My colleague Tim Graham and I have found over the years that religion reporting in the secular media is often lacking any exploration of the one thing most of us who actually geek out over religion news want to see given attention in the press: theological disputes. After all, what's the point of having a reporter cover religion if you're not going to have him or her go into the substantial theological battle lines drawn in a given church or denomination.
In her June 11 article, "Southern Baptists Elect New Leader," Washington Post's Jacqueline Salmon completely failed to report on such a major theological implication in the Protestant denomination's election of the Rev. Johnny M. Hunt as convention president.True to liberal media form, Salmon boiled down Hunt and his supporters as the "fundamentalist wing" who are "hard line on the inerrancy of scripture" and opposed to the more relaxed "young reformers" who have questioned the old line Baptists on "its bans on alcohol consumption and female pastors."
Yet Salmon neglected one major theological debate roiling in the SBC that is part of a wider centuries-old conflict: Calvinism vs. Arminianism. Wrote Christianity Today's Ted Olsen in a June 10 post:
It's clear that Hunt is no fan of the growing Calvinist movement within the Southern Baptist Convention. He's hosting a major conference to refute Calvinism at his church in November. But most of the candidates were not friendly to Calvinism, and Hunt has given indications that he's not out to purge the denomination of Reformed influences.
"I am not overwhelmingly concerned about Calvinism," Hunt told Baptist Press two weeks ago. "I am concerned about hyper-Calvinism, simply being defined as those that take election to the point that they feel that the Gospel should not even be shared with the whole world. ... I trust that Calvinists, and those who love Jesus of other persuasions, would come together for the common cause of making Jesus Christ known to the nations. There is plenty of room for all of us in this Baptist family."
It's worth noting that Frank Page, the current SBC president was also highly critical of Calvinism (even writing a book titled Trouble with the Tulip) but had an irenic spirit that won him support among Calvinists and Arminians alike.
Things may have gone quite differently had Al Mohler, the Calvinist president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, stayed in the race (he suffered health complications).
The aforementioned conference -- sponsored by three Baptist seminaries (Mohler's Southern not among them) -- is The John 3:16 Conference to be held at Hunt's church in November, although Hunt himself is not scheduled to preach there.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Comments Policy
"Journalists"
June 11, 2008 - 12:10 ET by iveseenitallMost "journalists" today have little or no expertise about the subject of which they are reporting. Most of them can't determine fact from opinion. Most of them are quite ignorant. But no matter, they'll continue to write and speak for all to see and hear their stupidity. The arrogance of ignorance. Sickening!
Who is Barry Sotero?
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
don't blame them - it's
June 11, 2008 - 13:40 ET by TruthMongerdon't blame them - it's just the brutal training...
the purpose of every event is to push the leftwing agenda - somehow - period.
They're not interested in
June 11, 2008 - 14:56 ET by motherbeltThey're not interested in anything theological..to them it's all cultural. Old vs. new, or old vs. young. I suspect the "religion reporter" is not chosen, but assigned; probably by least seniority.
Please enlighten me Ken
June 11, 2008 - 12:16 ET by americaneagleKen,
If you don't mind, could you please give me a brief explanation of Calvinism vs. Arminianism in the SBC. Not being a member of the SBC I am not acquainted with the split you are talking about and would like to get a better understanding of the issues involved.
Thanks in advance for any information you can pass on!
fyi, americaneagle
June 11, 2008 - 12:24 ET by Ken ShepherdFor more information, from a Calvinist perspective:
http://www.sbccalvin...
Timothy George on major categories within the SBC:
http://www.beesondiv...
Neo-Calvinists. Early Baptists, both in England and America, were strongly influenced by Reformed theology, and there has been a growing interest in reclaiming this tradition within the Southern Baptist Convention. The “Calvinism boys,” as one of their detractors dubbed them, have made some folks nervous for fear that too much emphasis on God’s initiative in salvation might discourage human efforts at witness and evangelism. This issue was tackled head on by Paige Patterson and Al Mohler, two Southern Baptist educators, in a public debate at this year’s convention. While clearly holding to different views, they agreed that both parties should have a place at the Baptist table. And Page, not a Calvinist himself, said the same thing. If this spirit prevails, there will not be a divisive fight over Calvinism, as some have predicted. No doubt, both hyper-Calvinism and five-point Arminianism are still out of bounds among Southern Baptists, but between those two extremes there is room for a healthy debate on the precise balance between divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
American
June 11, 2008 - 13:35 ET by ricklailBasically Calvinist believe that you can't lose your salvation. Armenians believe you can. Just for the lay person that is the surface. I personally lean towards Calvinism but am not a hyper Calvinist. Hyper Calvinist believe because you are predestined, you are going to heaven or hell and you can't change it. So they have very little desire to evangelize. This might help.
This is an article on the subject from the Baptist Press.
“A debate is a conflict which clarifies a position. A dialogue is a conversation which compromises a position.” –John E. Ashbrook, The New Neutralism II, P. 7
i just call myself a
June 11, 2008 - 13:36 ET by TruthMongeri just call myself a Christian and don't worry about it:)
Actually there are wide
June 11, 2008 - 14:14 ET by Ken ShepherdActually there are wide variations. 5-point Arminians believe you can lose your salvation. Most Baptists who aren't Calvinist nonetheless believe that those who truly are saved by God never can lose their salvation.
The overarching difference between a Calvinist and Arminian viewpoint is that Calvinists believe spiritual regeneration (being born again) precedes faith, whereas Arminians would argue that exercising faith (repenting of sin, confession Jesus Christ as Lord), causes one to be born again.
