My son Landon just related to me his joy in reading the first chapter of John. How he saw all sorts of wonderful things in the Word; that is made him think about the things in the past – the prophets, Jesus, that it made him think about what was coming in the future, that it made him want to pray (and that he did), that it makes him want to read the Word every day.

Folks, if you want a clue whether someone is saved – THOSE are the sort of things you look for. NOT whether they’ve “made a decision”, or whether they “want to be baptised”. The will is enslaved to sin. No emotional appeal, no matter how sincerely made or responded to, will overcome that spiritual slavery. God’s power breaks those chains, and they come to love Him and His Word. Of His choice, His power, His drawing, His regeneration, and His faith – wholly His work. A decision, dear friends, unaccompanied by His means of grace, is a work – of the fallen human will. We’re going to nurture this precious tendency, and watch over his growth carefully – as faithful parents – but it makes me so inexpressibly sad that this is not what we’re looking for in our families as evidence of the power of God. God’s work is ever so much more powerful and glorious than our own.

It is the amazing work of God’s gloriously sovereign grace to give new life to a dead sinner – and to proffer His gifts of faith, hope, and love, as well as every other good and gracious gift. I pray that Landon will continue in these things. I also pray that we give God alone the glory for His works.

We told you, Liberty. We told you, Dr. Caner. This wasn’t going to be swept up under the rug. This wasn’t going to go away. We knew that if the media got a whiff of this, it was going to be ugly. We begged, we pleaded, we have been praying for months that there would be something other than stonewalling and dismissive barbs coming out of Liberty, and out of Dr. Caner.

What Dr. Caner, his defenders and his employers need to realize is this:

1) There are several groups who are involved here. There is no monolithic “conspiracy”. First, there are the Muslims, and a few Christians who have indiscriminately taken up the allegations of Mr. Kahn and others, and insist that Dr. Caner is a fake ex-muslim – that he never was a Muslim. Second, there are the atheists and secular media who are out to see if a “Christian celebrity” will fall. Thirdly, there are those who are chiefly concerned with the reproach to the Gospel that this situation has become.

2) There are significant differences in method, tactics, and focus between these groups. For instance, I would be in the third group. I am a friend of Alpha and Omega’s ministry. I have participated in many discussions in our chat channel concerning Dr. Caner. Our approach, in general, is to consider these questions prayerfully, carefully, and in a balanced way. Our concern is not to “team up” with Muslims – but to be consistent in our insistence on truth – from those who are on “our side” as much as from the Muslims we converse with and witness to. We reject, and have rejected from the beginning, that Dr. Caner is a “fake ex-muslim”. Our insistence, from the first, has been on consistency and truthfulness. This means, given the evidence that has been uncovered, that we must insist that Dr. Caner WAS a Muslim, if apparently nominal. In fact, many of us have bent over backwards to correct excessive or baseless criticism on any point we encounter. We have taken heat for it, too. The central issues we have with Dr. Caner are that these fabrications are dishonest, being tied to the presentation of the Gospel, and therefore disgracing the Gospel. Shall the name of God be blasphemed because of our silence? May it never be!

3) There is nothing but hurt coming – to the Gospel, to Liberty University, and to Dr. Caner – if Dr. Caner doesn’t fess up, and fess up soon.

4) The “help” being offered to Dr. Caner by several Southern Baptist bloggers is about to be excruciatingly embarrassing – and will also result in a black eye on the Southern Baptist Convention, if not addressed soon. On the other hand, the allegations being made by many Muslims and some Christians are equally unfortunate, in that they show a lack of balance.

Here is a list of questions compiled by the indefatigable researchers who have been looking through the Caner’s statements; modified by a few of my own, and those of others. (Thank you, biglo, Jason, TurretinFan!)

Questions for Dr. Caner

Name

1) What is your full legal name?
2) Have you ever changed your legal name?
3) Why did you previously use “Michael” pre 9/11 and switch to “Mehmet” post 9/11?
4) Why did you state your name was “Giovanni”?

Ethnicity

5) You’ve claimed to be “Persian”, “Anatolian and not Persian.” Which is correct?
6) Was your father Turkish?
7) Is your mother Swedish?
8) Why do you emphasize being 100% Turkish, spanning 21 generations to the exclusion of your Swedish ancestry?
9) Do you believe you were honest and gracious in portraying yourself as 100% Turkish as well as describing “your” people as “Towel Heads”, “Sand Monkeys”, “Camel Jockeys”, and “Sand Niggers”?
10) Aren’t these Arab slurs, not Turkish?
11) Why do you tell offensive jokes in the pulpit?

Residency/Citizenship

12) Where were you born?
13) What citizenships do you or have you held?
14) Where did you live before arriving in the US? Please provide a list.
15) Have you ever lived in a country that could be deemed majority Muslim?
16) What did you mean about arriving in the US after going through Beirut/Cairo?
17) When did your family move to the US?
18) Did you arrive via Brooklyn?
19) Did you live in Brooklyn on arrival in the US?
20) How old were you when you moved to Ohio?

Languages

21) Was Swedish your first language?
22) How fluent are you in the Turkish language?
23) How fluent are you in the Arabic language?
24) Do you still maintain you had a poor grasp of English until you were married?
25) How long have you been speaking English?
26) Where did you learn English?

Father’s background

27) Did your father officially declare your mother as baggage to customs on arrival in the US?
28) When you say your father had multiple wives do you mean your father was a polygamist?
28) What do you mean when you say your father came to build mosques?
29) Do you support your website’s claim that your father was among the ulema?
30) Was your father one of a number who called the men to prayer?

Mother’s Background

31) Is your mother originally from a Lutheran background?
32) Did your mother convert to Islam in Sweden and then reject Islam in America?
33) Did your mother desert Islam for what Emir has called a hippie Universalist lifestyle?
34) Did your mother ever wear any Islamic clothing after she adopted this hippie lifestyle?

Reasons for coming to America

35) Were your family Sunni Muslims or Wahhabi?
36) Do you stand by your statement that you moved to the US in 1978 after Ayatollah Khomeini the Shia Muslim leader encouraged Muslims to do so?
37) Did you come to America to be an Islamic missionary?
38) Which madrassa did you attend?
39) What is the ‘Youth Jihad‘?
40) When and where were you a member of the Youth Jihad?
41) What were the activities of the Youth Jihad?
42) Were you ever trained as a jihadist?
43) Was there any real chance that you would have strapped a bomb to your chest if you hadn’t been converted?

Devotion to Islam

44) Did your mother ever try to prevent you from being brought up in Islam?
45) Did your mother allow you to wear Islamic dress while in her home?
46) Did you wear Islamic clothing to school?
47) Did you use a prayer mat in the high school bathrooms?
48) Why did you say Ramadan was forty days long when in fact it is a lunar month in length?
49) Why did you confuse the Shahada with the opening words of Surat al-Fatiha?
50) Given that both would have been repeated thousands of times, as a devout Muslim, how could you be confused about such a basic thing?
51) How did you attend the Mosque during the school year?

Grandmother’s Background

51) Was your grandmother from a Lutheran background?
52) Was your grandmother’s only language Swedish?
53) Was your grandmother a pluralist?
54) Did your grandmother have a significant involvement in your upbringing?

Ability to Travel Abroad

55) Were you and your brothers barred by a court from traveling abroad during the 1970s?
56) Did you or your brothers ever leave the US to travel abroad in the 1970s and if so where and when did you travel?

American Culture

57) Do you still say all you learned about American culture prior to 1978 was from the Andy Griffith show, the Dukes of Hazzard, and Wrestling?
58) Do you still claim to have watched these in Turkey prior to 1978 despite fact that the Dukes of Hazzard first aired in 1979?

Visit to Stelzer Road Baptist “revival”

59) Did you attend Stelzer Road Baptist Church to sort the Christians out, with your Father’s knowledge as you have said, or did you attend without your father’s knowledge as you have said elsewhere?
60) Did you attend there with your Quran and wearing Muslim clothing?
61) Did you interrupt the service to get saved and the pastor asked you to delay the request until the altar call?
62) Did you go with the young people to an afterglow and witness to the waitress at the place where you ate?
63) Did you eat ham for the first time on the night of your conversion or did your mother as a non-Muslim allow you to eat ham prior to this?
64) Did you really attend the mosque the next day to tell Muslims about your new found faith?
65) Were you beaten for this?

Timing of Conversions

66) Emir and yourself have both claimed Thursday Nov 4, 1982 as your conversion dates so on what date were you saved?
67) Emir and yourself have claimed Emir was converted about a year after you so on what date was Emir saved?
68) Were Emir and Erdem converted at the same time?
69) Were you preaching your first sermon when Emir and Erdem came forward to get saved or was it Pastor Clarence Miller as both Emir and your book Unveiling Islam claims?

Acar’s Reaction to Conversion

70) How do you account for your father rejecting you as his son for 17 years and rejecting Emir for 14 years if Emir was saved a year after you?
71) Did your father cut you out of all the family photographs and did he do the same for your brothers?

Monica’s Reaction

72) Did your mother have any negative reaction to your conversion that resulted in you becoming a “church orphan”?
73) Were you disowned by all of your family?
74) When did your mother became a Christian?
75) Did she continue to wear a hijab until she was baptized?

Qualifications

76) What degrees have you earned?
77) What honorary degrees do you have?
78) Have you claimed that you have a Ph.D?
79) Why, when Unveiling Islam was revised, did you continue to refer to undertaking a Ph.D?
80) You have claimed to engage in more than sixty Muslim debates. Where is the evidence of these debates?
81) Who have you debated? What are their names?
82) When and where did these debates take place?
83) In February, 2010, you said you never debated Shabir Ally. Who did you debate in Nebraska? When? On what topic?
84) You claimed to debate Abdul Saleeb, which means “servant of the cross.” Why did you claim to debate a Christian, and attribute an Islamic argument to him?
85) You have often, in talks, and in print, referred to “Hadith 9:57.” Since any meaningful citation of the hadith literature requires the use of the name of the actual collection (in this case, Sahih al-Bukhari), does this not show a fundamental ignorance of the most basic elements of scholarly inquiry into Islamic studies?
86)Do you claim to be an expert in Islam?
87) Why should these claims about your past, and your apologetic work, not be considered false advertising and fraudulent?

Fatwa

88) Were you ever under a Fatwa that kept you and your family on the road?
89) Who issued this Fatwa?
90) If you were/are under a Fatwa why do you publish your children’s names, their photos and pictures of the outside and inside of your home?

Miscellaneous

91) Is your father-in-law really from “Possum Kill” in North Carolina? You have claimed so and Emir has said that this is really so despite there being no such place officially recognized by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names database?

Censorship

92) Why did you ask Focus on the Family to remove a recording of your testimony?
93) Did you have any part in requesting Living with Joy radio to remove your testimony?
94) Did you ask John Ankerberg to take down the YouTube videos which mocked you?

Legal Documents

95) Do you agree that the documents provided by Jason Smathers are authentic documents?

Truth

96) Do you believe that you merely misspoke or would you now say you lied on the various matters in the questions above?
97) If you agree you lied why did you do so?
98) Dr. White brought up your debate claims in October of ’09. The biographical matters surfaced in February of this year. Why have you refused to answer these matters for this long?
99) Why have you blamed the investigations into your testimony on Christians colluding with Muslims?
100) Do you agree you have profited financially from false claims in your testimony?
101) Do you believe your testimony had any part in you getting your current post?
102) Why did you tweet in disparaging terms about those investigating your words?
103) Why did you quickly remove your statement of February 2010?
104) Do you believe you owe an apology to the Muslim Mohammed Khan?
105) Do you believe you owe an apology to any Christian bloggers?
106) Why did you block everyone who asked you questions about these matters?

Standing before God

107) Do you think you have honored God?
108) Have you repented to God for what you have done?

