksonville in the mid 80s. I grew up at FBCJax, (but I didn't write the letter he mentioned). And while I wasn't surprised by what I heard, I am saddened by the misrepresentations and anecdotal strawmen.
I wish I had more time to weigh in, but the bottom line in all this is that I wonder if dedication to theology gets trumped by devotion to a particular methodology.
Thanks again for saying what needed to be said with words seasoned with grace, and reminding us that it is the message that is to be critiqued.
My thoughts, for what they're worth:
“Dead men can’t believe. But it is equally true that dead men can’t sin”
He follows the tongue-in-cheek logic of a poster I once saw that read, “When we drink, we get drunk. When we get drunk, we go to sleep. When we sleep, we don’t sin. When we don’t sin, we go to heaven. So, let’s get drunk and go to heaven. Conversely, Ephesians 2:1 says, “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sin.”
“It also raises questions about the character of God. Because, listen, in Acts 17 verse 30 it says that God commands all men, all men everywhere to repent.”
If the unregenerate can repent apart from the energizing work of the Spirit, why did Jesus have to die?
“Now man has total inability to do anything to save himself but he does have the God-given ability to receive salvation by faith.”
Whether he defines man’s “God-given ability to receive salvation by faith” as common or particular grace, he must admit that the faith that give man the ability to receive salvation is a gift of God (Ephesians 2:8). It does not reside inherently within man to believe or else Romans 3:11, “There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God,” is wrong.
“If Jesus died for the sins of the whole world and the whole world is not saved, then did his death fail?”
Jesus didn’t just offer to die for sin, he really died; and when he died, he really atoned for sin. A better analogy would be (which has happened to me more than once): A waiter tells one party in a crowded restaurant, “Someone has paid for your meal.” In that scenario, there is no choice; the patrons can no longer pay for their meals. The most they can do is to leave a hefty tip; but none of it applies to the already-paid-for debt.
“In churches where Calvinist doctrine is taught, there is a tendency to neglect witnessing and evangelism and not win souls.”
Since MOST SBC churches tend to neglect witnessing and evangelism and do not win souls, it’s the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. A proper understanding of the sovereignty of God in election does not produce evangelistic apathy. Sin does that. Our (meaning all Baptists) laziness and loathing of discomfort do more damage to evangelism than our theology does.
From Dr. Ergun Caner's website.
SPURGEON ON ESAU (Romans 9)
Just some food for thought, from the 1859 sermon by Charles Spurgeon entitled JACOB AND ESAU.
“Why does God hate any man? I defy anyone to give any answer but this, because that man deserves it; no reply but that can ever be true. There are some who answer, divine sovereignty; but I challenge them to look that doctrine in the face. Do you believe that God created man and arbitrarily, sovereignly — it is the same thing — created that man, with no other intention, than that of damning him? Made him, and yet, for no other reason than that of destroying him for ever? Well, if you can believe it, I pity you, that is all I can say: you deserve pity, that you should think so meanly of God, whose mercy endureth for ever.”
CITATION: Charles Spurgeon, Sermon: JACOB AND ESAU (January 16, 1859)
I read recently that I “turned Romans 9 upside down.” Well, then I stand in good company … with Spurgeon … against those who embrace reprobation.
I was saved (by God's sovereign grace!) in 1969 at West Rome Baptist Church when Jerry Vines was pastor his first time there. Yes, he was an excellent preacher and Bible teacher! However, the BEST of us have our blind spots, and I'm afraid that on this subject Dr. Vines is sticking to modern Southern Baptist shibboleths and "tradition".
Wow, Aaron! That is a tough subject to discuss on a blog. But I would have to disagree from my ministerial experience that ALL people I have ever talked to in the SBC without exception believe in an age of accountability, as far as I remember. Meaning that the children are safe in Christ until some age when they are released into their sin and are no longer under the protection of the innocence of childhood, or are saved, of course. Innocence as defined by man, by the way. I think if anyone can define the nature of man it would be a Calvinist! R.C. Sproul has said man used to be justified by faith alone. Now man is justified by birth alone! I have often struggled with mans complete and thorough depravity dead in sin and hearing Calvinist saying that their children are safe in God's grace before conversion. Are we Presbyterian? Obviously Scripture does lend some support for the belief when it mentions children not knowing their left hand from their right. But we have parents and leaders who want Johnny and Sue covered like Catholics under sacraments! Dedicated at birth, an age of accountability until whatever age they make some profession of faith, 5,6,7,8,9 then trample all over the whole Lordship salvation issue and live like the pagan they always have been and maybe/maybe not ever come at some point in the distant future to an authentic conversion experience. Pastors, you can stop nodding your heads, I know, brothers! The SBC is full of unregenerate church members because we have been consumed by a Romanistic pattern of sacramentalism! We just have our own brand called evangelicalism gone perverse messed up by emotional alter calls and carefully worded follow-the-leader prayers. Perhaps we can learn from Mrs. Spurgeon. I believe I have the story correct, I think it has even been shared here before. Charles Spurgeon had forgotten something on his way to the church one day and turned around and went back home to retrieve it. Upon going upstairs outside of where the wife and children were doing devotions he overheard her saying this. Children, if you do not come to a saving knowledge/relationship with the Lord Jesus on the Day of Judgment I will be a bold and swift witness against you. The Princess of Preachers! She did not cower in fear of God's sovereignty over her children's lives. She knew that the Lord over her was the Lord over them. If He is able to make a righteous decision for your salvation He is rightly able to make it for your child's as well. Obviously, we want them in Heaven with us praising God right there beside us. It would be a sign we were the Devil's child if we didn't. But the choice is neither ours, nor theirs, ultimately. What we can do is encourage them to diligently seek the Lord while He may still yet be found. Raise them in the fear and admonitions of the Lord. Model Christ. Live a life passionately seeking Christ's will in all that we do and get the hypocrisy out of our lives wherever it is. Children pick up on it better than anyone because they see us at our worst!