Ken's right on the money. . .
June 11, 2008 - 17:35 ET by tracheostomyI was born and raised SBC. I knew the entire class curriculum by heart and I had memorized all the talking points like a good Southern Baptist should.
I left as a teenager because my pastor was unable to answer some scary questions that I had about the final resurrection and glorification. I was very angry at God and I was very confused being raised in that environment to say the least. The membership completely reflected the stereotype of the fundamentalist right that the MSM loves to hype all the time. Thus, the best lies always have a small element of truth to validate it.
Yet even though I was rasied SBC, I didn't consider myself truly surrendered to Christ until I was 21. I was starving for a committed study of the Word and for Christian fellowship, so my mother's old SBC church was the first place I went to, looking for answers.
That's where I found Dr. Tom James, the new assistant pastor of my church. He was one of the first to teach what bystanders call "Calvinism" even though I never recall him ever quoting John Calvin once.
His class was amazing. He took an expository-exegetical approach to Bible study that I'd never seen before! I was used to maybe, 1-2 verses during a Sunday School to support the topical study. Usually, they were about some shallow; completely redundant lesson on a single morality subject (imagine a full hour of what it means to be "pro-life." GAH!).
But Dr. James made it challenging! I started to realize that my church was teaching Arminianism, but they didn't really know it. They accused us of teaching Calvinism, but I was getting very little John Calvin, if any at all. At first, I didn't like his class because I was having a hard time with it, but it was the only class of its kind. The other classes were simply boring me to tears with their shallow; rehashed talking points.
One day, we were doing a study of Ezekiel 37:1-14. During my entire early life of being raised in the SBC, I'd never seen this passage opened up to me or preached from the pulpit. Not once. It was so beautiful I was moved to tears. It really touched my heart. Pastor James then showed us the verses in the New Testament that supported it, then he taught us a little poem.
It all "clicked" in one day! I realized I'd never really read the Bible with that understanding before! I'd assumed it was like, two different bibles, or God changed His mind, or two different Gods (one hateful; one loving).
Soon after, we did a complete study of Hebrews 6 and Romans 8! For the first time in my life I was truly excited about Christianity!
Our senior pastor had left due to family issues, and Dr. James was a candidate for senior pastor. He was voted out.
The rumormill had already voted for everyone months ahead. Everyone outside of our class assumed Dr. James was an evil Calvinist, and that he taught that God hates, that mankind has no free will, and that predestination means you're also predestined to hell.
Ten years later, there is still a very small circle of Reformed Southern Baptists in that church. I left for good around 2000, but continue to check back in from time to time. The pastor who currently serves there deliberately avoids anything Al Mohler writes. It's simply thought of as simple rebellion against the SBC and it is to be ignored outright, much less debated.
The variations that Ken asserts above exist apart from the official SBC/Lifeway curriculum, and go only as far as the individual member who is brave enough to "Explore the Bible" for themselves.
It's simply too sensitive to bring up in public. They simply refuse to endure it.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Ken and PJ - both this article and your explanations
June 11, 2008 - 17:55 ET by Dee Bunkare fascinating. Thanks to both of you for sharing this information. I love that little poem you shared PJ. This is the kind of stuff that converts people much more than confrontational arguing. It's also just very interesting.
Personal accounts being what they're worth. . .
June 11, 2008 - 18:15 ET by tracheostomyDee, I really downplayed the confrontational portion of my own testimony. You bring up the doctrines of grace anywhere and you're in for a fight. It doesn't matter where it happens, or who's doing it.
One of the most gentle and soft-spoken young men that I ever met was recently tested for ordination. If you heard him preach, you'd say his delivery was subdued. . .almost shy, but nonetheless very Biblical.
The director of Missions tore him apart that day, out loud, in public, and in front of the pastors and deacons. . .for his pro-Calvinist stance.
Regardless, he passed the exam.
Just look at the link to the conference Ken cited and you tell me what's going on. At one time it was simply a taboo. Now that it's gaining ground, they're holding a conference to resist it. I can't wait to get the DVD, because I promise you they won't be able to argue against it without liberal use of eisegesis.
We need to get back to our roots.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Are you from the South PJ?
June 11, 2008 - 18:40 ET by Dee BunkYou've probably mentioned it before but if I've seen it I forgot. I'm curious because I don't really know of people who practice at SBC churches by me. I'm sure there must be some. I had a painter once who was from the South and went to SBC services when he lived there but went to an "Assemblies of God" Church here. I used to get into religious conversations with him. I never really thought about it, but I wonder if he went to the AOG church because there are not many SBC congregations around here.
I was a member of the
June 11, 2008 - 20:22 ET by tracheostomyI was a member of the Northwest Baptist Convention. The church I attended in Eastern WA was something like a mission church seeded by a lot (a lot)of Southerners who moved here. I met my wife in that church when she moved in from Texas. Quite a few members of the USAF stationed at Fairchild attended here after moving from the South. They were all very kind. Gregarious to a fault, IMO. No one wanted to be accused of "rocking the boat."
My in-laws are from Houston/Beaumont and I think I love them more than my own family. Just incredibly wonderful and loving people out there. Total strangers will smile at you in grocery stores, or offer to help you out for no other reason than you're visiting. It blew my mind.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
That's cool PJ
June 11, 2008 - 21:01 ET by Dee BunkI love southerners too. I'd move South if it weren't for the bugs and the humidity.