These questions are provided to emphasize and illustrate the depth and breadth of the problems that has been identified. As Dr. White said on the Thursday, May 14th Dividing Line, we would like nothing better than to see repentance and restoration occur. We are all very, very tired of this whole affair – but consistency is what drives this entire affair, and it has to be seen through. Look, this isn’t some vendetta over a debate that fell through. This isn’t some obsession we have, due to the comments he has made about us. It truly isn’t. If that was so, we would have nothing to do but obsess over critics all day, every day. That just isn’t the case. This has been front and center because Dr. Caner refuses to address the issue meaningfully. He has taken this tack from the beginning, and Liberty’s leadership has played backstop for it. Since this is so, and since the amount of evidence to demonstrate that Dr. Caner’s autobiographical claims has multiplied immensely, this has continued to develop. It’s an integrity issue.

Questions for Dr. Caner’s supporters:
1) Can you provide answers for any of the questions above?
2) Can you point me to a defense of Dr. Caner that has provided an answer for any of the questions above?
3) Can you point me to a blog that has factually answered objections to Dr. Caner?
4) Can you name a blog post defending Dr. Caner that has not resorted to ad hominem argumentation in lieu of factual defense?
5) Can you name me a blog factually defending Dr. Caner that *isn’t* one written by someone who has also expressed concerns about Dr. Caner?
6) Can you specify when and where the accusation has been leveled by any blogger related to A&O that insists that Dr. Caner is a “fake ex-Muslim,” rather than differentiating the position as “fake ex-devout Muslim”?
7) Can you specify when and where any blogger related to A&O has “collaborated” with a Muslim?
8) Is it not true that Debbie Kaufman has disagreed with every blogger related to A&O concerning the “fake-ex-muslim” claim?
9) Is it not true that Debbie Kaufman has responded negatively to any suggestion that she moderate her claims regarding Dr. Caner from other bloggers?
10) Is it not true that we have publicly noted that we disagree with Mr. Kahn’s methodology and the extent of his claims?
11) Is it not true that we have repeatedly denied that this issue has any connection to the debate debacle in 2006?
12) Have you read or heard Dr. White’s explanation of why he has engaged this issue?
13) Is it not true that we have repeatedly insisted that this is an issue of honesty and consistency – and of witness to Muslims?
14) Is it not true that Dr. White’s consistent call to Muslim debate opponents is that they be “lovers of truth”?
15) How then would Dr. White, or any of us, be consistent in turning a blind eye to what we first recognized as discrepancies in claimed debates, and then snowballed into evidence of a pattern of falsehood?
16) Have you read or heard us saying, repeatedly, that we have no desire whatsoever to “aid and abet” Muslims in claiming that Dr. Caner is a “fake ex-Muslim”?
17) Do you understand that in the eyes of Muslims, you are the ones aiding and abetting dishonesty?
18) Have you read or heard that our claim is that Dr. Caner autobiographical falsehoods are a reproach to the Gospel, and that it is on those grounds that we are going this direction?
19) Is it not plain that the response of Dr. Caner and Liberty are what has necessitated the response we have made,and the following media investigation?
20) Do you see that the attempted defenses thus far have not addressed the myriad contradictions in Dr. Caner’s biography?

Responses to objections (non-material)

1) “This is about the debate that fell through in 2006!”
– The answer to this one is easy. a) No, it isn’t. b) How do you know? c) Why do you assume we’re lying, when we’ve said, over and over, that our concern is the Gospel? d) Isn’t it hypocritical to call people liars when your defenses inevitably say that it’s somehow inappropriate to say that someone has lied?
2) “You’re obsessing about Dr. Caner!”
– Hardly. Dr. White commented on that, for himself, on Thursday’s DL. As for myself, I really have better things to do. Unfortunately, the situation calls for Dr. Caner’s brothers in Christ to call him to repentance. Therefore, we will. Let me know how many Ergun Caner posts you see on this blog. It’s been up for a while.
3) “You’re teaming up with Muslims!”
– Hardly. I have defended him from baseless accusations from Christians, yes. I have also criticized him wherever necessary, as well. Teaming up? No. I’ve never directly contacted him, and don’t plan to.
4) “You’re ignoring the Biblical pattern of calling men to repentance!”
– Which one? The one where you contact them privately first, bring a few with you next, then lay it before the whole church? a) We all did contact him privately. He blocked us. b) More people contacted him. He blocked them too. c) It’s now before the whole church. d) Isn’t that for the local church, anyway? Last I checked, none of us are members of Thomas Road.
5) “This is about Reformed theology!”
– Uh, no. This would have happened eventually. It is true, in a way. If he hadn’t shot his mouth off dozens of times about Reformed theology, he sure never would have been on our radar. Since he did, he got there – and his claims, therefore, got there. Once he got on that radar, and we saw his debate claims, it snowballed. So yes, in a way you can blame Reformed theology. In particular, his statements about it.
6) “You’re teaming up with anti-CR people!”
– Honestly? I couldn’t care less about it, and didn’t even know what it was until all of the flame wars from the CR side began. So no, don’t think that has anything do with… anyone from our side. We’re a mix of Reformed Baptists, Calvinistic SBCers, and Presbyterians. Why would we care about CR as a group?
7) “You just want Ergun Caner taken down!”
– Not at all. I just want him to admit his sin, repent and begin restoration.
8) “You just assume he’s guilty!”
– Nonsense. There is a massive, massive amount of information that has led to this conclusion. Waving it away doesn’t change that fact. There is a reason for our position, and it is rooted in Dr. Caner’s own words and inconsistencies therein.
9) “You’re just an attack blogger!”
– Once again – nonsense. Read my blog, and it’s quite obvious I’m not.
10) “You’re a sinner too!”
– Obviously. If I’m in open, repeated, unrepentant sin – please point it out and call me to repentance.
11) “You want to bring anyone down who isn’t Reformed!”
– No, or I’d never, ever do anything else.
12) “The issue was originally that he was a fake-ex-muslim! You’re changing the story!”
– Please quote where I _ever_ said that was the issue. Thanks. It’s not. It’s that Dr. Caner has been shown to be dishonest in a multitude of areas. That dishonesty has consequences, which he is now facing. Whether he sorrows over that sin and repents accordingly is yet to be seen.

Rules for commenting on this post:
I am solely interested in responses to the questions above. Limit your comments to those questions, or your comments will be deleted as irrelevant. Interaction with said responses are permissible, but should be kept to factual matters. I will be very strict on enforcing my policies on this post – and violations will be dealt with as quickly and as justly as possible. If you have questions or concerns you’d like to raise, my email is linked on the top left, as is my commenting policy.

Pastor Camp,
Well sir, I do appreciate you answering my questions, even though I don’t believe they fully answered the questions I brought up.

I would like to address a few things, if I may:

1) When you are making an objection, I would offer that the burden of proof lies on you to state your case, and then argue it. As it appears to me, you have stated a general principle, told us that certain men violated that principle, and then assumed it from that point forward. When asked concerning specifics, the response has been restatements of that principle. I understand that this is what you believe – but only in a very general way, and not with precision in your definition.

2) When you are responding, you seem to be reading past a good many things that give context to the statements I, at least, am making.

For instance: if what we’re getting from your position is what you’re really saying seems to taken as “this is what you said”. If you notice, I carefully worded it so as to give you a chance to explain where you are coming from. Most of my questions were designed in order to give you that opportunity. Instead, I am being informed of what the Word says re: preaching. I’m well aware of what it says. My questions had to do with what else a pastor does. You seem to be begging the question in this regard.

Secondly, I’d like to point out that I have some small familiarity with presuppositional apologetics. However, practicing apologetics, first, learning apologetics, second, teaching apologetics, third, cannot be done solely in an expositional manner. I am able to exposit passages to teach the general principles of the method – but teaching the method itself _cannot_ be expositional – neither can practicing it. I know for a fact that Bahnsen exposited Acts 17 to demonstrate this – but exposition of a specific text was not what he did to teach it.

Additionally, I find it rather strange that you would resort to comments like “nice try”. Sir, I quite understand that you are quite a bit older than I am. I would appreciate it if you would at least respect the fact that I cared enough to ask you these questions, however. Recall, sir, that we are to respond with gentleness and reverence. Humility as well as boldness. I haven’t said anything similar to you, and I’ve attempted to be irenic in my interaction.

I’ve asked some specific questions, with context provided for them just in case I was being unclear. The context I gave seems to have been passed over, in many respects. When I give specific situations that are the concern of myself and other brothers, only small excerpts are addressed, and the most general comments, rather than the most specific. What we’re asking for is specificity in your objection. I’m aware of what the general objection is. I would like to know what, precisely, you objected to, and from what standard you do so.

For instance – do you object to Dr. Duncan teaching the assembled pastors about the history of the church? That is not exposition, and seems to fall under your objection. What, precisely, do you object to? Whose talks do you object to? What about what they said is objectionable? Why is this objectionable? How do you get this objection from Scripture? As the objector, it would be eminently helpful to detail what you objected to – so as to know what we have to either answer, or agree with – as I’ve said previously. I understand the general gist of your objection – just not:
1) The extent to which you object (how far does the objection that exposition is required go? In every situation whatsoever?)
2) The object of your objection (Who, and what – and please be specific)
3) The grounds of your objection – specifically. We’re all aware of the Biblical injunction to preach the Word in and out of season, of course. However, on what Biblical warrant do you ground your objection that you provide the extent of, above? Please be specific.

I know that you’re making these comments on your own blog – I fully understand that. However, when you make a serious objection – calling what was done, sin – it would be eminently helpful to let us know *what* was sin. Which is why I’m now addressing this on mine. I gather that you don’t consider me to be lucid – I can accept that. I’m often not. However, I’m afraid that I would also consider your objections thus far to be lacking in clarity. I’m still wondering what, precisely, was considered sinful? Is a lecture sinful, if not expositional? Is teaching on historical subjects sinful, if not expositional? Is teaching on other, antithetical worldviews sinful, if not expositional – such as what Dr. White, or I do in our apologetics conferences or classes? How are you defining “expositional” in this context, if any of the above are rightly your assertions? I’m really, really not trying to be difficult. I’m not. I just really do not know what you are objecting to, and what, precisely, your objection is meant to consist of.

When I’ve asked you about these specific things, I haven’t received specific answers. While this can be frustrating, and it has been, I really want to know – because I think the answers will reveal what the presuppositions you are operating from are, and can thereby be addressed – perhaps I’ll even discover I shouldn’t have been disagreeing with you after all!

However, when what you are saying seems to be (and there are no few that have come to this conclusion thus far – perhaps we’re all poor readers) that whenever a pastor opens his mouth, under any circumstances, it must be expositional preaching, I’m left with a dilemma. Who in the history of the church has ever done this? Where in Scripture is this commanded? Please, disabuse me of this impression, because that is what I have gathered from your answers thus far – and why I am seeking to gain clarity that I may be lacking.

Before we answer your objections – or your questions – we need to know what ground you’re standing on to make those objections, or ask those questions. I’m sure you know that particular element of presuppositionalism, and I’m sure you see how that applies here. We need to know what *exactly* you’re objecting to, from what standard you are objecting from (how do you define the extent of the command to Timothy you brought up earlier, for example?), and the like.

Understand, however – I am asking these questions for the sake of clarity, and because I am concerned about the unintended consequences of what I believe your position to be from what you have said thus far – and whether it is based in Scripture or not. As with another recent discussion we had, my concern is also whether there is a lack of balance in your position – of adequately addressing the whole counsel of Scripture concerning this subject. Understand, I’m not attacking – I’m asking. I genuinely want to know, as I may not have read you correctly.

Grace and Peace,
~RK

Chap. V. – The Manners of the Christians.
“For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. (Comp. 2Co_10:3) They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. (Comp. Phi_3:20) They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. (Comp. 2Co_6:9) They are poor, yet make many rich; (Comp. 2Co_6:10) they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; (Comp. 2Co_4:12) they are insulted, and repay the insult with honour; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred.”

Chap. IX. – Why the Son Was Sent so Late.
“As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! Having therefore convinced us in the former time that our nature was unable to attain to life, and having now revealed the Saviour who is able to save even those things which it was [formerly] impossible to save, by both these facts He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counsellor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honour, Glory, Power, and Life, so that we should not be anxious concerning clothing and food.”