That is interesting that Dr. Caner is now standing with a man in the same sentence who is saying God hates a man! Thanks for the post Mike. Ergun, you are so Reformed!
I was confused about Dr. Vines treatment of the relationship between regeneration and faith. He rejects the notion that regeneration logically precedes faith. But isn't this precisely what the BFM teaches in Article IV under the title "Salvation?" -
A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.
The phrase "to which" seems to teach logical priorty in favor of regeneration. Am I interpreting the Confession wrong? Like Dr. Vines, I'm just a poor country boy myself and tend to read things at face value.
Mike, Here is the link to the entire sermon that Erun references. Why is he so intent on pulling Spurgeon out of context and missing the weightier points of his message?
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0239.htm
Uh..I meant Ergun.
Tom said:"This last comment is worth heeding as an important warning. The doctrines of grace are indeed intellectually satisfying. There is a danger that that is all they are to some. To hold to the doctrines of grace without exhibiting the grace of the doctrines is spiritually deadly. God deliver us from intellectual and spiritual pride."
I say: This is so good and this is my prayer for me personally. Thank you for this point.
Vines says, "In churches where Calvinist doctrine is taught, there is a tendency to neglect witnessing and evangelism and not win souls."
I'm so sick of hearing this message because it is nothing but a smokescreen. We need to stop going on the defensive every time we hear this and start pointing out their own hypocrisy in making these kinds of statements. I've been a member of 3 SBC NQC (not quite calvinist) mega churches in the last 15 years and I can tell you that what passes for evangelism is largely not evangelism. Are the people actually going out into the world to bring the message of Christ to the lost? In my experience, precious few are doing this even in the fastest growing churches. Out of a church of 3,000 to 4,000 people, you may actually have a dozen that witness to the world outside the church. And most of those are actually witnessing to those who've visited the church.
Instead, what they are involved in is a system of "entertaining" the world into the church and then giving them the gospel. I even heard one prayer leader in an Atlanta area SBC mega church say, "The leadership in our church doesn't even expect us to go out and tell our friends the gospel. They just want us to bring them here and they'll (the leadership) preach it." Oh yes, they get a fairly accurate presentation of the gospel, but the means to get them in show a lack of boldness and passion on the part of the rank and file Christian, not to mention a lack of trust in the sufficiency of scripture to build the church.
The bottom line is that most of these churches are simply growing by fishing out other believers from smaller churches or offering new people moving into the area the biggest buffet of programs available. That's the name of the game. Give the people the most exciting children's and youth programs available and the kids, just like at the check-out counter at the grocery store, will beg the parents to stay. The parents, not understanding the sufficiency of scripture and the power of the Holy Spirit to hold their children in the faith, will rely on these methods to keep their kids "interested" in church.
A while back I was talking a with a Pastor of a small church in the shadow of these three area SBC mega churches. I asked him how things were going. He responded by saying, were doing what is seems God wants us to do. We're a feeder church. Puzzled, I asked him what he meant. He explained that his church had about 90% participation in their evangelistic efforts. In the previous year they had seen four families with teenagers come to Christ. All four of them ended up leaving when their kids found out about all the rock & roll pizza parties at the big mega churches and begged their parents to take them there. Hence, the little church feeds the big ones.
I just found out the reprints of Roy Hargrave's little booklet called "An Idol Called Evangelism" is now available (in spite of what the web-site says) at:
http://reflectionsofgrace.com/publications.htm
I think it's worth having a handful of these copies around to pass out. They're only $2.
Instead of looking at which churches are growing the fastest to determine who is actually "doing evangelism", let's see what kind of churches are actually producing the most missionaries to unchurched cultures. Are there any churches in free willyville that match what Bethlehem Baptist in Minneapolis is doing?