It's great that you have such good in-laws.
dude, yer last two
June 12, 2008 - 11:22 ET by TruthMongerdude, yer last two "downplayed" posts have moved me to tears:)
mega frackin sniffle...
this is the trach that will scare satan sh*tless
much more please
i'm going to take a nice long nap now
Calvinism wasn't taught by Calvin
June 11, 2008 - 22:40 ET by rusty.p.shacklefordCalvinism today is really New England Puritanism. Calvin's teachings were added to by Theodore Beza (his successor at Geneva) and detailed by the NEP's like William Perkins and William Ames. Calvinism (as we know it today) is very similar to Arminianism as it relates to the most important of fields: soteriology. Like Arminianism, Calvinism adds works to faith in order to receive eternal life...they just add it on the back-end rather than the front. Both systems teach that you cannot enter heaven without good works. Faith is important, but if your life does not have enough good works then you either lost your salvation (Arminianism) or you were never saved to begin with (Calvinism).
Both systems deprive the believer of any assurance of their salvation. Arminianism teaches that you must do good works to get saved (baptism, repentance of sins, etc.) and if you fall away or continue in sin they you lose your eternal life. Calvinism teaches that you must have good works after you are saved in order to prove that you are really saved...if you don't have enough good works, then it proves that you were never really saved in the first place.
Neither systems give people 100% that they have everlasting life (John 20:31). Instead of asking people to believe in Jesus Christ for the free gift of eternal life (John 3:16; 5:24) both systems add works either to keep your salvation (Arminianism) or to show that you have it (Calvinism). I have never met a Calvinist that is willing to say that they know 100% that they are saved. The reason? Because they don't know if they have done enough good works to prove their salvation. Like Arminianism, they believe that there is a chance they may end up in hell.
My advice is to abandon both systems and instead become a scholar of the Bible rather than the writings of dead, fallible men. Eternal life is called eternal for a reason, and if any one good deed or work is necessary for your salvation then it becomes faith plus works rather than faith alone.
Welcome Rusty - very interesting post
June 11, 2008 - 23:00 ET by Dee BunkIt appears that the only absolute in common is that good works can only help you. So people who are saved or not can't go wrong with good works. It can either lead to or prove your salvation. That sounds very logical to me.
Only one problem Dee....
June 12, 2008 - 00:11 ET by rusty.p.shacklefordTwo questions arise....how many good works and for how long? Both systems fall into the works-trap by saying that you have to have good works, but both fail to say just how many works are needed to either keep (Arm) or prove (Calv) your salvation. This begs the question: how do I know if I am saved? How many works are needed to either keep or prove my salvation. Both camps agree that they cannot find the answer from Scripture. There is a reason for this...no works are needed to get your salvation, keep your salvation, or prove that you have at some point received salvation. If there were, wouldn't the Bible tell us just how many works are needed and for how long we need to keep doing them?
Instead, Scripture is clear that the only requirement for eternal life is by believing Jesus Christ's offer for it. Salvation comes by grace through faith plus nothing. Works are relevant to our fellowship with the Father (John 15) but not our relationship with the Father (John 1:12). We obey in order to have fellowship with Him, not to somehow "earn" eternal life. Salvation comes as a free gift (Eph 2:8-9) by believing that it is Jesus Christ that gives it to us (John 4). Adding works to the message (either to earn eternal life, to keep eternal life, or to prove eternal life) no matter where you stick them only change the gospel message (Romans 4:4-5). This is Paul's point in Romans 4, 5 and 6.
When you add works to the gospel message, you will never know if you are a Christian or not. How many works must you have besides your faith? How long do you have to keep them up? Can you go twenty years without good works and then have some at the end and still be saved? What if you die before you have them? What if you have good works but also a bunch of sins? Do they balance each other out?
Instead of pointing to Calvin's teaching on predestination and election as the dividing line between Calvinism and Arminianism, I think it's better to focus on their common error of holding to the terrible doctrine of perseverance of the saints. Both come to the same conclusion (though using different routes) that, unless one keeps doing good works until the very end of his life, then he or she is not a Christian. This is the terrible consequence of adding works to the gospel message: you don't know if God loves you or not. Jonathan Edwards (English Puritan) stuggled on his death bed not knowing if he was a Christian, and one of the main voices of today's Reformed (Calvinism) movement R. C. Sproul wrote in his TableTalk magazine (1989) that he doesn't know if he is saved or not either.
Rather, I say we look to the Scriptures to read the amazing clarity of Christ Himself in John 5:24, "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my and believes in Him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned. He has crossed over from death to life." There is no confusion as to your final destination if you read those words and ask yourself, "Do I believe?"
I see what you are saying Rusty
June 12, 2008 - 00:45 ET by Dee Bunkand understand the logic but to me all three theories can still fit together. I'm not a bible quoter but I know that it says if you seek then you will find so if you are seeking and doing good works you should logically become saved and if you are saved you should logically do good works.
I think the difference of knowing or not isn't as important. If you truly believe and are saved then you will know and you won't be able to help but do good works. If not, do good works while searching and you will be saved. I think I'm saying the same thing in a way as you without the great references.
I'm very tired and might not be making sense. Plus I have very convoluted logic anyway. I'm going to bed but again welcome and I hope you come around again.
can someone please tell me
June 12, 2008 - 11:24 ET by TruthMongercan someone please tell me what a "good work" is?
TM - Good works
June 12, 2008 - 15:43 ET by Dee Bunkare pretty much just following the tenets of your faith. It could be anything from a Hail Mary (specific to Catholics) to speaking in Tongues (more common to Pentecostals) to baptism and loving your neighbor (common to all major Christian faiths).
Rusty: Two questions
June 12, 2008 - 00:55 ET by tracheostomyRusty: Two questions arise....how many good works and for how long?