Chap. X. – The Blessings That Will Flow from Faith.
“If you also desire [to possess] this faith, you likewise shall receive first of all the knowledge of the Father. For God has loved mankind, on whose account He made the world, to whom He rendered subject all the things that are in it, to whom He gave reason and understanding, to whom alone He imparted the privilege of looking upwards to Himself, whom He formed after His own image, to whom He sent His only-begotten Son, to whom He has promised a kingdom in heaven, and will give it to those who have loved Him. And when you have attained this knowledge, with what joy do you think you will be filled? Or, how will you love Him who has first so loved you? And if you love Him, you will be an imitator of His kindness. And do not wonder that a man may become an imitator of God. He can, if he is willing. For it is not by ruling over his neighbours, or by seeking to hold the supremacy over those that are weaker, or by being rich, and showing violence towards those that are inferior, that happiness is found; nor can any one by these things become an imitator of God. But these things do not at all constitute His majesty. On the contrary he who takes upon himself the burden of his neighbour; he who, in whatsoever respect he may be superior, is ready to benefit another who is deficient; he who, whatsoever things he has received from God, by distributing these to the needy, becomes a god to those who receive [his benefits]: he is an imitator of God. Then thou shalt see, while still on earth, that God in the heavens rules over [the universe]; then thou shall begin to speak the mysteries of God; then shalt thou both love and admire those that suffer punishment because they will not deny God; then shall thou condemn the deceit and error of the world when thou shall know what it is to live truly in heaven, when thou shalt despise that which is here esteemed to be death, when thou shalt fear what is truly death, which is reserved for those who shall be condemned to the eternal fire, which shall afflict those even to the end that are committed to it. Then shalt thou admire those who for righteousness’ sake endure the fire that is but for a moment, and shalt count them happy when thou shalt know [the nature of] that fire.”

~The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, circa 130 A.D.

“To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one [of you] from your iniquities.” ~ Acts 3:26

Remember: We give thanks to the One from whom all blessings flow.

“From the God of your father who helps you, And by the Almighty who blesses you {With} blessings of heaven above, Blessings of the deep that lies beneath, Blessings of the breasts and of the womb.” ~ Gen 49:25

Why is it that we can hear a sermon about the Sovereignty of God in salvation one week, then hear about making a decision for Christ the next? Why can we hear about the Sovereignty of God in granting faith to a sinner in the same sermon that we are told that Jesus is knocking on the door to our heart? Why is it that we are exhorted to trust in the Sovereignty of God in salvation, and His unmerited grace toward sinners, in His regenerating power – in the same service that the pastor pronounces a person “part of the family of God”?

Schizophrenia. I don’t think it’s purposeful. I don’t think it’s an intentional compromise. It is, pure and simple, simple inconsistency, and perhaps a lack of examination concerning our methodology in our services compared to the theology we present. I’m not trying to be simply critical. I’m trying to understand why it is we do these things. Why do we present these contradictory viewpoints? Why do we offer an altar call and a decision – but yet proclaim the Sovereignty of God?

“…everybody is lamenting the fact that this country believes it’s saved, when it’s no more saved… it’s as lost, as they say in Alabama, as a ball in tall grass. But no one wants to point to what the problem is – and the problem is even when we preach the gospel correctly, we go to this thing of how to invite men that is neither Biblical not historical, we get them to jump through some Evangelical hoops, and say yes to the appropriate questions, and we popishly pronounce them to be saved. And when they believe that false, religious lie, given by a religious authority, when someone comes along later to preach the gospel to them, because they’re living in the world, they won’t listen. Because a religious lie has so much power.”

“…then afterwards, often after a person prays or is led in a prayer by the evangelist, he or she is assured that if they were sincere, then Jesus has definitely come into their heart, because He promised he would, and if He didn’t come in, He is a liar, because they were sincere. How many people do you know believe they are going to heaven because they are not so much trusting Christ, but in the sincerity of a decision they made a long time ago. Often times, after a few minutes of counseling, they are immediately presented before the church and welcomed into the family of God. Now, you tell me I’m wrong. They come down front, I’ve seen it so many times, they’re given over to a counselor, who’s been trained in a package counseling form, they’re talked to for about 5 or ten minutes while the invitation rolls on, and immediately they’re presented before the church, our ‘new brother or sister in Christ’. That’s the last most of them will ever, ever hear of conversion counseling. And then what will happen? If they never grow, or if they doubt their salvation, they are taken again back to that day when they prayed, and questioned as to the sincerity of their decision. If they ever come to the pastor again, doubting their salvation, he’ll take them back to that day again and say ‘did you ever pray and ask Jesus to come into your heart?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Were you sincere?’ ‘I think so.’ ‘Then it’s just the devil bothering you.’ If they never grow in the things of God, their lack of growth is attributed to the lack of discipleship, or the belief in the doctrine of the carnal Christian. One convention that I know of came to the conclusion that 60% of their converts never came to church. Their answer was that they had to do a better job of discipleship. No – Jesus? His sheep? They hear his voice. And they follow Him! Whether you disciple them, or not. Now, we ought to do discipleship. My friend, back in the 70s, discipleship became the big thing. Personal discipleship. We have just as many people leaving by the back door as are entering in by the front door ofthe church because we’re not doing personal discipleship. No! It’s because we’re not preaching the gospel correctly, and we’re pronouncing people converted that are not converted – and they went out from us because they never were of us. Now, you’ve got to understand this. We deal 5 MINUTES with a person on their conversion, and then we spend 50 years trying to disciple a goat into a sheep.”
~Paul Washer, “Regeneration v. The Idolatry of Decisional Evangelism”

I’m not trying to make a slam on anyone. I’m trying to understand why – why the schizophrenia? Our local church is at least a nominally Reformed church. Why doesn’t our practice match our preaching? Why aren’t we seeing the traditions of men for what they are? Why do we take a methodology that doesn’t match our theology, and use it as if it were? What practical necessity is present for us to use such anti-scriptural methods when it comes to the eternally significant care of a soul who is present before us, and under the apparent conviction of the Spirit? Do these practices line up with the NT? Do they have any precedent in the history of the church prior to, to be generous, a couple of hundred years ago? What then must we do? Repent, and believe. Both gifts of God. What about our heart? The untrustworthy, deceitfully wicked heart? Does Christ knock at the door to it? No. Christ does not knock at doors. He appears in their midst. He removes the heart of stone, and replaces it with a heart of flesh. Christ is not a supplicant. He is not a beggar. He is Lord, and we must fall on our faces in repentance, fear, and adoration of this risen Lord. Easter is not a “time of decision”. It is a time of regeneration. Salvation belongs to the Lord, not to the sincerity of men.

Pastor Lumpkins, with all due respect:

I must wonder if you’ve actually been reading the responses offered to the position you, Dr. Allen, and Mr. Byrne are espousing, or whether you’re simply dismissing them, as you seem to do quite frequently in your meta, including your response to me. When practically every 5-point calvinist, upon encountering this definition of hyper-calvinism, repudiates it, does this not give you pause? Does it not make you wonder if, perhaps, you may have misunderstood the position of hyper-calvinism, and that of mainstream, 5-point calvinism? Now, far be it from me to suggest that you take a look at historical discussions concerning hyper-calvinism, but I do think they might be useful.

Let’s move along to your rejoinder(s).

1) To make a distinction between my saying Dr. Ascol “has no time to respond” and that “[he] will not take time to respond” is absurd, Razorkiss–the old distinction without a difference assertion.

But even if your point well taken, what does such have to do with whether or not leaders should insult rather than just keep silent?

The distinction I make is very germane, given that your assertion was that he had no time – that was not what was said. Second, to call a germane distinction “absurd”, is simply to stretch credulity 😀 When you’re wrong, please be kind enough to admit it? There is a significant difference between “has not the time”, and “will not take the time”. If you don’t see that difference, my apologies, but that does not make the distinction go away. “Has not the time” speaks to scheduling inability – “will not take the time” speaks to unwillingness to spend the time to do something. The two are, in fact, different. I’m sorry that your desire seems to be to dismiss the clarification outright, but the fact remains. The fact also remains that you made the point, to wit, that although Dr. Ascol had no time to reply, he did take the time to “insult” Dr. Yarnell. The assertion seems to be that his claim to have no time to do so is somehow false, given that he does respond in some fashion. Given that a response would take quite a bit of time, and the short sentence he does write would not, is this a valid assertion? The plea to a supposed “distinction without difference” fails, sir, miserably. It is an attempt to evade, and no more. I’m really not inclined to let you 😀

As to your second point, that, somehow, it’s an “insult” – his comments are, in fact, “rife with innuendo and misrepresentation”. If you don’t like the characterization, I really can’t change your mind, I do realize – but your opinion really does not entail that it is in fact an insult. Upon my reading of Dr. Yarnell’s closing comments, as referenced, they are indeed full to the brim of such commentary. If you don’t like it, too bad. I find that characterization wholly accurate, sir.

2) Concerning your query: “is Tony Byrne’s continued misrepresentation really worth linking to?”

False assumption #1: That Byrne continually misrepresents.

Mr. Byrne is flatly wrong when he discusses the definition of hyper-calvinism. He’s also wrong in applying “desire” to hyper-calvinism, in any. Given the fact that his concept of “desire” is wrapped up in his definition of hyperism, it’s very much to the point. I would have to say that “false” assumption 1 can be very easily demonstrated by the fact that he does misrepresent, (however those who are not calvinists understand his comments) in that his concept of “desire” is what he attributes to a definitional understanding of hyperism. This is not the case.

I find it quite amazing that the more substantive comments I made were completely ignored – while you focus on the comments I make concerning your lack of rigor in treating Dr. Ascol’s comments. In regards to Mr. Byrne, you don’t focus on the argument, but on your own opinions concerning Mr. Byrne. Those, sir, are obvious. You linked to the man in your post. So, yes, we’re aware of your leanings. I’m not really concerned with examining your presuppositions, but with examining Mr. Byrne’s constant intent to redefine what hyper-calvinism consists of. The controversy is about that very thing. What hyper-calvinism is.

Mr. Byrne’s position is consistently ahistorical. If you examine all of the hyper-calvinistic controversies in reformed, and especially in baptist history, you will find that they all revolve around two things. 1) The free offer of the gospel, and 2) the duty of all men to believe savingly in Christ.

Those two things are what hyper-calvinism, historically, denies. We can add a third distinctive of hyper-calvinism, too – that “hyper-calvinists tend to stress the secret (or decretive) will of God over His revealed (or preceptive) will.” This is very true – BUT – as Phil Johnson’s Primer points out, Yet that distinction is an essential part of historic Reformed theology. This, sir, is what this supposed “definitional” distinction continually, erroneously, and doggedly denies. Yes, yes, there is a common belief in two wills of God. These two wills are not denied by anyone in the debate… quite right. That is NOT the issue at hand – as Mr. Byrne rightly points out – but, the issue at hand is ALSO NOT what Mr. Byrne DOES point out, either!

This ahistorical, incoherent, irrational concept of “desire” imported from an alien theology has nothing to do with historic calvinism, OR hyper-calvinism. It is foreign to the debate, and foreign to the issues which actually DO define the hyper-calvinism debate. That is the point which we have been making, all along. To try to make the effectual denial of Limited Atonement the linchpin of the hyper-calvinism argument is asinine, to say the least, and absolutely ridiculous, to say the most of it. It has no connection, whatsoever, to the actual terms of the debate, concerning hyper-calvinism. It is a complete misunderstanding of even the terms outlined in Phil Johnson’s Primer, let alone the historical discussion of the subject; even a cursory examination of the historical debate concerning hyper-calvinism, across any and all reformed traditions, will show you as much. If there was as much effort put into study of the actual terms that are discussed in the debate itself, rather than clinging to a novel, modern, redefinition of it, which has been debunked by every person involved thus far, there would be far, far less confusion about the issue, and no little progress.

False Assumption #2: That Tony’s post to which I linked is about Hyper-Calvinism proper. It is not. It is about Ascol & White’s fuzzy differences from one another

I didn’t think it was – per se. In fact, that has been my contention all along. That this silly, imported distinction belongs solely to Mr. Byrne. So, I would agree in that respect (but in that respect alone). It ISN’T about hyper-calvinism, in that sense. However, your own words don’t seem to agree, when you reference it as discussing hyper-calvinism in the context of your introduction to it!