Remember I said it's hard to find a dozen people in a church of 3,000 people that actually go out into the community to witness. Well, this church of 3,000 (Bethlehem) has over 100 people per year enrolled in their missions training school and are sending on average 5 family units per year into unchurched people groups, not to mention the 100's of people involved in local full-time outreach and 100's more involved in short term missions. This is what happens when people are given a passion for the Glory of God rather than just moralistic duty filled messages. The NQC (Not Quite Calvinist) mega churches sometimes have trouble finding 30 people to teach Sunday school or run an outreach sports program, etc., etc.
Tom, well done.
Three somewhat related thoughts:
1. The natural progression of Arminianism is Open Theism and/or Universalism.
2. The exodus from the SBC will continue toward the PCA and Bible Churches.
3. "Pelagianism is the natural heresy of zealous Christians who are not interested in theology." —J.I. Packer.
Dr. Vines said: "There seems to be a tendency when people get into these areas (of doctrine) to have an intellectual pride."
To me this is a crucial point in this whole thing.
That statement is VERY true. But who are the ones that seem to be making wild statements and accusations about other believers? The non-calvinists.
They are the ones accusing people of:
Not sharing the gospel
Not loving the unchurched
Being worse than muslims
Not being believers
Not concerned with missions
Killing churches
Dividing churches
Lying to search committees
Deceiving believers
Calvinists being equivalent to Nazis
On top of lies about what we actually believe.
Where is the warning of pride to their side?
Where is the warning of being unloving to their side?
Where is the warning of making false charges to their side?
Where is the warning of accusing fellow believers of being non-Christians on their side?
This is unbalanced...but that will not change.
they are not concerned with truth, they are concerned with "being right" or "winning this battle".
It makes me sad to be a Southern Baptist everytime I hear or read the statements by these men.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Good job, Tom.
Just a bit off topic...Does anyone know whether Dr. White's appearance on the Liberty U. radio station ever happened? I haven't heard anything, so I'm assuming it fell through, but does anyone know for sure?
Sparrowhawk is a needed prophet who both tells forth and foretells TRUTH!
Persevere!
Sparrowhawk is a needed prophet who both tells forth and foretells TRUTH!
Persevere!
"Jared Wall said...
What is the source of the idea that God gives man free will to choose salvation? What scriptures support this specifically?"
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)
sparrowhawk, Packer's second point is incredibly interesting to me personally. Let me reprint what you quoted.
2. The exodus from the SBC will continue toward the PCA and Bible Churches.
Years ago as a young youth minister I was persecuted for my Reformed beliefs and told I should get out of the SBC because I did not view things like Baptists. That was my Pastor and his C. of the Deacons who said that. I had already been in a church where they brought in a CBF guy and was tired of the other persecution. So for four months I took my family to a PCA church where we were free of persecution for our beliefs in Holy Scriptures and were in like minded fellowship in our views on soteriology and many other Reformed issues. The paedo-baptism issue was stomach turning as they said they did not believe in baptismal regeneration but their words during the ceremony betrayed them. We came back to the SBC at the request of a hurting, dead church, only to face more persecution for the doctrines of grace amongst many more simplistic things. After more journeying we now find ourselves at a Bible church. Packer is a prophet! The theological exodus from the SBC IS the PCA and Bible churches! Wait, that is not exciting, that is sad. :-[
Craig from Georgia, please do not misquote Scripture on this blog. That passage says no more about free will than Jesus wept. Do some more studying on whosoever will passages before you enter crass statements like that. The passage specifically speaks of one believing in Christ not seeing damnation but being delivered unto eternal life. It says nothing of free will.
stilldesiringGod said...
Craig from Georgia, please do not misquote Scripture on this blog. That passage says no more about free will than Jesus wept. Do some more studying on whosoever will passages before you enter crass statements like that. The passage specifically speaks of one believing in Christ not seeing damnation but being delivered unto eternal life. It says nothing of free will.
................
What the passage actually tells us is God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
CraigfromGeorgia,
For God so loved the world that He gave( Gave what ?) He gave His son ! Jesus is God ? You do believe this ? So, who did Jesus claim to be given for by His life according to John 10:11 ? Does He say sheep or goats ? Does He say both ? Also, notice that He doesn't say that I offer my life to the Sheep but that He gives and this speaks of accomplishment in that it actually secures the salvation of the Sheep.
Also, what does Eph 5:25 say about who Christ life was given for ? Does it say the Church( Believers) or does it say goats? How about what Isaiah 53:11 ? Does verse 11 mean that the word( Many ) means All men(Goats included)? So, if Christ beared the iniquities of all men( Including goats) then why are there some men in Hell today? Let's just start here ! How about we also talk about 1 John 2:2 .
craigfromgeorgia,
Also read John 10:15 ! Who does Jesus actually say that He lays His life down for ? Goats, Sheep,.... ?