Do a word study on "fruit" for starters.
Rusty: Both systems fall into the works-trap by saying that you have to have good works, but both fail to say just how many works are needed to either keep (Arm) or prove (Calv) your salvation. This begs the question: how do I know if I am saved?
See the "P" in TULIP.
http://www.worldwithoutend.info/bbc/books/articles/sproul-01.htm
Rusty: How many works are needed to either keep or prove my salvation.
The Bible states it doesn't matter. See the parable of the talents. All that matters is that you don't bury it.
Rusty: If there were, wouldn't the Bible tell us just how many works are needed and for how long we need to keep doing them?
Um, yes. It does.
Rusty: Instead, Scripture is clear that the only requirement for eternal life is by believing Jesus Christ's offer for it. Salvation comes by grace through faith plus nothing. Works are relevant to our fellowship with the Father (John 15) but not our relationship with the Father (John 1:12). We obey in order to have fellowship with Him, not to somehow "earn" eternal life. Salvation comes as a free gift (Eph 2:8-9) by believing that it is Jesus Christ that gives it to us (John 4). Adding works to the message (either to earn eternal life, to keep eternal life, or to prove eternal life) no matter where you stick them only change the gospel message (Romans 4:4-5). This is Paul's point in Romans 4, 5 and 6.
How is this not an endorsement of antinomianism?
Rusty: Instead of pointing to Calvin's teaching on predestination and election as the dividing line between Calvinism and Arminianism, I think it's better to focus on their common error of holding to the terrible doctrine of perseverance of the saints.
Why is it terrible? Which of the verses supporting POTS are used in error? Wait, if you acknowledge there's a POTS to begin with, why did you assert Calvinism didn't teach assurance? Either the assurance that Calvinism teaches is faulty or it isn't there. Which one is it?
Rusty: Jonathan Edwards (English Puritan) stuggled on his death bed not knowing if he was a Christian, and one of the main voices of today's Reformed (Calvinism) movement R. C. Sproul wrote in his TableTalk magazine (1989) that he doesn't know if he is saved or not either.
Quotes please. How do you know they aren't working out their own salvation with fear and trembling?
Rusty: Rather, I say we look to the Scriptures to read the amazing clarity of Christ Himself in John 5:24, "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my and believes in Him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned. He has crossed over from death to life." There is no confusion as to your final destination if you read those words and ask yourself, "Do I believe?"
Define "belief" here. Are we talking mere assent, or the belief that the Amplified translates as "to cling to, adhere to, and to rely upon"?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Many people are just not
June 12, 2008 - 01:21 ET by rusty.p.shacklefordMany people are just not comfortable with the word "grace." They cannot accept that Jesus Christ is their only hope and that their own good works cannot help them earn or keep their salvation. Grace will always be confused with antinomianism. That is why Paul had to write Romans 6:1-2....people just couldn't accept the fact that their sins had, in fact, been paid for and that, because of this propitiation, there will always be the tendency to sin knowing that it does not affect whether or not we have eternal life.
Rusty,
June 12, 2008 - 01:38 ET by tracheostomyRPS: Many people are just not comfortable with the word "grace." They cannot accept that Jesus Christ is their only hope and that their own good works cannot help them earn or keep their salvation. Grace will always be confused with antinomianism. That is why Paul had to write Romans 6:1-2....people just couldn't accept the fact that their sins had, in fact, been paid for and that, because of this propitiation, there will always be the tendency to sin knowing that it does not affect whether or not we have eternal life.
Then how do you define "grace"? I define it as unmerited favor.
I also agree that works cannot help them earn or keep their salvation because I believe in the Biblical doctrine of POTS. Salvation is not lost because of lack of works. Works are considered a given desire. If we love Him, we will keep His commandments. It won't be perfect and it doesn't have a quota attached, but the believer will show fruit.
Romans 6:1-2 states, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?"
What about the tie-in with Romans 5:21, ". . .so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Romans 6:1-2 was written for those who sought to exploit grace for the sake of sinning.
Are you planning on answering the other questions I asked?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
faith without works is
June 12, 2008 - 11:31 ET by TruthMongerfaith without works is dead...
but we don't do good works - we can't...
only God can do good works - and He can do that through us - we are just tools, implements - like a hammer - God does the swinging - we let God do the swinging - we have surrendered our will to God, and God does His will through us...
PJ- An important thing to
June 12, 2008 - 02:12 ET by rusty.p.shacklefordPJ-
An important thing to remember is that believe/trust/faith translations of the same word in Greek (pistis or pisteuo) and it that it is, in fact, assenting to something being true, though there is nothing "mere" about it.
A second thing to remember is that the Synoptic Gospels were written to people who had already believed in Jesus for eternal life. These people needed discipleship, not evangelism. The only book whose purpose, first and foremost, is to teach people how to have eternal life is the Gospel of John (20:30-31). True, in chapters 13 to 17 John does record some of Jesus' teachings regarding how to be a disciple (different from being simply a believer) but the first purpose of his account is to convince people to believe in Jesus for everlasting life. This is why John uses the term pistis/pisteuo (faith, trust or believe) over 90 times in his Gospel....because he is telling us how to find eternal life.
One more thing to think about is the Bible's use of the word "salvation" as you think of Philippians 2:12. The Greek term is sozo or soterion and is a general term and simply means "deliverance from harm." The context of the passage dictates its usage, not the term itself (similar to the word love in the phrases "I love pizza" vs. "I love my wife." Most of the time when we read in our English translations the words "save", "saved" or "salvation" it is referring to our physical deliverance and not our eternal destiny. This is how Paul is using soterion in Philippians 2:12...he is warning his audience to be careful to obey God's commands in the face of opposition (1:28).