Also, Tony Byrne has an excellent post that needs much consideration. He poses questions to both Ascol and White. By the way, Ascol has now publicly stated that he essentially agrees with White. Does that mean White comes off the Hyper-Calvinist list or Ascol goes on it? I think that will be an interesting consideration.

Hrmm? You reference his post – reference Dr. Ascol’s statement that they agree with other in what they are meaning – and then, ask if this means Ascol should go onto the hyper-calvinist list. Now, I do recognize that you may be finally seeing that this has nothing to do with the “list” – you other comment is “White comes off the Hyper-Calvinist list“. Frankly, sir, if there was a list, it would be entirely of Mr. Byrne’s making, given he seems to be the only person making this claim, that a denial of “God’s universal saving will” is somehow hyper-calvinism! Regardless, you can hardly claim that this has nothing to do with hyper-calvinism, as the discussion of whether God has this so-called will is what Mr. Byrne is defining as hyper-calvinism, and which Dr. Allen defined it as, in his presentation! In other words, what sort of silly equivocation to you expect me to fall for? That is _exactly_ the entire _point_ of Byrne’s post! To try to play divide and conquer, by either making Ascol deny that he believes the same thing, or making both out to be hyper-calvinists. Either way, he still isn’t denying his assertion that to deny God’s supposed “universal salvific will” is somewhow hyper-calvinism! Which is, you must admit, the main contention, no? So, because he doesn’t mention hyper-calvinism in the post – only discusses the point of contention by which Mr. Byrne is defining people AS hyper-calvinist – we’re not discussing hyper-calvinism? Obfuscation, anyone?

Sir, I engage in apologetics against every imaginable sort of belief system, and many of them happen to be intra-mural Christian debates. Such argumentation does not impress me. Such argumentation is childish, seeks only to obscure, not to get at the truth, and I can only assume, after watching your interaction with your own commenters, that you have a marked disinterest in seeking the truth of this matter. Your responses demonstrate it, quite conclusively. You dismiss whatever doesn’t fit into your neat little box of authoritative figures. If this were a Roman Catholic I was corresponding with, I would understand that mentality. From a Baptist, it is quite amazing. I’ve read quite a bit of the historical debate concerning hyper-calvinism. I do so, because I debate real, live hyper-calvinists. Since I do, I find great help and comfort in the study of those who have gone before in this discussion – just as I would find great help and comfort in reading Athanaius, when debating a Jehovah’s Witness.

False Assumption #3: That I or the readers here would take your profile on Hyper-Calvinism as representative of scholarly treatises while dismissing Tony Byrne’s

When you do read the debates between calvinists, and hyper-calvinists, in history, you will find exactly what I have outlined in my previous comment, as to what the debate is really about. If you insist on holding to Mr. Byrne’s erroneous definition, you will simply chase your tail around until your head spins, if you ever encounter a real hyper-calvinist. They will stare at you as if you have two heads. Their denial is of any will, whatsoever, for us to even give the command to repent and believe – to preach the GOSPEL to unbelievers, at any time! This is utterly beyond the typical, orthodox calvinist position, which DOES say that God commands all men to repent, believe, and be saved on those grounds. In fact, the hyper-calvinists believes that not only are we not to preach it – but that God does not demand faith as the duty of every man toward God. These are the tenets of hyper-calvinism. This silly strawman which you and your fellows insist on erecting is completely, and utterly wrong. So, make your appeal to authority if you wish. Mr. Byrne has, and my 5-point calvinist brethren will atest to this fact, completely, and utterly erred in his attempt to redefine hyper-calvinism. If it was in ignorance, it would behoove him to study the subject more thoroughly, and perhaps interact with real, live hyper-calvinists more frequently. If it was intentional, (and for a man of his credentials to be this appallingly ignorant of the theological distinctives of a group which was incredibly widespread in the time of Fuller and Spurgeon, was oft-encountered in more recent history, and still exists today, leaves me wondering what or who he has studied on the subject) then Mr. Byrne is guilty of nothing apart from utter libel of several men who have labored for Christ’s church for decades.

Complain how you will about these “mean” calvinists – but understand that it’s practically impossible for a calvinist to take you at all seriously when you stick to blatantly false understandings such as these. I’m quite annoyed at the lengths to which those who promulgate falsehoods will go to defend their obvious errors. If it is simple stubbornness, and refusal to admit your error, I invite you to repent, sir. If it is intentional, sir, shame is the least of your concerns. Dr. White, and Dr. Reymond are no more hyper-calvinist than was Spurgeon, or Fuller. To say so is absolute folly – and frankly, I think by this point you have to know it. To continue to defend it, to obfuscate when rebutted, and to quibble over minutiae while leaving the substantive portions of the argument untouched are symptoms I have encountered quite often, as an apologist. They are signs that your opponent knows quite well that they are wrong, and refuse to admit it. If i come across as harsh – I hope you recognize it for what it is. Righteous indignation at the defamation of good men – one of which is a friend. I’ve read the work of all of the other men defamed by Dr. Allen, but your comments are continually condescending and dismissive. You are the one who is propagating the debate, because, frankly, serious students of hyper-calvinism dismissed Mr. Byrne’s redefinition long ago, when he first started promulgating it. I don’t like our convention being the laughingstock of theological conservatism, because people from our convention make comments of this sort. So, this is one SBCer who is thoroughly disgusted by the complete lack of serious interaction being offered in response to our objections. If you don’t like this sort of language, sir, with all due respect, (for despite the harshness of my words, they are written with the intent of perhaps shocking you into a realization of where your positions stands, that you may perhaps understand the lack of historicity with which these claims are proferred) please stop listening to men who are clearly not students of history, and have clearly not studied calvinism and hyper-calvinism to be able to tell the difference. Stop linking to their articles, and hosting them on your website. If you don’t like this sort of response, please wake up, and please ratchet down the rhetoric. Historic calvinism does not affirm a universal salvific desire on the part of God. Hyper-calvinism has nothing to do with that issue, whether calvinism did, or did not, have that as a characteristic! These things, sir, and incontrovertible, and why a Doctor of Systematic Theology would possibly hold to this position baffles me. Sir, I’m not questioning your faith, or your passion for the people of your church – I am, however, questioning your wisdom in following men who obviously do not know calvinism, yet claim to be experts. I’m not a doctor of theology. I do expect doctors of theology to know more than I do about the subject, and whether the comment offends you, or not, they do not. I’m not impressed by a doctorate. I’m impressed by a theologian. When it comes to calvinism, these men are not theologians. They are crusaders, and it very much seems to me as if they are either woefully ignorant ones, or dishonest ones. I truly fail to see how they could honestly hold the positions they do , in any other way.

Just to open up, I found Timmy Brister’s timeline very useful in organizing all of the commentary concerning the John 3:16 conference. While the conference was, indeed, an SBC All-Star event – it was decidedly anti-Calvinist. Now, I am quite aware that they don’t particularly like this categorization of their stance – Dr. Allen, for example, has taken exception to this – but, on the other hand, they certainly aren’t worried about categorizing Dr. White (a good friend, and spiritual mentor), Steve Camp, and Dr. Robert Reymond, whose Systematic Theology has been very helpful to me, as Hyper-Calvinists. Now, I’ve had quite a bit of dialogue with real hypers – and I have to say… they obviously have no idea what a hyper-calvinist is.

Now, I’m aware he would also reject this statement. He has, repeatedly. However, he has also repeatedly demonstrated that he has a lack of understanding concerning the difference between orthodox, historical calvinism and hyper-calvinism; decretive and preceptive will; anthropological will/desire and theological will/desire; not to mention showing a complete lack of balance in addressing the issue of Calvinism, in general. Apparently, Dr. Allen, as a professor of systematic theology, is unable to distinguish between these things. As a member of the SBC, I find this lack of perception absolutely mind-boggling, given our historical foundation as a Calvinist denomination. I don’t doubt that he would differ with that – but the fact remains.

My problem with this entire issue – with this entire conference, is that it is a group of SBC theologians with an axe to grind. The axe, of course, being the dismissal of Calvinism as orthodoxy. In the process of attempting to paint Calvinists in a certain light, they stooped to slander, followed by libel, in defense of the original slander. Dr. Allen’s statement is as follows:

“This is important. Here is the reason why this stuff is important. Limited atonement creates a situation where there is a diminishing of belief in God’s universal saving will. Dr. Tom Ascol sums up the historic Calvinist position when he wrote ‘I believe that God desires for all people to be saved but has purposed to save His elect. I see two (at least two) dimensions in God’s will: revealed and decretive. Failure to make this kind of distinction is a failure to read the Bible’s teachings on the will of God accurately.’ This statement was made in 2006 just before the time when the debate with the Caner brothers was scheduled to take place and Dr. Tom Ascol was supposed to join forces with James White to oppose the Caner brothers.

Ladies and Gentlemen, James White is a hyper-Calvinist. By the definition of Phil Johnson in his A Primer of Hyper-Calvinism, Phil Johnson of spurgeon.org, who is the right hand man of John MacArthur, Phil Johnson tells you the five things that make for hyper-Calvinism, and James White by his teaching is a hyper-Calvinist. Now whatever we do in Baptist life, we don’t need to be teaming up with hyper-Calvinists. It’s fine for Calvinists to get together and have debates with non-Calvinists. Fine dandy and wonderful; let that happen all day long. But it is time for Calvinists within the convention to come out and say some strong words about hyper-Calvinism.

By the way, James White is a Baptist, he is not a Southern Baptist. On April 10, during a phone call on the “Dividing Line” web cast, James White scornfully denied there is any sense in which God wills the salvation of all men. That is the total opposite of what Tom Ascol said. By the way, Ascol is right that God wills the salvation of all men. White is the one who’s wrong. The denial of God’s universal saving will is a problem.”

Now, the reasons that this is an absolutely absurd statement have been documented, quite thoroughly, by both Phil Johnson, and Dr. Ascol – not to mention Dr. White!

Phil Johnson:

if Dr. Allen thinks James White is a hyper-Calvinist by my definition, then he doesn’t understand my definition.

Dr. Ascol:

Although I must say that any conference that accuses James White of being a hyper-Calvinist loses credibility with thinking people.

Dr. White:

I simply point out that he seems to wish to establish a definition that forces one to somehow confess what God desires without providing any biblical basis for how we as creatures are to know this. Does God command repentance? Of course. Of all? Yes, of all. Do you proclaim the gospel to all? Yes, to all. Do you say it is the duty of all to believe? Surely, of course. Do you believe the proclamation of the gospel is the means by which God’s Spirit draws the elect unto Christ? Most assuredly. So what is the single basis of Allen’s accustion of “hyper-Calvinism”? My refusal to believe God decreed His eternal disappointment. I find nothing in Scripture or in the LBCF1689 that forces me to believe that God chose to create in such a fashion as to create His own unhappiness, His own lack of fulfillment. I see no reason to believe that God desires to do something He does not will to accomplish. It is only man’s limited nature that even raises the issue, for we know that the proclamation of God’s law reveals God’s prescriptive will, i.e., do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not lie, etc. Hence we ascribe to God the concept of “desire” and say God does not “desire” that man do these things. Yet, we likewise know that texts like Genesis 50:20 tell us that God has willed that such events take place, and that, in fact, He uses them to accomplish His own purposes, His own glory. The problem is in trying to read into God’s will our own self-limitations. I can freely offer the gospel to all, not because I reject election, nor because I ascribe to God a human-oriented desire that runs directly counter to His own self-revelation and consistency, but because I do not know the identity of the elect, and I have the full promise of Scripture that no man, no woman, no child, will ever, ever turn in faith to Jesus Christ and yet be rejected by Him. ALL who believe will be saved. Will any man believe outside of God’s grace, God’s granting of repentance and faith? Surely not, but again, I do not possess knowledge of the identity of the elect. Hence, I can freely and properly proclaim the duty to repent and believe to all, knowing that those who do so will be those God has drawn to Himself. I find myself completely consistent with the Apostle who likewise said he endured all the trials and tribulations of the ministry “for the sake of the elect” (2 Timothy 2:10).