Yes Craig, it does say God so loved the world. Now look at who he was speaking to at the time. It was Jews who believed God so loved Israel and the rest were just dogs. This would have been a shock to their hardened hearts.
StilldesiringGod is right. You are assuming that it is saying much more than the text actually says. Does it say "God so loved the world that he gave an equal amount of grace to every single individual so that the difference between one who comes and one that doesn't is found within themselves"?
Much is made of the consequence of calvinistic theology being lack of missionary zeal, but nothing is said of the consequences of the above interpretation of John 3:16 and other passages. Let me give you an example:
In one of the largest SS classes in the last SBC mega church I belonged to, the SS teacher was talking about two friends of his. One was such a nice guy that "seemed so close" to coming the Christ. The other was a guy that the teacher had trouble even approaching with the gospel because he "could never see him coming to Christ". This is the logical conclusion of free will theology and it runs rampant in the modern church. (Shall we call it hyperfreewillism?) When you believe that all men have the same amount of grace bestowed on them to believe, then the difference must be within yourself. You then begin to prejudge who will be saved and who won't rather than seeing the hardest individuals as an opportunity for God's power and glory to shine most brightly.
Though the words would never be spoken, the attititude is "all good guys like me eventually come to Christ".
When we reject the doctrines of grace we turn Eph 2:8&9 on it's head, for then we definitely have reason to brag that I was more soft hearded, spiritually in tune, or reasonable than my unbelieving neighbor. Otherwise why did I come and he didn't?
Don't go claiming "it's a mystery" on me, because you would never allow a Calvinist that response.
"For the most part Southern Baptists do not embrace 5-point Calvinism."
That cannot possibly be a surprise when over the last few decades the traditional doctrines such as doctrines of grace have been drowned out by the church growth and seeker-friendly movements.
You can make this same argument about every other evangelistic denomination. This poll is not so much a rejection of Calvinism as it demonstrates the widespread ignorance of systematic theology among evangelicals.
chris - it is good to hear from another former FBCjax-er among the reformed camp. I grew up in that church as well, hearing the preaching of Drs. Vines and Lindsay 3x a week. In many ways they are still my pastors. Their sermons still echo in my head as I study the scriptures. My current church is going through a pastoral search right now and I find myself often using them as a measuring stick as we consider candidates for the job. It pains me to see Dr. Vines mischaracterize the reformed resurrgence in much the same way that Dr. Caner did.
Tom,
Thank you for your thoughts. I'd heard about this sermon and planned on watching it. After reading your post I did just that.
It is absolutely right that Calvinists should not view themselves as intellecutally superior, and view their understanding of the doctrines of grace as a source of pride. After all, it is my grace that we are able to understand and discern spiritual things at all (1 Cor. 2:14).
However, it is difficult to listen to Dr. Vines's sermon and not walk away shaking your head. It was just another in the long line of examples of what amounts to anti-Calvinist sermons that use a litany of proof texts to prove that God loves everyone, that He intends to save everyone, and that Calvinism, by and large, is contrary to the Scriptures.
I understand Vines has been a hero of the SBC and inerrantists for many years, and rightfully so. But this sermon lacked the proper exegesis, and proves that while there are many who will shout about the inerrancy of the Scriptures, those who view the Scriptures as sufficient are much fewer.
It seems that many who taught us to take the Scriptures literally are themselves unwilling to take the whole counsel of God at face value when it comes to this issue, and they instead appeal to their own traditions, the emotional debate regarding infants, and tales of church splits.
This last appeal, church splits, in particular, bothers me. It seems that Vines was referring to Steve Lawson and Dauphin Way Baptist Church in the first few minutes of his sermon. Anyone who has listened to Lawson knows that he is a faithful exegete and preacher of the text. I am glad that he did not disparage Lawson by calling him by name, but anyone with knowledge of the situation could easily read between the lines.
Church splits are tragic, but as Paul writes, they are sometimes necessary to show those who are being faithful. The appeal of those who preach these types of sermons to "inform" their hearers of the Calvinism debate seem to always use this scare tactic to enhance their arguments.
It is my prayer that in the following weeks of this series of "Baptist Battles" being preached at First Baptist Woodstock, Vines would show more care with the text and not let anything else get in the way of rightly dividing the word.
In the meantime, all of us pesky Calvinists must remain humble and prayerful in the face of such misrepresentations, and as we are going, proclaim the good news.
For His Glory,
Matt
Craig from Georgia (Go Dawgs!),
I just talked about this verse with my dad a week ago. A better translation from the greek is:
"For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him (literally all the one's believing in him) will not perish but have eternal life."
The NET Bible and the CSB Bible (the new Bible of the SBC) translate it this way.