RPS: An important thing
June 12, 2008 - 02:59 ET by tracheostomyRPS: An important thing to remember is that believe/trust/faith translations of the same word in Greek (pistis or pisteuo) and it that it is, in fact, assenting to something being true, though there is nothing "mere" about it.
No, I don't agree. It is not mere agreement or acquiescence. I can agree that you have built a sturdy chair, but I don't have to actually sit on it. Even you agreed above that belief/faith/and trust are the same thing.
http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4100
RPS: A second thing to remember is that the Synoptic Gospels were written to people who had already believed in Jesus for eternal life. These people needed discipleship, not evangelism.
You mean the readers of the Gospels? That would argue to purpose. John makes that clear in John 20:31. Okay, so that's not one of the synoptics. But you've been citing John the whole time. (???)
RPS: The only book whose purpose, first and foremost, is to teach people how to have eternal life is the Gospel of John (20:30-31). True, in chapters 13 to 17 John does record some of Jesus' teachings regarding how to be a disciple (different from being simply a believer). . .
Yes, very different indeed. Don't forget Jesus lost nearly 90% of his disciples between the feeding of the 5,000 and His ascension to heaven.
RPS: One more thing to think about is the Bible's use of the word "salvation" as you think of Philippians 2:12. The Greek term is sozo or soterion and is a general term and simply means "deliverance from harm."
See 1b in Strongs.
RPS: The context of the passage dictates its usage, not the term itself (similar to the word love in the phrases "I love pizza" vs. "I love my wife." Most of the time when we read in our English translations the words "save", "saved" or "salvation" it is referring to our physical deliverance and not our eternal destiny. This is how Paul is using soterion in Philippians 2:12...he is warning his audience to be careful to obey God's commands in the face of opposition (1:28).
Physical deliverance from what? No, your context and usage assertion is correct. I agree with that. See 2:13. God through the Holy Spirit works in you for your continued sanctification. Also the Greek rendered to "work out" is in a continual sense. I read it as "Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess, therefore examine your salvation that your own humility reflects Christ (1 Cor 11:28, 2 Cor 13:5)."
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
"To think to be true" works
June 12, 2008 - 03:35 ET by rusty.p.shackleford"To think to be true" works for me. As long as you don't add anything to it such as obedience, repenting of sins, water baptism, etc. then I think we are in keeping with its New Testament usage.
The chair illustration isn't the best one to use. Whether I choose to sit in a chair or not doesn't change the fact that I believe it will hold me up.
My point with the Synoptics is that they don't usually give a gospel presentation i.e. how to have eternal life because that isn't their purpose. John's Gospel does have that purpose and so that is why it is best to look to his Gospel first when trying to decide what one must do to have eternal life.
I'm not following you with the reference to 1b for Strong's explanation of sozo.
Physical deliverance i.e. God's temporal judgment here in this life (James 5:19-20). Also used with Israel in Romans 10...if they had been willing to confess Christ with their mouths they would have been able to avoid the coming physical catastrophe promised to Jerusalem by Christ (Luke 19:41-44).
RPS: "To think to be
June 12, 2008 - 04:35 ET by tracheostomyRPS: "To think to be true" works for me. As long as you don't add anything to it such as obedience, repenting of sins, water baptism, etc. then I think we are in keeping with its New Testament usage.
That's assent.
RPS: The chair illustration isn't the best one to use. Whether I choose to sit in a chair or not doesn't change the fact that I believe it will hold me up.
You're merely taking the hypothetical chair based on the reputation of other chairs that have held you up in the past. It is irrational to assume every new chair we sit in will hold us up. . .and yet. . .we do it all the time regardless. You cannot partially sit in a chair and place true faith in it at the same time. It must therefore carry your entire weight, or you do not trust it to hold you up.
RPS: I'm not following you with the reference to 1b for Strong's explanation of sozo.
It's referring to salvation in the sense that you didn't want it to.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Rusty. . .
June 12, 2008 - 00:43 ET by tracheostomyRusty: Both systems deprive the believer of any assurance of their salvation. Arminianism teaches that you must do good works to get saved (baptism, repentance of sins, etc.) and if you fall away or continue in sin they you lose your eternal life. Calvinism teaches that you must have good works after you are saved in order to prove that you are really saved...if you don't have enough good works, then it proves that you were never really saved in the first place.
Um, hello? You totally forgot the "P" in TULIP. It's part of the Reformed doctrine of sanctification.
Sorry. But there's your assurance.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
I have to ask you: do you
June 12, 2008 - 01:47 ET by rusty.p.shacklefordI have to ask you: do you know for certain that you will persevere to the end? If yes, how do you know what the future has in store for you? If no, then you have to admit that logically you do not know if you are really saved or not.
Does it make sense that God wants to keep us in suspense until we breathe our last breath in whether or not we go to heaven or hell? Is it loving to tell my daughter that she is mine only if she obeys?
My assurance of having eternal life comes from Jesus' words in John 6:47 that "whosoever believes in Me has everlasting life." I believe in Him and His promise to give me eternal life as a free gift, so therefore I know I have it. How good I live my life or whether or not I "persevere to the end" affects my fellowship, not my relationship. I will have to answer at the judgment seat of Christ for how I live my life (Rom 14:10-12) but only with regards to receiving rewards (or lack of them!). It isn't to see if I am going to hell or not. This is another problem with both Arminians and Calvinists....both systems really don't understand the Scriptural teachings on rewards at the bema seat. Instead, whenever they read a warning passage (or a parable) they think it is always talking about heaven vs. hell and not rewards vs. disappointment.