As I’ve said, this commentary by Dr. Allen, and the other j316 presenters, has been discussed by many, many folks – Timmy Brister has also put together a compilation of liveblogging links from calvinists who attended, as well. A cursory search will give you a wealth of commentary. My concern, as I’ve said, is that these noted SBC theologians seem to have an axe to grind. That axe, regardless of their protests to the contray, is an anti-calvinist one. Dr. Allen is on record as saying that “Should the Southern Baptist Convention move toward 5-point Calvinism, such a move would be away from, and not toward, the gospel.” (This was met with a standing ovation.) Now, although Dr. Allen’s insistence is that he is not an anti-calvinist – the reason he says this is as follows;

One of the overriding concerns throughout Ascol’s blog post is evidenced by the four times he identifies me (indirectly each time but clearly I am included) as “anti-Calvinist” (emphasis mine). This is simply false. I am not anti-Calvinist. … Neither is it accurate to portray my recent review of the book Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue or my John 3:16 presentation as “anti-Calvinist.” One must distinguish between being against people who hold certain theological views and disagreeing with the views those people hold. I am not against any Calvinist in the Southern Baptist Convention. I do believe that Calvinism, especially five-point Calvinism, is biblically and theologically flawed at certain points.

In my book review and presentation at the John 3:16 conference, I was at pains to show this. It is apparent to me that some Calvinists within and without the SBC simply will not brook any criticism of Calvinism. To do so in their minds is to be anti-Calvinist.

Let me also say that there are occasions where I am against what Calvinists do or don’t do because of what they believe. I referenced one or two such incidents toward the end of my John 3:16 paper as well as in my book review. Why should this be a problem since Calvinists likewise reciprocate here? In fact, is not this rejoinder the result of Dr. Ascol’s own criticism of my criticism whereby he takes exception to what I have done or have not done because of what I believe? I consider this to be an example of being too thin-skinned.

Also, would it be possible for anyone reading Ascol’s blog to come to the conclusion that he is anti-non-Calvinist or anti-Classical Arminian? I suspect some could, some would, and I know of some who have. Sauce for the goose.

News flash: This is equivocation. When we say one is “anti-calvinist” – we very much do mean that someone is against reformed theology. That someone opposse it. To equivocate, as if the statement somehow means that one is personally dead set against the inclusion of Calvinists, as persons, in the SBC, is absolutely ridiculous. In fact, I would have to say that Dr. Allen knows this very well. It was a cheap attempt to score points. Yes, we recognize that, Dr. Allen. Thank you so very much for your attempt to score points off of us with your supporters via condescension. Does Dr. Allen think that we won’t recognize such cheap tricks? If that is what he thinks, I sincerely hope he understands that we do, in fact, recognize such attempts for what they are. They certainly aren’t building any bridges. In fact, it simply propagates the contrary of his insistence that he has no personal animosity, when he makes such remarks. If one treats those one disagrees with such contempt for their understanding, one cannot be surprised if we respond as if he were being insulting. Frankly, if he doesn’t recognize it as insulting, that concerns me. What on earth is he teaching? While the personal dismissal is troubling, what troubles me more is the constant misrepresentation of the positions held by the men he defames. If this misrepresentation is so endemic – as Dr. White, Dr. Ascol, and others have shown – if his understanding of Reymond, Edwards, Owen, Calvin, not to mention Scripture itself, is that flawed – as has been shown by many in the Reformed faith – what on earth can we say other than what we are saying? Dr. Allen is either woefully ignorant – in which case, what is he doing teaching systematic theology? Or, Dr. Allen is being intentionally deceitful, by misrepresenting men of God. What else can we say? Did he not expect this response, when he penned his words for this talk? Did he not expect that those of the reformed faith would examine his words, and compare them to that of historical calvinists, modern calvinists? That those he criticized would not respond? We’ve done both – and we’ve found his comments woefully lacking in historical basis, understanding, and most especially, in any sort of Biblical foundation. Far be it from me to mince words – but in any sort of factual examination of his comments, they have no basis whatsoever in reality, these men’s comments, or in Scripture. This is why we comment so forcefully in our responses. His comments are an affront – not only to these precious men of God, but to the Scripture which we regard so highly. It’s not an attempt to “score points” – but to defend the Word, and the gospel we are commanded to preach. I exhort him to take that into consideration, and to examine his comments in light of Scripture, and not in light of Dr. Byrne’s conception of historic calvinism, which seem to greatly influence his comments.

Yes, I’m a bit perturbed. I’ll admit it. This does not, however, dismiss the fact that the speakers at the J316 conference are either intentionally misrepresenting the Reformed faith to attempt to “stem the tide” of young adherents to calvinism, or misunderstand our position so badly that they are simply firing darts into strawmen constructed of various and sundry piecemeal constructs with no real foundation in real, reformed theology. This insistence is not a new one. Men have been misrepresenting Fuller as an antagonist to Gill for quite a long time. Gill has been represented as a hyper-calvinist for a very long time. Owen, Turretin, and others have also been represented as hyper-calvinist. These representations, however, are simply not true, if you examine their works. You can see a consistent representation of historic, orthodox calvinism in all of the aforementioned men; and their affirmation of it’s doctrines has consistently led to the careful and painstakingly precise exegesis that is the hallmark of the reformed faith. To say otherwise is simply to anachronistically read your own free-will requiring principles back into historic calvinism. To cite Edwards’ Freedom of the Will to somehow affirm unlimited atonement is utterly baffling. To water Owen down in such a manner is simply amazing. To wrest Scripture to an affirmation of autonomous free will, I’m sorry, is just incredible. When you do even a cursory examination of the writings of both the historical and modern champions of human autonomy, and compare them to the historical and modern champions of God’s unquestioned, and incomparable sovereignty; there is simply no comparison whatsoever in the quality and consistency of argumentation. There is no difference in this discussion, either.

Friends, I’m just plain annoyed that this debate even exists in the SBC. That men are so self-deceived that they think that championing man’s autonomous free will, as practically every other apostate denomination does, is somehow an affirmation of Scripture, simply appalls me. If you don’t like the harshness of that comment – too bad. Sneer at the “unkind” tone all you like. I do love my brethren who disagree – but the love of the brethren is grounded in love of Scripture, first and foremost. If you reject the Word of God, and it’s position on the place of man, the place of your will, and the place of your own determination in your own salvation – if you persist in the Romish pursuit of decisional works in your own salvation – if you persist in the downright slander and libel of those who faithfully preach the word of God, for the sake of your desire to preserve the choice of man, while advocating the slavery of God’s will to the will of man – expect opposition. Expect opposition when you defame men who preach the gospel without fear or favor, to all men. Expect opposition when you condescendingly assume that those who were graciously brought to transformation of their mind, lovingly corrected of their conformation to the world in their embrasure of the sovereignty of their own wills, are simply ignorant of history, theology, and Scripture. Sirs, we are most decidedly not ignorant. If we were, we wouldn’t be objecting to the unfair usage of the historical calvinists whom we have read, love, and emulate, as they emulated Christ. Expect opposition when you paint the men who have done so much to teach us the Word out to be heretics, scripture-twisters, and the like. When you tell us that the gospel we preach is nothing of the sort. I beg to differ, sirs, and I expect your opposition when I say the following. “Open union with the people of God is most desirable. It would argue disloyalty in a soldier if he would not wear his regimentals, and refused to take his place in the ranks. True, he might fight alone, but it would probably turn out to be a sorry business. If God’s people will not be ashamed of us we need not be ashamed of them. I should not like to go into a public assembly disguised in the dress of a thief; I prefer my own clothes, and I cannot understand how Christians can bear themselves in the array of worldlings.” – C.H. Spurgeon I, Sirs, think very much that you are ashamed of us. Further, I feel that you are, in fact, ashamed of the Gospel.

Sirs, a gospel which presents sin as sickness, not death; a gospel which presents a foreseen work of faith as the sole, passive acknowledgment of God in salvation of sinners; a gospel which presents Christ as dying for the never-to-be-justified, along with those who will be justified; a gospel which presents the works of faith and repentance as the requirements for regeneration; a gospel which presents certainty of salvation as a nebulous (but still within the freely willed choice of man?) “seal”, but without the decretal, sovereign will of God as the complement to and surety for it – this is a gospel without power, and not the Gospel of Scripture. There is indeed a Gospel delivered once and for all to the saints. The gospel that was presented in this conference is nothing of the sort. You wonder why there was such a response? The response was due to the sub-biblical gospel presented, the dismissive manner in which the Scriptural Gospel was treated, and the frequent, cavalier, even reckless accusations thrown at ministers of the Gospel. First and foremost, the response engendered by the John 3:16 conference was instigated by the complete disregard for Scripture shown by those who spoke. Secondly, it was instigated by the insistence of the speakers to misrepresent and redefine reformed theology. Thirdly, it was instigated by the strange and acontextual cherry-picking of quotes from reformed theologians to substantiate the claims made by the speakers.

As has been shown, by many, many folks around the web, the conference was an unmitigated debacle. It has done nothing but polarize things further – I don’t really midn that, in some ways, because it shows what they really think, when they get together, but will not say in a conventional setting – only in conferences. I challenge Dr. Allen to discuss these things publicly, in a formal setting, with Dr. White, as he has been asked to. Let the SBC see your arguments for your position. Let Dr. Byrne, Dr. Yarnell, Dr. Allen, Dr. Land, Dr. Hunt, Dr. Patterson, Dr. Keathley, Dr. Vines, Dr. Stanley, and Dr. Caner debate these issues publicly, with their theological opponents in and out of the SBC. This was an All-Star conference, as I’ve said. If they truly feel, as Dr. Allen said, that “a move toward 5-point Calvinism is a move away from the Gospel” – let’s hash it out, instead of doing this conference-sniping. Instead of skirting around the issue, let’s get this issue concerning the Gospel out in the open, and freely discussed in public. Let’s debate it, instead of sniping from the opposing sides. If you are truly against the gospel preached by the reformed, then let’s see some real discussion of that, and discussion with the men you disagree with. Like myself. Let’s see, from Scripture, how your position stacks up. Debate it. Yes, yes, good men can disagree on it.

I’m tired of the pussyfooting around. Let’s start talking to each other, not past each other. I don’t need you to tell me what I believe. I need you to show me how what you beleive accords with Scripture. “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason … my conscience is captive to the Word of God.” ~ Luther

Here we stand, my friends. We can do no other.

I’ll leave you with something from the Prince of Preachers.

It has this singular virtue also—it is so coherent in all its parts. You cannot vanquish a Calvinist. You may think you can, but you cannot. The stones of the great doctrines so fit into each other, that the more pressure there is applied to remove them the more strenuously do they adhere. And you may mark, that you cannot receive one of these doctrines without believing all. Hold for instance that man is utterly depraved, and you draw the inference then that certainly if God has such a creature to deal with salvation must come from God alone, and if from him, the offended one, to an offending creature, then he has a right to give or withhold his mercy as he wills; you are this forced upon election, and when you have gotten that you have all: the others must follow. Some by putting the strain upon their judgments may manage to hold two or three points and not the rest, but sound logic I take it requires a man to hold the whole or reject the whole; the doctrines stand like soldiers in a square, presenting on every side a line of defence which it is hazardous to attack, but easy to maintain. And mark you, in these times when error is so rife and neology strives to be so rampant, it is no little thing to put into the hands of a young man a weapon which can slay his foe, which he can easily learn to handle, which he may grasp tenaciously, wield readily, and carry without fatigue; a weapon, I may add, which no rust can corrode and no blows can break, trenchant, and well annealed, a true Jerusalem blade of a temper fit for deeds of renown. The coherency of the parts, though it be of course but a trifle in comparison with other things, is not unimportant. And then, I add,—but this is the point my brethren will take up—it has this excellency, that it is scriptural, and that it is consistent with the experience of believers. Men generally grow more Calvinistic as they advance in years. Is not that a sign that the doctrine is right. As they are growing riper for heaven, as they are getting nearer to the rest that remaineth for the people of God, the soul longs to feed on the finest of the wheat, and abhors chaff and husks. And then, I add—and, in so doing, I would refute a calumny that has sometimes been urged,—this glorious truth has this excellency, that it produces the holiest of men. We can look back through all our annals, and say, to those who oppose us, you can mention no names of men more holy, more devoted, more loving, more generous than those which we can mention. The saints of our calendar, though uncanonized by Rome, rank first in the book of life. The names of Puritan needs only to be heard to constrain our reverence. Holiness had reached a height among them which is rare indeed, and well it might for they loved and lived the truth. And if you say that our doctrine is inimical to human liberty, we point you to Oliver Cromwell and to his brave Ironsides, Calvinists to a man. If you say, it leads to inaction, we point you to the Pilgrim Fathers and the wildernesses they subdued. We can put our finger upon every spot of land, the wide world o’er, and say, “Here was something done by a man who believed in God’s decrees; and, inasmuch as he did this, it is proof it did not make him inactive, it did not lull him to sloth.”
The better way, however of proving this point is for each of us who hold these truths, to be more prayerful, more watchful, more holy, more active than we have ever been before, and by so doing, we shall put to silence the gainsaying of foolish men. A living argument, is an argument which tells upon every man; we cannot deny what we see and feel. Be it ours, if aspersed and calumniated, to disprove it by a blameless life, and it shall yet come to pass, that our Church and its sentiments too shall come forth “Fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners.”