The problem with the older translations is that when we read "For God so loved the world," we think in terms of degree of love rather than kind or way of loving. We imagine God's heart so filled with romantic inclinations toward his creation that he cannot help but send a bouquet of flowers (his Son) to show it. But that's not what the text says. Also, when we read "that whosoever believes," we tend to take whosoever as carrying an indefinite sense with it. We think the Son was given for whosoever (totally indefinite). I'm sure you've heard the old phrase whosoever means whosoever! This is the way Bobby Welch's FAITH Evangelism program takes the verse. The A in FAITH stands for available. Welch says, "Salvation is available to all." Then he quotes John 3:16 as whosoever.
But that is not what the text says. The text is more definite. The Greek phrase translated "whosoever believes" is (pas o pisteuon). It is the adective pas, translated "all," the article o, translated "the ones" (usually not translated), and the participle pisteuon translated "believng." It says literally, "that all the ones believing may not perish but have eternal life." Eternal life is only available to the believing ones.
But proper exegesis of the verse aside, either way you take it, the verse does not speak to human willingness or moral responsibility. It only speaks to the necessity of believing in order to have eternal life. A concept of human willingness has to be brought to the text (eisogesis). It isn't in the text to be exegeted.
Blessings to you Craig,
Jay (also from Georgia, the promised land flowing with sweet tea and grits)
On the issue of church splits, there is another side to many of these situations. In my experience it often happens in the following manner:
A teacher or leader comes to an understanding of the doctrines of grace and begins to share the scriptures, either from the pulpit or through SS or possibly just in discussion with friends. In the process, several come to the same understanding, others are repulsed. The people who are repulsed convince the powers of the church to put a stop to this teaching. The calvinists are then told to either stop talking about this or leave the church. With a desire to be faithful to the Word of God a few commit to leaving. Others decide to follow them. Then those that remain say calvinism "caused" a church split.
So, I guess the way to keep these church "splits" from potentially happening is to present Calvinism as repulsively as possible so the people would never look into the matter to decide for themselves.
Sound familiar? This is a very "Marxist" philosophy of "Christian" education.
When I pastors from enormous churches like FBC Woodstock and Jacksonville (thanking God he has blessed those churches so richly), I am convinced that the we are seeing one of the expected results of the church growth movement: that there are only two types of churches - megachurches and dying churches. This line of thinking leaves no middle ground for churches full of regenerate Christians that faithfully follow ALL of the doctrines of scripture.
In his gospel John writes: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." Yet, three verses later John also writes: "And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds wre evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed."
The world that God loves, the world that God gave His Son for is comprised of people who will have everlasting life if they only choose to believe. Yet, these same people are lovers of darkness and haters of the Light because their deeds are evil. So, what explains a person who is a committed lover of darkness, a committed enemy of the Light doing something that is entirely contrary to his (fallen) nature: Becoming a believer in, follower of and lover of the Light? One might even conclude that the old nature committed to loving darkness and hating the Light would have to be supernaturally replaced with a new nature committed to hating darkness and loving the Light.
The point of the above: Interpreting John 3:16 in the context of John's gospel might involve more than a surface level reading of that verse removed from its context in John's gospel.
If one is committed to a search for the truth (or Truth based on John 14:6), then one must deal with verses such as John 3:16 in their proper context. The search for the truth, then, is not helped by removing verses such as John 3:16 from their proper context.
"Bill Formella said...
Yes Craig, it does say God so loved the world. Now look at who he was speaking to at the time. It was Jews who believed God so loved Israel and the rest were just dogs. This would have been a shock to their hardened hearts."
He is speaking to the Jews, but He is talking to them about the world, plus the context is the new birth and the kingdom of God, not the Jewish kingdom..
..........
To M. Jay Bennett
If you're going to base your interpretation on a particular translation then we all need to decide which is the best translation and all stick to that one translation.
Craig, of course Jesus was speaking about the Kingdom of God, but the Jews believed that was one and the same with Israel. The Holy Spirit had to free many of the early believers of some powerful racism. Peter still struggled with it giving in to it a good 15 or so years after the Christ's resurrection.
I think you're also missing the strength behind Jay's point. He is going back to the original language. I think the only reason he mentions those two translations is to show that he's not alone in this interpretation.
By the way, where in Georgia are you both from? I live very close to the Mall of Georgia in Buford. Scott, another regular poster on this board, is also from in the Buford area.
craig,
That was from the Greek. It is what the text ACTUALLY says.
But nice try to dismiss his statement easily.
Sooner or later, we who know, love and preach the TRUTH of the amazing sovereign, saving, securing, serving, suffering and succumbing grace of our triune God are going to be forced by the Holy Spirit to depart from the SBC.
Doctrinally, it is a sinking ship and arguing with Arminians about the placement of the deck chairs
is futile.