Rusty,
June 12, 2008 - 02:27 ET by tracheostomyRPS: I have to ask you: do you know for certain that you will persevere to the end? If yes, how do you know what the future has in store for you?
Yes. I have full assurance through the Word that I am kept if I have believed on Christ. One thing I do know about the future is that "none shall snatch them out of My hand" and Romans 8.
RPS: If no, then you have to admit that logically you do not know if you are really saved or not.
Oh, I have forgotten my assurance during moments of intense despair and panic. But just because I subjectively feel "abandoned" doesn't mean the facts of scripture change. It's either there sitting on a shelf; sitting there all quiet, with my own fleshly thoughts doing all the talking, or I have it open and I am regaining the hope that is within me.
RPS: Does it make sense that God wants to keep us in suspense until we breathe our last breath in whether or not we go to heaven or hell? Is it loving to tell my daughter that she is mine only if she obeys?
Neither. God does not want us to be in suspense. He wants us to know Him and trust Him. Our salvation doesn't depend on our obedience. The obedience is a natural outgrowth and proof of the fruits of repentance. If your daughter hypothetically runs off in a fit of anger screaming about how you don't love her, does that make it true?
RPS: My assurance of having eternal life comes from Jesus' words in John 6:47 that "whosoever believes in Me has everlasting life."
Nothing wrong with that. It just shows you have very consistent trust in Christ. But what does belief mean again?
Also, see v.44. Does "draw" mean to "woo" or "entice"?
RPS: I believe in Him and His promise to give me eternal life as a free gift, so therefore I know I have it. How good I live my life or whether or not I "persevere to the end" affects my fellowship, not my relationship.
Correct. But how is this not antinomianism again? How is this not licentiousness? What is to keep you from putting the fellowship on hold whenever you feel like sinning?
RPS: I will have to answer at the judgment seat of Christ for how I live my life (Rom 14:10-12) but only with regards to receiving rewards (or lack of them!).
You a fan of Zane Hodges, middle theory, and Joseph Dillow?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Those guys are good...I
June 12, 2008 - 03:11 ET by rusty.p.shacklefordThose guys are good...I would also recommend you get a copy of C. Gordon Olson's "Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism." As a reader you would enjoy it even if you don't agree with his premise.
I don't mean to pry, but your phrasing of "...if I have believed on Christ" may be taken to mean that you are pretty sure but not 100% that you have believed on Christ. This is my whole point with Calvinism and their perseverance issue...they tie their eternal life to whether ot not they persevere to the end. Since they haven't met their end yet, they can't say they know they will persevere and therefore aren't 100% they are saved.
My point with my daughter is that she is my daughter regardless of whether she obeys me or not. This is exactly the opposite of what both Calvinism and Arminanism teaches....they both teach that my daughter would obey me else she isn't my daughter. The truth is, I think our Heavenly Father looks at us the same way as my example...once we trust Christ and become His children (John 1:12) how we act doesn't determine whether nor not we belong to him. This is what Calvinism teaches...that the elect will obey and persevere.
If so, why do we need the New Testament? Why all these commands to obey if we will end up obeying anyway?
What is to keep me from putting the fellowship on hold whenever I feel like sinning? The fact that I will have to give an account to God for my actions (Rom 14:10). I think that people often don't understand this and therefore think they can live anyway they want to without consequence. I firmly believe as believers we face consequences, but I know that hell isn't one of them.
RPS: Those guys are
June 12, 2008 - 04:12 ET by tracheostomyRPS: Those guys are good...I would also recommend you get a copy of C. Gordon Olson's "Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism." As a reader you would enjoy it even if you don't agree with his premise.
Reign of the Servant Kings really messed me up! It overlooks several key passages and its thesis is forced. It threw me into serious error for about a year. It also cost me a close friendship with someone I haven't seen since seminary (I only went 2 years myself).
RPS: I don't mean to pry, but your phrasing of "...if I have believed on Christ" may be taken to mean that you are pretty sure but not 100% that you have believed on Christ.
Sure, you could take "...if I have believed on Christ" to mean that eisegetically, or you could simply ask for my exegetical explanation of it, or look at the wider context. =)
I used it in the sense that it is a necessary condition. See?
RPS: This is my whole point with Calvinism and their perseverance issue...they tie their eternal life to whether ot not they persevere to the end. Since they haven't met their end yet, they can't say they know they will persevere and therefore aren't 100% they are saved.
There are distinct reasons for this:
a.) The heart is deceitful above all things (Jeremiah). I can't assure you 100% that I'm not trying to fool you. But it may very well be I'm preaching the gospel from envy.
b.) We're not God. But we do know Christ knows His sheep regardless of how the sheep feel at a given point in time.
c.) The doctrine of sanctification reassures you personally over time, when you look back and see how you have persevered through His guidance and protection.
d.) You cannot assume "the end" isn't 2-3 hours from now.
RPS: My point with my daughter is that she is my daughter regardless of whether she obeys me or not.
She is also your daughter whether or not the neighborhood bully tells her she's adopted. See?
RPS: This is exactly the opposite of what both Calvinism and Arminanism teaches....they both teach that my daughter would obey me else she isn't my daughter.
You're switching roles against yourself too quickly. Arminanism states that you could potentially disown her for an infraction. Calvinism states she continues to be your daughter despite disobedience. It's about God's promises; not the individual.
RPS: The truth is, I think our Heavenly Father looks at us the same way as my example...once we trust Christ and become His children (John 1:12) how we act doesn't determine whether nor not we belong to him. This is what Calvinism teaches...that the elect will obey and persevere.