Michael Memorial Baptist Church- 8-3-2008, sermon preached by Dr. Bill Safley

First, let me thank you for caring enough about your church to be here and help with this decision. And, let me sincerely thank those of you who were kind enough to let me know of your concerns ahead of time. That really helps, and I hope that will make this time more productive. Let me also remind of our plan. Tonight, I am going to try to address as many of these issues as I can. And, I want this time to be, above all else, biblical. I think we all can start by agreeing that what counts most is not what I think or you think, but what God thinks. So, I’ll try to stick close to Scripture. Then, you will have to judge whether or not what I say is, in fact, truly in line with the instructions in the Bible about organizing and administering the local church. And, let me get a couple of things out of the way up front. You may not agree with your leadership. You may speak or vote against this – and we will have a secret ballot so everyone will not be pressured in any way – you can oppose this, and we will still love you. And, I’m aware that there are some strong feelings, so I would plead with you to keep your mind open to what we say. Also, don’t bother taking notes, or writing down Scripture references; the text from which I am speaking will be available to you to read and pray over. As we start, let’s ask for the wisdom of God to be with us over the next few weeks.

We are considering a new church Constitution. This all started in a Deacon’s meeting in June of ’06. One of our deacons was frustrated that he was not having more time for ministry. That’s where this man’s heart is, and he didn’t want to be distracted with Administrative issues. He understood the biblical call of a deacon is to be a servant. It turned out several deacons felt the same way. As this church currently set up, the Administrative Board is a sub-committee of the deacon body, and reports to them. So, I was asked by the Deacons to help formulate a new Constitution that would allow us to better separate the administrative and ministry functions of leadership. I did not start this ball rolling, though I certainly do agree with it as scriptural. It began in that Deacon’s meeting. At that time, we thought that a simple revision / a touch-up of what we have was not going to be adequate, so I moved in the direction of a new document. I got together, and then presented to the deacon body a framework to revise. Now, two years and many revisions later, these documents come to you for your consideration with the recommendation of the Deacons and the By-Laws Committee. How was this document formed? To quote our dear friend, Chuck Brooks, you don’t want to go out and reinvent the wheel. So, my starting point was to gather constitutions now in use from a variety of churches, mostly Baptist, and start there. We didn’t write most of this document. The basic framework is from the Constitution of the Capital Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D. C., with some additions from other churches as appropriate, and adjustments for our particular situation. This is a legal document, which requires some precision and legal language, but there has never been any intent to confuse or hide anything. You can go to the Capital Hill Church web site and download that document, and get a very good idea of where much of this started. Still, we have made every effort to consider the special needs and situations of our congregation here. I have received the concerns that this proposed Constitution turns our church into a (“”) secular or social organization. I have been told that this document is “unfriendly.” We are not a secular organization, as this Constitution clearly reflects. Yet, we still must function in a secular world. A Constitution is needed to do that. And, while we don’t want to ever be unfriendly in our approach to anyone, we also must be clear, saying in this document what we believe and are going to do. And, remember our most important concern should be whether or not this document accurately reflects what the Bible teaches. And, I don’t think you will ever find a secular organization with that emphasis.

One question asked why we should have a Constitution at all. It is true that this is a legal requirement to do business, specifically to borrow money. But, in my opinion, there is a much more important reason. From the very start of the church, there have been and still are false believers who want to twist the meaning of Scripture. Peter says that (2Pet. 3:16). The first example of this was the Judaizers who hounded Paul, and the churches he founded. These were self-appointed teachers who said that Christians had to be circumcised and keep all the Law of Moses. They caused such a ruckus that the church met in the first church counsel in Acts 15 to settle the issue. The leaders of the church, then, put out a statement to protect the truth. That has been the pattern of the church ever since. Counsels met from time to time to reject heresy, correct error, and protect the Scripture. And, Baptists have always seen the need for this protective document in the local church. That is the reason the Convention publishes the Baptist Faith and Message. That document clarifies what we, as Southern Baptists, believe the Bible means by what it says. The earliest Baptist confession I can find is the first London Confession of Faith from 1644. The first Baptist statement in America was the Philadelphia Confession of 1742. I wish it was as simple as just saying, “We believe the Bible and love Jesus,” but it is not. Mormons agree with that. A Jehovah’s Witness can say that. So, a Constitution defining what we believe is essential, and I think that document should also say how we will run our church. That’s necessary from a legal standpoint, from a theological standpoint, and I think it is required in order to be honest with new members. There are so many interpretations of some parts of Scripture; we ought to be clear with potential members where we stand simply on the basis of honesty and integrity. And, there is the issue of protecting ourselves in a society that will sue over anything and everything. This document helps protect us in that area. And, I’ve heard that we shouldn’t worry about things like that and just trust God. But, the Bible also says we are not to put the Lord to a foolish test (Matt. 4:7). It’s like Bro. Frank Schmidt said, “The Lord is not going to do for us, what he has told us to do for ourselves.” If I get on my motorcycle without a helmet and wind up a brain-dead, do I bear responsibility for that? Sure. Jesus says (Matt. 10:16), “Be wise as serpents.” Stay out of obvious trouble. Take reasonable precautions. That is Scriptural. Proverbs agrees This is Prov. 22:3, “A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself, But the simple pass on and are punished.” That said, I think we see the need for a Constitution. Also, I would ask you to understand there is a certain priority in these four documents. The statement of faith and church covenant should be rock solid and nonnegotiable. We should be utterly united there. The Constitution certainly is somewhat flexible, and open to amendment, but amendments should be carefully considered, and have to be properly done. The membership application, however, is something that can be modified at any time.

As far as I can tell, I think the main issues are those of Membership requirements, Church Discipline, and Elder Rule. So, we will try to look at these in that order, which is the order they occur in the Constitution. To consider Church Membership, I want to start by reading to you a resolution adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention at the national meeting a couple of months ago.

The resolution is entitled “On Regenerate Church Membership and Church Member Restoration.” The Southern Convention national meeting on June 11 of this year passed this. So, that’s 8 weeks ago.

“WHEREAS, The ideal of a regenerate church membership has long been and remains a cherished Baptist principle, with Article VI of the Baptist Faith and Message describing the church as a “local congregation of baptized believers”; and

WHEREAS, A New Testament church is composed only of those who have been born again by the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Word, becoming disciples of Jesus Christ, the local church’s only Lord, by grace through faith (John 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9), which church practices believers’ only baptism by immersion (Matthew 28:16-20), and the Lord’s supper (Matthew 26:26-30); and

WHEREAS, Local associations, state conventions, and the Southern Baptist Convention compile statistics reported by the churches to make decisions for the future; and

WHEREAS, the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention annual Church Profiles indicate that there are 16,266,920 members in Southern Baptist churches; and

WHEREAS, Those same profiles indicate that only 6,148,868 of those members attend a primary worship service of their church in a typical week; and

WHEREAS, The Scriptures admonish us to exercise church discipline as we seek to restore any professed brother or sister in Christ who has strayed from the truth and is in sin (Matthew 18:15-35; Galatians 6:1); and now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana, June 10-11, 2008, urge churches to maintain a regenerate membership by acknowledging the necessity of spiritual regeneration and Christ’s lordship for all members; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we humbly urge our churches to maintain accurate membership rolls for the purpose of fostering ministry and accountability among all members of the congregation; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to repent of the failure among us to live up to our professed commitment to regenerate church membership and any failure to obey Jesus Christ in the practice of lovingly correcting wayward church members (Matthew 18:15-18); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we humbly encourage denominational servants to support and encourage churches that seek to recover and implement our Savior’s teachings on church discipline, even if such efforts result in the reduction in the number of members that are reported in those churches, and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we humbly urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention and their pastors to implement a plan to minister to, counsel, and restore wayward church members based upon the commands and principles given in Scripture (Matthew 18:15-35; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15; Galatians 6:1; James 5:19-20).

That’s sort of like our proposed Constitution, in that there is a lot of fancy language, but that is a call to honesty. The truth the convention sees is that if someone never comes to church, we cannot honestly count him as a member. If someone gives no evidence of being saved / regenerated, we ought not tell them they are by admitting them as members of the church. If someone sins like the lost world, and will not repent, we should take a stand, for their sake. That’s what this resolution is about. These messengers realize the church is weak and worldly. And, they realize that the answer to that can only be found in the Scripture. So, I want to focus, first on the definition of a church. That is where this resolution starts, with a call to work for “regenerate church membership.” What does that mean? Well, to be regenerate is to be saved. So, this is saying a true New Testament church will not knowingly admit people who are lost. This is in keeping with the Bible, of course. The letters to the churches in the New Testament are addressed to those who are “saints” and “love Jesus.” In April, I gave a sermon on the importance of church membership, which I won’t repeat. But, I would hope we could agree that formal church membership is the example of the New Testament, and is important. Also, I would hope we would agree to restrict church membership to Christians. To me, that is self-evident. You don’t have to think a lot about that one. But, this brings us to the second page of the proposed Constitution and the requirements for joining our church. One objection is that these are too strict because we can’t see someone’s heart. And, we can’t. But the Bible says that if someone doesn’t understand the gospel / if they have not trusted in the death of Christ alone for salvation, received by faith alone accompanied by repentance, the Bible says they aren’t saved (1Cor. 16:22). Paul warns us in Galatians (1:6f) against a “different gospel” that doesn’t save, but brings a curse. “With the heart (Rom. 10:10) one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” But, if the confession is not the true Gospel / if the Jesus these people believe in isn’t the Jesus of the Bible, they aren’t saved and shouldn’t be members of a church. If someone is in open rebellion against God, and will not repent and turn, then there is a problem with the heart as they have not believed unto righteousness. If someone wants to join this church, and I learn they run a strip joint in Biloxi, I would like to ask them to repent and close it before they are admitted to membership.

Basically, there are five membership steps, and let me tell you how we anticipate this working. An individual would indicate a desire to join our church, and we would ask them to fill out an application form and agree to abide by what this church believes. A mature believer will have to talk to them and make sure that they can give a credible witness to being saved. That could be done when they first express an interest in membership, or on a home visit later. And, I want you to understand this is being done now. When someone tells me that they (“”) “are saved,” or even have a membership in a Southern Baptist Church, that doesn’t mean much by itself. I have had people come down seeking membership who did not understand the Gospel. I have asked them how people are saved / what the gospel is / how people go to heaven, and the answer is along the lines of “Well, you just try to keep the golden rule, and live by the 10 Commandments, and hope you’re good enough when you die.” I’m sorry, you don’t have to be able to see the heart to understand that person is not saved. They don’t need to transfer a membership, they need to repent, believe in Jesus as the only way of salvation through faith alone. Then, they should join the church through baptism. Anything less is to refuse to love them enough to tell them the truth. The most recent experience I had like that resulted in the individual stopping to examine his heart. He came to the realization he was lost, even though he was a church member. He professed Christ. I, then, had the privilege of baptizing him. This membership interview is not a theological exam, or an interrogation. It is simply a spiritual talk to see if the person understands the gospel, and can give some evidence of true faith and repentance. And, I believe this is commanded in the Scripture.