GWG, I'm not sure I can agree with you on that. I certainly understand your frustration but your suggestion, I believe, is premature. Why do you think the current "gate keepers" of the SBC are all waring against this truth so much? Isn't it because they see the growth and are fearful of what's to come?
Look at church history and be encouraged brother. The church faces it's greatest persecution just prior to it's greatest accomplishments. If the Chinese government can't stop the church from growing and the truth from spreading, what are our brothers in Nashville gonna do?
See you in San Antonio in June 2007? Some will be sharing truth, others will be "pimping" propaganda.
Bill Formella,
You are correct about my mentioning the NET and CSB translations. My point was that my reading of the Greek was not novel but held widely enough by contemporary Greek exegetes that some very recent translations read the verse the same way.
BTW, I'm originally from Cochran, GA. It's a small farming community 40 miles south of Macon. I lived in Marietta from 1998-2002 attending Southern Poly. My wife is from Marietta. I've been to the Mall of GA. It's huge!
Craig from Georgia,
Also, I would say that the older translation "whosoever" isn't technically incorrect. It just lends itself to misinterpretation when viewed through an Arminian lens. We have to remember that, in the context of the rest of the verse and passage, the phrase "whosoever" cannot mean the universal availability of salvation. The text simply says that eternal life is given to all who believe. I pray we all agree with that.
I think "everyone who believes," is a better way to translate the Greek. It is faithful to the text and doesn't lend itself to misinterpretation in the way "whosoever" does.
As far as the whole Calvinist debate among Baptist goes, I wonder what we Calvinists are hoping for? I pray the goal is that Calvinism might be viewed as a legitimate theology among Southern Baptists. If that is the goal, we need to counter every argument to the contrary. But if we are shooting for a total reformation of the SBC, I seriously question the sanity of our expectations. It seems to me that church history teaches us that the Gospel of grace has always been a minority view hard pressed from all sides by other "Christians" whose eyes have simply not been opened by God to perceive the truth. So I tend to be pessimistic about the popularity of the Gospel. In the end, I think there will be far fewer people redeemed than we would have expected. The path is narrow and there are few who find it, right?
Nonetheless, I am all for defending the redemptive grace of God effectually extended to sinners through the atonement of Jesus Christ. I love the old Reformed polemics against Arminianism. Owen and Edwards have been priceless teachers to me in that realm. We need teachers like that.
Before I begin, I'd like to point out that Dr. Vines next sermon on Oct. 22 is supposed to be "A Baptist and His Booze." I wonder what will be said about the situation at SWBTS...
Calvinism eats the life out of our churches."
I believe it is now time to take a look at the ACP for FBCW and FBC Jax. Let's take a look at the truancy rate. Let's take a look at their membership numbers, their baptisms, and their attendance numbers.
Which is doing better, the church that has 9000 members and only 3500 show up on Sunday, or the churches with 200, where 200- 300 show up on Sunday? Most of the RB churches I know, including my own, have attendance that outnumbers the membership on any given Sunday. That's because we take baptism and the concept of a regenerate church membership very seriously, and we practice church discipline.
"It also raises questions about the character of God. Because, listen, in Acts 17 verse 30 it says that God commands all men, all men everywhere to repent. But now wait a minute. If they can't repent until they're born again and yet God is commanding them to do something which they are not able to do, what does that say about the character of God?" If God does not command us to do what we cannot do, then what about this? in Ezekiel 18:31, “Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit.” Can we do this? No. Dr. Vines is overlooking a three things: (a) If it's true that moral responsibility cannot exceed one's ability, then it follows that ignorance is bliss, and the best way to avoid responsibility for our actions is by giving into sin at every turn. Total bondage would mean no moral responsibility. (b) On that assumption, Satan is not morally responsible for his evil and God is not morally responsible for His good. (c) A command can be issued to show us our inability and our need. (d) Why does one person repent and not the other? They cannot repent because they do not want to do so.
He also deals with irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints, taking exception to the former completely and to what he perceives to be Calvinistic extreme expressions of the latter. I will simply pass over his comments on these points.
Somebody should explain to these people that denying irresistible grace is not compatible with believing in inerrancy. The inspiration of inerrant and infallible Scripture and irresistible grace work on the same principle.
On systematic theology--"That is a man's attempt to systematize that which cannot be systematized. We ought to try to do it but we ought to recognize the fact that man's theology is a system which he himself has devised."
This is a tacit admission that Dr. Vines recognizes that his own theology is illogical and his doctrines do not underwrite each other. I'd like to personally thank him for this admission, for it does us a great service.