Okay, I agree with that. The works naturally follow faith. The works aren't the threat of faith. The apostate believer would not even examine himself very closely to begin with. Some warnings are given just so God can say, "Don't say I didn't warn you." Some warnings God places that He knows will go unheeded. The gospel message is just that. A warning to all that the Kingdom of God is at hand and to repent. Evangelists don't have to fill a quota, just spread (broadcast)the seed.
RPS: If so, why do we need the New Testament? Why all these commands to obey if we will end up obeying anyway?
Paul states the Mosaic law was the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Then we follow Christ. Yet we still need to know what we are doing that pleases Him. We are then encouraged by our obedience to please God more and to pursue that relationship more deeply.
RPS: What is to keep me from putting the fellowship on hold whenever I feel like sinning? The fact that I will have to give an account to God for my actions (Rom 14:10).
But like you stated, you don't know "how much." Therefore, by your system you can sin now, and claim ignorance later. Or, you can sin some really awesome sins now, and suck it up later. . .like paying off a credit card.
RPS: I think that people often don't understand this and therefore think they can live anyway they want to without consequence. I firmly believe as believers we face consequences, but I know that hell isn't one of them.
The Bible does not teach two groups of Christians. We're interpreting it from man's POV and a desire to ride the fence. Here's a great comprehensive critique that deals with all sides.
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/freegrace.html
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
I think you are confusing
June 12, 2008 - 11:07 ET by rusty.p.shacklefordI think you are confusing "Perseverance" of the Saints with "Preservation" of the Saints. Eternal Security teaches that believers will get to heaven no matter how much they obey (or disobey). Perseverance teaches that every believer will obey and keep getting better at it.
If you are denying that there is such a thing as a carnal Christian (a Christian that chooses to sin despite knowing that it is wrong) then I would recommend Romans 7 and the entire book of 1 Corinthians.
Phil Simpson's article, in my humble opinion, is geared more for those who already hold his assumptions. He is taking much from Zeller's papers presented at Middletown Bible Church and makes the same error...trying to cover several topics such as Perseverance, Assurance and Carnality by citing verses he thinks give credence to his view. True, most of us do the very same thing when we blog, but in Simpson's case he is presenting his paper as a treatise on why he is Lordship. He does very little exegesis. Also, when he criticizes someone for stating that context can determine meaning (in his explanation of 1 John 3:14) he is making a pretty big error hermeneutically.
Before we get too bogged down in citing the many ways we disagree, I think Dillow's book presents a much better case for why Reformed theology (as it stands today) doesn't add up. I would recommend taking a look at it again at the evidence he presents. There hasn't been a book published (that I know of) that seriously deals with the logical arguments, Greek word definitions and tense analysis that Dillow presents (this is another problem with Simpson...when he chides FG teachers for using such steps in stating their case, I have to ask what he thinks we should use).
Christianity really seems
June 12, 2008 - 11:53 ET by TruthMongerChristianity really seems to take off when we embrace faith - like the Roman centurian - the absence of "exegesis" is what apparently astonished Jesus...
I feel much better doing what God tells me without knowing why...
not that studying the Word is bad - scripture instructs us to...
but it's very difficult to have both faith as well as study - they can be mutually exclusive...
(shakes head)
June 12, 2008 - 12:02 ET by dvdaughtryIt's not difficult at all, in fact they go hand in hand.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=10&verse=17&version=31&context=verse
You should try
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=24&chapter=17&verse=28&version=31&context=verse
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
have you ever walked on
June 12, 2008 - 12:06 ET by TruthMongerhave you ever walked on water?
RPS,
June 12, 2008 - 15:35 ET by tracheostomyRPS: I think you are confusing "Perseverance" of the Saints with "Preservation" of the Saints.
Okay great. Who separated them to begin with?
RPS: Phil Simpson's article, in my humble opinion, is geared more for those who already hold his assumptions.
Okay. Please demonstrate.
RPS: He is taking much from Zeller's papers presented at Middletown Bible Church and makes the same error...trying to cover several topics such as Perseverance, Assurance and Carnality by citing verses he thinks give credence to his view.
Okay. Which verses did he mess up?
RPS: He does very little exegesis. Also, when he criticizes someone for stating that context can determine meaning (in his explanation of 1 John 3:14) he is making a pretty big error hermeneutically.
How is adhering to "Cooper's Rule" not exegesis? Where is the error?
RPS: Before we get too bogged down in citing the many ways we disagree, I think Dillow's book presents a much better case for why Reformed theology (as it stands today) doesn't add up.
But isn't there a need to address the criticisms of the book as well? Why is the critique invalid to begin with?
RPS: I would recommend taking a look at it again at the evidence he presents. There hasn't been a book published (that I know of) that seriously deals with the logical arguments, Greek word definitions and tense analysis that Dillow presents (this is another problem with Simpson...when he chides FG teachers for using such steps in stating their case, I have to ask what he thinks we should use).
How about we start with a simple scripture index comparison? The problem is that I got rid of my copy several years ago. So, I can't go any further I guess.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
I don't think the WaPo
June 11, 2008 - 12:56 ET by mattmI don't think the WaPo "missed" anything; I believe they deliberately do this kind of thing to paint the image they want.
If they covered it the way it should be covered, their readers might stop seeing Christians as thoughtless fanatics and start getting interested in serious theological matters and subsequently maybe even become Christians themselves...and then cancel their subscriptions to the WaPo.
the purpose of every event
June 11, 2008 - 13:37 ET by TruthMongerthe purpose of every event is to push the leftwing agenda - somehow - period.