For that, I would refer you to the little book we recently studied, 2 John. Starting at V9, John says, “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. [If someone does not hold to the correct doctrine about Christ, he “does not have God,” i.e. he is not saved.] He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. [That implies that you can tells something about their salvation by their doctrine.] If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; (V11) for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.” That is a serious verse that we ought to take seriously. John is saying there are false Christians out there, and we should not accept them just because they claim some relationship with Jesus. Remember, James (2:19) says that demons believe. They have a relationship with Jesus; it’s just not a good one. We are to evaluate everyone before we affirm them as believers or assist them in any ministry. A failure to do that leaves us accountable to God for the damage these lost people do in Christ’s church. If we aren’t supposed to let them into our house, I don’t see how you can let them into your church. And, this is established, time-honored Baptist practice. John L. Dagg was one of the 6 or 8 men regarded as the Founders of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845. He wrote the first systematic theology book by a Baptist in America. That book was a standard text in our seminaries for many years. In fact, it is still required reading in some. He also wrote a book on church order and organization. He said this, (“”) “In order that the church may judge whether a candidate is duly qualified for [church] membership, they should hear his profession of faith. … The churches are not infallible judges, being unable to search the heart; but they owe it to the cause of Christ, and to the candidate himself, to exercise the best judgment of which they are capable. To receive anyone on a mere profession of words, without any effort to ascertain whether he understands and feels what he professes, is unfaithfulness to his interests, and the interests of religion.” In other words, to receive someone as a member without a look at their life and doctrine is bad for them and bad for the church. The apostle John commands us not to affirm or aid anyone who does not have “this doctrine.” OK, what is this doctrine? Well, remember the point is to have regenerate church membership, i.e. members who are actually saved. So, the doctrine at issue is what you must know to be saved, not your view of end times or the seven days of creation. You must believe in the God of the Bible: Father, Son, and Spirit. You must believe that Jesus is God. You must believe that you are a lost, condemned sinner who needs a Savior. You believe that Jesus is the Savior who died bearing your sins. You must believe that forgiveness, salvation, and eternal life is offered to you (Eph. 2:8-9) by grace through faith, and not by works or human effort. You must understand that, in receiving salvation, you surrender yourself to Jesus as both Savior and Lord with a commitment to obey as a disciple. And, you must believe the Bible: including such things as Jesus was born of a virgin, and rose bodily from the grave, ascended to heaven, and is one day coming back to judge the living and the dead. And, this examination is necessary because there are not only Baptist church members who don’t believe those things; there are Southern Baptist churches who don’t teach them. By God’s grace, there aren’t a large number of liberal and apostate Southern Baptist churches, but there are some. So, one who is a mature believer – an elder, a deacon, a faithful Sunday School teacher – should have a spiritual conversation with the person wanting to join this church. They should, then, vouch for them to the elder board. The candidate doesn’t have to appear before the board, but the board has to know that someone trustworthy has talked to them, and believes they are saved. And, Tony and I should not be the only ones making that decision, for the protection of the church. So, the elder board helps both positively and negatively. If there is someone I am a little concerned about, I can ask another elder to go talk to them. Or, if someone on the elder board knows that the candidate does own a strip club in Biloxi, we can deal with that before we admit them as a member. Remember, our witness as a church, as well as individuals, is at stake here. The candidate for membership will be asked to fill out the application form, appear before the church for affirmation, be recommended to the Elders after a brief spiritual interview. Also, we would ask them to complete a brief new member’s class. The order of all that is not restricted, in an effort to retain some flexibility. In this, the membership application can be easily modified by the Elders, and the one thing I might consider adding would be to advise people that an elder or deacon would be happy to help them fill it out.

Admission to membership is, of course, closely tied to what is called “Church Discipline.” That’s not the best term for it, because the purpose is restoration. This is the command of Paul in Galatians (Gal. 6:1), “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.” And, this goes on all the time, without people even knowing it. Someone cares enough about a Christian brother to go and tell them what they are doing isn’t what a Christian should do. Then, that Christian brother repents, and the relationship is restored. This is what we are supposed to do for each other. This happens all the time, and no one else knows about it, which is how it ought to be. At issue is what do you do with someone who persistently, over time, repeatedly refuses to repent. Please turn with me to Matt. 18.

To get us from membership to church discipline, I want to address for just a moment the idea that we are never supposed to make any judgments of another. Understand, that is a secular, worldly idea, not a biblical one. If you go back 100 years, good judgment and discernment were virtues. Those were respected and sought. So, the idea that any judgment is bad is wrong. Certainly, there is bad, inappropriate judgment, but there is also proper judging. We are not the final judge and do not determine anyone’s eternal salvation. So, whether it is in admission to membership or in discipline, we don’t really tell someone they are lost. We can’t know that. But, we can know whether or not they are acting like it. So, in love we are to go to them and say how worried we are for them, because we don’t see evidence of salvation in their life. That doesn’t always mean they are lost, but often / even usually, they are. But, that is why we are called to remove them from membership, and that does not indicate we know for certain whether or not they are saved. When Jesus says (Matt. 7:1), ““Judge not, that you be not judged,” He is talking about self-righteous, ungodly judgment. That is obvious if you keep reading in that passage for He then says (Matt. 7:5-7) to first get the speck out of your own eye. Then, you will be able to see clearly to help your brother get the plank out of his eye. It is not right, nor biblical, nor loving, nor Christian to leave the brother with the plank in his eye. Love demands we help him with it – love for him, and love for Christ. So, if we never make a judgment as to whether or not a plank is there / if we just pretend we don’t see it, how is that showing Christian love? The point is that we are to, first, deal with the sin in our own life, and then we will be able to go with sincerity and humility to help our brother. Then, in the next verse the Lord tells us to not give the holy to dogs, or pearls to swine. To do that requires we judge who are dogs and pigs. We want to be generous and forgiving and gracious and merciful in our judgment, but we cannot escape the command to judge. In John 7 (:24), in fact, Jesus commands us to “judge with righteous judgment.” Jesus was our example, and He made judgments about people. He was gracious and good to the repentant sinner (John 8:11), and he drove the unrepentant merchants out of the temple (John 2:15). And, both are equally manifestations of His perfect love which puts God’s honor, purposes, and causes first. But you might object, “He could see the heart.” OK, Paul says to the Corinthian church (1Cor. 5:12-13), “What have I to do with judging those also who are outside? [The obvious answer is ‘Nothing.’ God judges them. Then, Paul goes on to say,] “Do you not judge those who are inside?” [And what is the implied answer? Yes! Of course!] Therefore ‘put away from yourselves the evil person.’ ”

The most important text to deal with is Matt. 18 (:15-20), so I want us to quickly walk through this. V15 > “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.” That’s what is supposed to happen. We are to care about one another enough to help each other stay out of sin. As a candidate joins this church, we would make it clear that we are serious about this. We understand that the seductiveness of sin can trap any one of us. And, we understand that sin can and will mess up our own judgment. So, while we are in our right mind / before sin makes us crazy, we ask each other to do this for us. Christians do this for one another. It is, after all, church discipline, not pastor discipline. What sins should be dealt with in this way? Well, most simple personal offenses should usually just be forgiven and never mentioned in the first place, as (1Pet. 4:8) “love covers a multitude of sins.” But, when the sin is public, or serious, or damaging to the individual, the church, or the witness of Christ, we should go to them. We should, in love, and with all the gracious humility we can muster, plead with them for repentance. Often, that is all that is needed. So, what sins need to come under church discipline? Those that are public, serious, those you cannot forgive, and this is most important, sins that are unrepentant. A person does not come under church discipline / you are not removed from the church role for adultery, fornication, lying, cheating, stealing, homosexuality, axe murder, genocide, or nuclear war. You come under church discipline for a willful, persistent refusal to repent. And, that could involve the sin of gossip. If, month after month, you continue in gossip, and will not stop doing damage and causing division in the Bride of Christ, we have not choice but to act. And, we have to act with sufficient force and firmness to stop the damage. At any stage, repentance and turning from sin leads to restoration, and the process is over. So, V16 > “If he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ ” If the person will not listen, you go with witnesses. That is to protect you and the other person. These witness are to verify that sin is indeed occurring, and that the person is unrepentant. If either is not true, it’s over. And, sometimes, the witnesses might decide the whole deal is trivial; so, just forget about it. If so, you do. And, if the person listens to the group – again, repentance brings restoration. V17 > “And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church.” I think the best plan for this is what we are recommending, i.e. that the church leaders get involved here and try to call the person to repentance. After they work with the sinning one, he will not hear, then the church leadership is to inform the church as a whole that we all need to seek this person out and plead with them to turn from whatever is the ongoing sin. You see, there is a step-wise ratcheting up of the pressure. And, if you have ever been involved in this, you know this takes months, occasionally years. Finally, back to V17 > “If he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.” The person is hardened and simply will not listen to anyone, we are to treat him like a “heathen and tax collector.” What does that mean? What do you do with pagans and tax collectors? You try to get them in church and hear the word so that the Lord will soften their hearts. But, you also recognize they are, as best as we can judge, outside the covenant community of faith. You don’t let them teach, or serve, or speak or vote in business meetings. When you see them, you are kind and cordial, but you don’t enter into intimate fellowship with them. Instead, when you see them, you plead with them to turn from sin. And, you do not let them remain church members. Why not? What is the harm in leaving people like this on the role? The answer is simple. Church membership is a statement by this congregation that we believe that person is redeemed. Remember, the church is a body of people who are saved. But, Christians are characterized by a lifestyle of repentance (1John 1:9). So, when someone will not repent, there is real doubt as to their eternal fate. And, it is sin for us not to warn them that they are danger. Usually, considerable time should elapse at each stage before moving on to the next one. And, I think you can go back and forth between some stages for a while. We want repentance, so we must give God time to produce that. But, there also are instances when discipline must move quickly, for the protection of the innocent, or the church (Titus 3:10). And, of course, there are special circumstances, such as a person under discipline being disruptive. Then, we would have to ask them not to come back. Another special situation would be the wife of a man under discipline. She still has to strive to be a godly wife. This is hard, and gut-wrenching, which is why Jesus goes on to say (V18-20)), “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” That’s not primarily talking about a prayer meeting, rather the subject is dealing with sin in the church. Jesus knows that this is very difficult, so He gives us this assurance of being with us in this action. If you do it right, the discipline decision you make is verified by heaven. Now, turn back a few pages to Matt. 13. This Constitution strives to follow that pattern, ultimately, if required, leading to the termination of membership by the body that voted to give it to him, i.e. the congregation. To answer the charge that this is some new idea or interpretation, at least for Baptists, I would go back to John L. Dagg, one of the founders of the SBC. He said, “When discipline leaves a church, Christ goes with it.” That is very strong, but many would agree with him. Another thing I have heard that I want to mention is the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matt. 13. Some have said that this forbids removing people from the church, but I would suggest that is not the proper view. Start with V24, which says that this is a parable about the Kingdom of heaven. Then, Jesus tells the parable of the weeds being in the field, and the owner not separating them from the wheat until the harvest. But, Jesus goes on to explain what this means. V37 > The sower is the Son of Man. V38 > the field is the (?) world, not the church. V39 > The harvest is the end. V41 > the servants who tend the field, do the reaping are (?) angels. Nowhere is the church mentioned. Nowhere is church discipline mentioned. This is a warning of the judgment to come on the lost in the world at large when Christ returns to establish His kingdom. And, honesty requires that I point out that – if this parable applies to church discipline – then we have a contradiction in the Scripture, and we can chuck the whole deal, go home and turn out the lights. Church discipline – including the removal from membership if necessary – is in Matt. 18, and 1 Cor. 5 & 6, and Romans 16 (:17-18), and 2 Thessalonians (3:14), and so on. And as far as the argument that no other Baptist church is doing this, that is obviously not true by the resolution we read earlier. That resolution is a clear call to return to the church discipline and integrity that once characterized our convention. Capital Hill Baptist and FBC, Durham, N. C. are both prominent churches that have reinstituted biblical church discipline after a lapse of many years, and there are others. This return to discipline in Baptist churches even made the Wall Street Journal this past January. The article was, of course, a distorted hatchet job, just as you would expect from the secular pr

ess. But, this shows that there is a major recovery of biblical principals going on in this area right now. One of the down sides of being a preacher is that your wife expects you to live like you preach. The world is looking at us. We say we believe the Scripture, and they expect us to live by it. If we claim to follow the Bible, we cannot escape the commands to deal with sin in the fellowship, even to the point of removing the unrepentant person from the church role.