For starters, if this statement is true, it is self-refuting, because Dr. Vines is trying to systematize doctrine any time he presents a theological argument. It also defeats a number of his own theological affirms. Among them are his belief in the Incarnation. One of the arguments for the Incarnation is that Jesus cannot save that which He did not become. From this comes the theology of the Theandric Person, which is directly related to the doctrines of the Trinity and anthropology. According to Dr. Vines, this is an invalid argument. His soteriology apparently undermines his affirmation of the Trinity. By placing regeneration and election outside a chain effected by grace alone, he has placed Father and Spirit outside the chain of grace. Only the Son is in view. Dr. Vines is a functional Unitarian. As I've already noted, he has no reason to affirm inerrancy. For a "resident theologian" this strikes me as hopelessly ad hoc and inept.
In churches where Calvinist doctrine is taught, there is a tendency to neglect witnessing and evangelism and not win souls. You know, every other weekend, my RB church goes to the abortion clinic in my county and preaches. We've stopped some abortions, and we've evangelized many a person out there, and I know we've talked to some of the people who confess to being part of local SBC congregations and are coming there for abortions. We are the ONLY Protestant church that is there. There are TWO Baptist Associations that serve that county, and they have YET to send anybody to help. We went to a local park over the summer and did evangelism among the New Agers at one of their festivals. Incidentally, one of our elders ran into a young lady who was a member of his former SBC church. She was, how shall we say, not doing evangelism. Over at Triablogue, we're doing apologetics with atheists, and I can say, without giving too much away that has to be kept private, we are are seeing some changes views, with respect to some of the folks that read our work. John Frame and RC Sproul are out there doing evangelistic apologetics all the time too. The same is true for James White.
Notice that he also ignores evangelical Presbyterian history and practice. Its not as if Baptists are the only people around who embrace Calvinism. If Calvinists are not missions oriented, why does the largest PCA church in my city employ missionaries in this area? Why are they traveling all over the world just like the largest SBC church in my area? The PCA grew by over 40 percent last year. I assure you that did not come from infant baptism. I can only conclude that Dr. Vines theological myopia has caused him to overlook the Presbyterian tradition en toto.
God is in control of all things. That is very clear in the Bible! But now, it is possible to push this matter of the sovereingty of God, that God is in control of all things to extremes. Philosphers call it determinism; hard determinism and soft determinism.
This is a case of us noticing what is not stated, not what is stated. If you'll pay attention, he doesn't tell us that his own view is called "indeterminism" and that it is not on epistemic par with determinism. He also doesn't tell us what fatalism is, and he will go on to conflate fatalism and determinism. Fatalism is NOT a species of determinism. In fact, what he doesn't bother to tell us is why determinism is "extreme." In fact, in appealing to hard determinism, he's undermining his indeterminism, because one of hard determinism's very solid arguments is that men are morally responsible even if they act under an illusion of indeterminism. If a libertarian cannot defeat that argument, he can hardly defeat soft determinism, which is what most Calvinists affirm.
Likewise, on the "extremes" in the philosophical realm we find indeterminism and fatalism, not the 2 species of determinism. On a continuum, they are in the middle. This is pretty basic. Had he really bothered to study, he'd know that.
In fact, what 's not stated is that indeterminism and a belief in infallible certain foreknowledge of future events requires some sort of fatalism to work itself out. Dr. Vines, because of his libertarian action theory, is a real fatalist. For a man who claims to have "done research" he doesn't demonstrate that he's done it.
Some Calvinists are doing away with a public invitation.... Once again we find a conflation of the "invitation" with "the invitation system." Yes, many of us are doing away with the invitation system , but we are not doing away with the public invitation These are not convertible propositions. We give them as appropriate, and, when we do not, our sermons are littered with direct calls to believe in Christ and repent. But let's face it, not every sermon lends itself to an invitation to walk an aisle. I'd rather have no invitation that do what Evangelist Junior Hill did in a local church in Greensboro, NC awhile back. He walked to the pulpit, opened his Bible read one short passage and then proceeded to give an hour long invitation. That was it.
Incidentally, those of that I know who are not giving regular invitations at the end of every service are having Q & A sessions from the audience to whoever is teaching, and this is true in both Calvinist and non-Calvinist churches I know. If you preach in our pulpits or teach a lesson to our people, you'd better be able to stand up in cross-examination. Dare I say that Dr. Vines would not fare well in our churches in defending his statements here. What's more anybody can ask a question, including the unbelievers, and anything is fair game. So, we end up doing one on one evangelism right there in front of our people and with our people during and after the services.
"What's the use of preaching fervently, weeping earnestly over souls if God knows they won't repent?"... "Why give the free offer of the Gospel? The nonelect can't receive it. The elect are already sovereingly regenerated without it."