I Don't See The Difference
June 11, 2008 - 13:31 ET by Gothampc"After all, what's the point of having a reporter cover religion if you're not going to have him or her go into the substantial theological battle lines drawn in a given church or denomination."
While I agree with most of the opinions of Newsbusters bloggers, I have to call "hypocrite" on Newsbusters to this issue. In his 6/7 article "WaPo Highlights Its Own Web Secularists in Wright-Hagee Story," Tim Graham cast doubt on Rev. John Hagee without having an understanding of Hagee's theological position.
It would be nice if writers understood the theological differences, but if Newsbusters isn't doing it, why should anyone else?
dude, don't get me started
June 11, 2008 - 13:39 ET by TruthMongerdude, don't get me started on Islam:)...
»→ Like you need a segway, Truthie?
June 11, 2008 - 17:38 ET by Cool ArrowSlow boat, Zyke Bike, or Zumble Zay would suffce.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
I'm so glad you restrained yourself TM
June 11, 2008 - 17:59 ET by Dee BunkIt's really nice. I mean it. I hope it doesn't offend you for me to say so because I mean this 100% as a compliment.
thanks dee - not at all -
June 12, 2008 - 11:55 ET by TruthMongerthanks dee - not at all - we've all spoken our peace, haven't we - no need to beat a dead horse:)
it's back in His hands - where it belongs...
Nope....
June 12, 2008 - 10:04 ET by Sua Sponte 75No bait takers or ones wanting to assist you in de-railing...
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
and likewise... it's all
June 12, 2008 - 11:56 ET by TruthMongerand likewise...
it's all good:)
In a nutshell..
June 11, 2008 - 20:35 ET by pvoceCalvanism states that the elect are saved, whereas Armenianism states that salvation is open to everyone.
Not really in a nutshell,
June 11, 2008 - 20:48 ET by tracheostomyNot really in a nutshell, because you're bouncing back and forth from God's POV to ours.
God knows who the elect are. We don't. This therefore, does not annul the need for evangelism.
Arminianism does state that salvation is open to everyone, but that leaves it very "open ended" to interpretation. Does this then mean that salvation is available to everyone due to every individual's merit of will or choice?
Who chooses? Man, or the Holy Spirit's conviction of man's heart beforehand?
That's why it's called "The John 3:16 Conference," and not "The John 3:8 Conference." >;)
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Thanks for the information!
June 11, 2008 - 23:00 ET by americaneagleAfter reading the answers to my question I at least have a rudimentary knowledge of the issue going on. Not being a Baptist myself, but belonging to a Way of the Cross/Apostolic congregation, this issue has never arisen for me.
But does anyone else think that the whole idea of a special "elect" that is going to be "saved" regardless of what they do flies in the face of the very words of the Bible? I don't think that the doctrine is scriptural, and it seems to make the sacrifice of Christ on the cross moot. Why would there need to be a sacrifice made to reconcile man to God if God had already decided whom would be saved? And doesn't it negate the whole concept of free will in mankind? I firmly believe that God created man with free will and wants us to choose to come home to Him when our lives here are over, but the doctrine of a preordained "elect" negates that choice. If all God wanted were creatures to worship Him with no real choice in the matter, it stands to reason that He would have stuck with the angels since that seems to be one of their primary functions.
I guess you can put me down on the side of once saved-always saved because I have never seen one jot or tittle in the Bible that goes the other way. Even those that are saved and still fall into sin have the ability to repent of those sins, and the blood of Christ is sufficient to cover them all.
Again, thanks for the answers. I appreciate the fact that I learned something new today!
Election isn't what you think...
June 12, 2008 - 00:24 ET by rusty.p.shacklefordGod's "elect" refer to a large group of people that are different from the rest of the world. This group's destiny is different than everybody else's in that God chose this group to rule and reign with Him over the new heavens and the new earth (what we commonly think of as heaven). We choose whether or not we belong to this group. When we trust Christ for eternal life, God puts us into this group of "elected" people. We choose, but so does God. The President is "elected" by the people but he or she still has a say on whether or not they are elected.
When thinking of the two-groups example (elect vs. nonelect) it's helpful to think of the many high schools in your town. Of all the schools, you choose Washington High as the group that receives free scholarships to college. You chose that group above all other groups. The students still have a choice on whether they belong to that group or not (they have to enroll or transfer) but when they become a part of Washington High it can be said that they are part of the "elect."
One other point...repenting or turning away from sins is not how one is saved or keeps their salvation. Because Christ propitiated (paid for) the sins of the world, sin itself is no longer the deciding factor. God is satisfied (the point of the letter to the Hebrews) as far as sins go. What matters is whether or not you have, at some point in your life, received the free gift of eternal life that comes by trusting Jesus Christ for it. A good place to study this is John 3:16-18.
What am I saying, then? Should we continue to sin so that God's grace may increase? May it never be (Romans 6:1-2)!
Rusty: When thinking of
June 12, 2008 - 01:00 ET by tracheostomyRusty: When thinking of the two-groups example (elect vs. nonelect) it's helpful to think of the many high schools in your town. Of all the schools, you choose Washington High as the group that receives free scholarships to college. You chose that group above all other groups. The students still have a choice on whether they belong to that group or not (they have to enroll or transfer) but when they become a part of Washington High it can be said that they are part of the "elect."
This does not follow. The collective institutional entity of the school here in this example is selected before the individual students are confirmed. Almost as if you're initially substituting the building for the students, and then switching it in the end. This is not so with God, because He chooses according to individuals. Second, God cannot be surprised.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07