This is a boldfaced lie. The elect are NOT "sovereignly regenerated without" the gospel. What's more this undermines any and all objections he has to the doctrine of limited atonement, viz:
Total depravity subtracts from their ability, but not their duty. To say otherwise is to say that the more wicked I am, the less responsible I am for my sin. By that line of logic, the more evil I am, the more innocent I am. Talk about another gospel--that sounds like how the Devil would rewrite the gospel! :-)
What about faith in Christ? If it is true that Christ is the Savior of the world and the Lord of the universe, then shouldn't everyone believe that and trust in him? Isn't there a standing obligation on the part of everyone to believe in whatever is true? Ah, but if Christ didn't die for the reprobate, then they are not qualified to believe in him, right?
Wrong! It's Dr. Vines who defines the offer of the gospel in those terms. In the examples of Gospel preaching in the NT, you never run across a conversion formula which consists of believing that Christ died for me as a condition of salvation. The *fact* that Christ died for the elect alone is a condition of salvation, but *believing* that Christ died for the elect alone is not a condition of salvation. Since the Scriptural offer of the gospel is never framed in those terms, it is applicable to elect and reprobate alike.
As, as a practical matter, the reprobate will never believe it any way, while only the elect will believe it, so where's the harm?
The elect will believe that Christ died for them as a result of believing in him. Let's not get the cart before the horse. Again, the point is not that the preacher goes self-consciously out of his way to target the reprobate. No, the point is that he shouldn't be inhibited by any self-conscious scruples and anxieties. Leave the sorting out of the sheep and the goats to God on the day of judgment!
Dr. Vines is a functional hyper-Calvinist. He believes very plainly that general atonement is necessary to underwrite the free offer of the gospel in order for the offer to be valid and the unbeliever to have a warrant to believe. That's a hyper-Calvinist error.
In hyper-Calvinism, their ministers in the past would tell folks to search for a warrant to believe. Dr. Vines has found it for them, for he is saying that the objective offer of the gospel is invalid unless certain divine preconditions are acknowledged and respected. It isn't enough to call on everyone to repent and believe: unless you (the preacher) believe that God seconds your call from the pulpit, then the offer is insincere and sub-par.
As to whether we characterize this summons as an "offer" or something else is one-sided. If you run through the various prooftexts for the offer of the gospel, it is various described as an offer, invitation, command, calling, gift, &c. It is a mistake to insist on one of these formulations to the exclusion of the others. That leads to unscriptural reductionism.
This conversation is fascinating to me because it is such a ridiculously-transparent political grandstand.
Here's what I mean by that: to my knowledge, there are no credible advocates of the "founders" position in the SBC who want to disenfranchise the "non-Calvinist" SBCers. Someone might want to provide me with a list to enlighten me, and I'll gladly receive such a list -- but remember that my two major qualifiers are "credible" and "SBC". Citing Fred Phelps or some other loose canon merely amplifies the other side of the coin.
The other side of the political grandstand coin is this: there are plenty -- numerous, almost a legion -- of advocates against the "founders" position that unequivocally class the reformed/calvinist baptists in the SBC as clearly defective and contemptible in doctrine. The kinds of mischaracterizations apparent in Dr. Vines' exposition are only the tip of the iceberg. But these claims are made in a way which, in and of itself, is somewhat troubling.
If it were the case, for example, that calvinists were particularly soft on evangelism because they were excessive in their acceptance of the sovereignty of God, you would think that one could demonstrate that Al Mohler or Tom Ascol or Mark Dever (who I would list on the "A-Team" of this cadre of SBC reformed advocates) are soft on evangelism. And from those examples of evangelistically-soft calvinists, one could then say, "AHA! And here's the theological reason why Calvinists are sitters and not seekers of souls!"
But what we get is the hackneyed "calvinists are church killers" -- and no examples of churches killed by the doctrines of Grace.
Why? Why would anyone blindly class some group as "church killers" and soft on seeking souls when there are no examples of such people in the ranks being heckled?
There is only one answer in my view -- and again, if there is another equally-reasonable answer, I'll hear it out if it moves from example and evidence to conclusion. But it seems to me that the question really is who will control the convention in the future -- the geographical heirs of the resurgence (those who have grown up in and now pastor resurgence churches), or the theological/philosophical/spiritual heirs of the resurgence who are still on the path of reforming our convention rather than sitting on their laurels and their hind-quarters.
You know: the "calvinists" are the ones who want us to be honest about our rolls and our attendance; the "calvinists" are the ones who are demanding integrity and life-changing discipleship; the "calvinists" are the ones who think it is better to be open and honest in a dialog and to bring disagreement out in the open.
And we even have ministry in our blogs. Can you imagine such a thing? Rather than class the internet as a "not a mission field", we are blogging for Christ out here and interacting with lost people in a place where there are plenty of lost people. Most of us have the comments open on our blogs and maintain decorum there -- rather than merely using a blog as a really loud megaphone against which no one ought to be allowed to respond.
Let's please not pretend that this confrontation is purely theological: it seems so obviously political in nature and in tactics that it is difficult to believe that those trying to make an issue of it think the rest of us can't see what they're doing.