Another issue of concern is the termination of membership when someone has been absent for a year. That is determined by looking at giving and Sunday School records, as those are the best ways we have to identify who is here. But, this is similar to church discipline, as those who are continually absent are in rebellion against the command (Heb. 10:25) to never forsake assembling with the church. Also, this is like church discipline in that you never hear of the cases of restoration, when the brother repents and is restored. You only hear about those who refuse to repent, and they are angry about it. You hear about the people who have gotten letters like this, and have gotten angry, because they have no intention of becoming faithful. But, you never hear about the other side. There are people in this church who got the letter, and said, “Hmm, they are right. I need to be back in church.” Those people returned and are now faithful and are growing in Christ.

Let me read the letter we send out to you.

Dear Church Member,
I pray this letter finds you well in both soul and body. However, we are concerned as our records show you have had no contact with us in the past year. Perhaps you just need some encouragement. If so, let me say that we would like nothing better than have you again be part of our fellowship. Further, we understand these records may be in error, so we would appreciate your letting us know if you have worshipped with us recently. Certainly, if there has been a change in your condition that prevents your attendance, we would like to know in order to pray for you and minister to you in what way we can.

If you have attended worship services or Sunday School with us in the last year, please let us know that. If you are now unable to attend because of illness, travel, military service, or due to some other cause, please let us know that as well. It is our desire to do what we can to minister to you. If you have moved, or are now attending another church, we would appreciate that information as well, and hope that God will bless you in your new church family.

Our desire is to obey Christ’s commission and “make disciples.” We would love for you to be actively involved in our fellowship. We have many exciting new opportunities for growth and service. However, we believe that active involvement in a local church is a biblical necessity for spiritual health and growth. Regular attendance in services and contact with the community of faith is good for both the Christian and the church. So, membership is both a privilege and a duty. Our bylaws call for removal from the membership of any individual who has not attended in the past twelve (12) months. Of course, this requirement is waived in the case of invalids, chronic illness, long-term care of ill family, military service, or any other justifiable cause of non-attendance. Please come and worship with us.

Our bylaws require we hear from you within 90 days from the date of this letter if you wish to remain a member of Michael Memorial. If our records are in error, please excuse this letter and help us correct them. If we can minister to you in any way, please let us know. We look forward to seeing you in church.

Now why should we ever send a letter like to anyone? Why should we care if there are people on the role who have been dead for 30 years? Well, the first thing is that, if we don’t do something, they are still going to be on the role in 200years. But, there are some better reasons. First, It is sin (Heb. 10:25). It is never loving, or kind, or helpful to approve sin, if only by acting like it is OK. Second, it is not spiritually good for a believer to be isolated from the Body of Christ. Without worship, the word, service, and fellowship they won’t be growing spiritually. They are dodging the accountability of the fellowship. So, if you really care about them, you will encourage them to what is spiritually healthy and beneficial. Also, if they are just allowed to wander off, that isn’t showing love for them, and, (1John 4:20) how can we claim to love God if we don’t really love our brother by wanting the best for him? To let these people remain on the role confuses them about their own spiritual state, as we are approving it. Also, this confuses the lost, watching world. These folks – at the moment anyway – are not interested in the things of God, and to retain them as members in good standing is bad for the witness of Christ. This is part of the reason the church now is indistinguishable from the world. And frankly, this puts the pastor in a difficult spot. He is supposed to be the shepherd watching over these people. How can he do that, when he doesn’t even know who they are, and they don’t know him? How can you shepherd sheep who aren’t part of the flock? To accept non-attenders as members in good standing is simply bad for them, bad for the church, and bad for the witness of Christ. Just from a practical standpoint, how can we give people voting rights in business meetings when they have no idea what the condition of the church is, because they haven’t been here for a year?

The third major concern is regarding the elder structure. This is unfamiliar to modern Baptist churches, but that unfamiliarity is something that has developed only in the last 100 years. At the time the SBC was founded, this was the normal structure of most churches. The first president of the SBC, W. B. Johnson, published an article strongly endorsing elder rule. And, we would be electing Baptist elders, not Presbyterian. We have talked in the past about elders, and deacons, and their qualifications and responsibilities. In the New Testament, the elder may also be called “bishop,” “overseer,” or “pastor.” Those words all refer to the same group of people. But, most Baptist churches have a ruling body that blurs the distinctions. There is only one group to lead the church, referred to as deacons. Inevitably, something has to give. If the emphasis in that group is on the oversight ministry, the service ministry suffers. If the emphasis is on the service ministry, the oversight suffers. That’s exactly what our deacons encountered. After investigation, mediation, and prayer, I really believe the Elder system is best, primarily because it is biblical. And, it has many practical advantages. There is help with the workload / the wisdom of many counselors (Prov. 15:22), and the power of group prayer. This promotes confidence in the congregation and helps share the burden of criticism. The elders serve at the pleasure of the congregation, and may be dismissed with proper procedure at any time – including the ministers. We remain a Baptist church. The ultimate authority is you. Of course, there is nothing in the Bible about sheep leading shepherds, so I would say the best thing to do is to elect godly men and then trust and follow them. And, if you find you can’t trust and follow them, get rid of them and find men you can trust and follow. The congregation can vote whatever it wants, whenever it wants. The only qualification that is unique to elders and not shared by deacons is the man must be “able to teach.” There is no reason to interpret that narrowly, so I believe this would be any man skilled in handling the word and able to teach, whether that be to large or small groups, or even individuals. So, while elders would be ordained as elders, this does not restrict the eldership to men were think of as “ministers” or “preachers.”

So, when it comes to elders, I really want to just share my own experience with you. I came up from the pew, not through seminary. And, as I read the Bible, there is no such thing as an elevated, special class of ministers in the New Testament. But, that is what has developed in many places. I have been in a number of Baptist churches over the years, and have seen this in action as the pastor forced his way into making every decision. I believe that the situation of one man alone on top of a pyramid of others under him is abnormal and corrupting, yet that is exactly where many Baptist churches are. I have seen real problems develop precisely because the pastor saw himself as king. Now, I am 58, and in good health. I plan to be here as the Lord allows, but I am eventually not going to be here. However, I have children who want to live on this coast, and I would like for them to have a church to attend that is run by the Bible, and not by a minister who sees himself as a cut above everyone else. I think elder rule is not only the biblical model, but is actually the best defense against an imperial pastorate in which the minister – or ministers – think they are kings and fall into the trap of lording it over their flock. This is actually not much of a change from the leadership structure as it is now, except to make the Elder Board report to the church rather than the deacons. The elder board, then, is a group of men to lead the church, in which the pastor has only one vote, like anyone else. And, the constitution requires that the majority of members of the Board not be receiving any sort of pay from the church. That is for the protections of the people. So, as you can see, this is not some sort of ministerial power grab. If anything, this is attempting to block the pastor from assuming power we see as unbiblical and improper.

Tonight, I have tried to show you two things: that we can defend this constitution as being thoroughly in line with Baptist church governance, both historical and current. Then secondly, and more importantly, we can defend this constitution as being thoroughly Scriptural. I know this has been long, and I’m sure many of you have still more questions and issues. And, that is good. The only thing that is not good is to let the question go unanswered. As we close, I just want to run two passages of Scripture by you. The first is Heb. 13:17, which warns the pastor or elder that he is going to have to stand before God and give account for the job he did “watching out for their souls.” As a church leader, I am going to stand before God and answer for how I treated His church. The longer I am in the ministry, the more this becomes a matter of genuine, serious concern for me. If I am accountable for a flock, I have to know who is in the flock. Doesn’t that make sense? That means we can’t have sheep that never are part of the flock, and are strangers to the shepherd. If I admit someone to the church who is obviously not a Christian, when a few simple questions would make the matter clear, I am going to have to answer for that. How can I be a shepherd and admit a wolf to the flock by sheer carelessness? Even if this lost person is not a wolf / even if he is just sincerely wrong, I have told this man he is saved / going to heaven / reconciled to God when he is not. I have not “watched out for his soul.” And, I am accountable for the damage he does in the church. If I fail to obey the inescapable biblical commands about church discipline, I am running Christ’s church like I want, rather than as He commands. That damages the fellowship and the testimony of Christ. So, that is not going to make our Lord happy.

And, this is an accountability for you as well. The other passage is Ezek. 33 that says a watchman who fails to warn others of approaching danger is going to held responsible by God for their deaths or loss. If you are saved, you know the truth, and you have a debt to the lost to warn them (Rom. 1:14). If we do not warn the lost church member of his danger / if we do not warn the non-attender of his sin and his danger of spiritual loss and stagnation / if we do not warn the unrepentant believer of the consequences of his sin, we do not love God, or others, and we will have to answer to our Lord. Obedience is crucial for blessing. I want the blessing of God on this church, and I think that means we have to run His church the way He tells us. Now, I know there is an awful lot of passion and emotion regarding all this, and that is not necessarily bad. I would ask you to take that passion and turn it into prayer. Don’t pray that everyone would come around to agree with you. Rather pray that all of us would find the wisdom to understand the teachings of Christ in the Scripture and put them into action. Pray that all of us would come around to agree with Christ.

As I said at the start, we will have an open discussion of all these issues next Sunday evening. I appreciate your being here tonight, and do hope that you will come back. There are 50 copies of the text of this sermon, which I will place in the foyer. If you would like to pick one up to review, pray over, and consider, please do. Or, the text will be online or available through the church office sometime tomorrow. Please remember that the issue is what the Scripture says. I have great sympathy with those who don’t like member screening and discipline and all that. You have no idea how much I don’t like being involved in those things. But, I want to be able to stand before God and say that I at least made an effort / weak and fallible, but still an effort to follow the Bible as closely as I could understand it. I pray that we would all have that commitment.

God has solved the sin problem, but each of us have to respond to that mercy and grace through repentance and faith.

God did not create robots to inhabit the earth to fellowship with Him. He made man as free moral agents with the ability to make moral choices. God solved the sin problem but we must respond as sinners and repent and turn to Him. This idea that somehow God ‘elects’ His people and that they have no choice in the matter is foreign to the Bible.

The Israelites had to kill the Passover lamb, receive its blood in a vessel, and apply it to the sides and tops of the doorframes of the house. Then they had to close the door, stay inside, and eat the meat of the lamb.

Joshua set before the people the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or the gods of other lands and told them they must ‘choose between the two’. But as for Joshua and his house, they would choose to follow the Lord.

The NT tells a story about a feast that was ready. The guests did not have to worry about anything, but they had to come participate in it. In the same way, the feast prepared for us by Jesus Christ is ready, but we must come as guests, and eat. There is a personal responsibility involved in being a Christian. “In that day you will say…” and there is no doubt that every elect of God will confess “Jesus is Lord” and be saved. Jesus said “But I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me,” and so we will come, we will believe, we will trust. But that does not negate the Biblical obligation that we must individually believe in Christ to be saved.

The water is now available, but the thirsty must come and drink.

Those who were dying because they had been bitten by snakes in the wilderness had to look at the uplifted brazen serpent so that they could be healed. The Philippian jailer had to do one thing: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.

What happens if we do not turn to Jesus Christ for salvation? God’s anger will not be turned away from us. In john 3:36 we find a description of those who have never trusted in Jesus Christ: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” If a person does not trust Christ’s atoning sacrifice, he must perpetually atone for his sins. The problem is that our righteousness is as filthy rags.

Salvation is available for all who would come to Him in repentance and faith. We see this truth in verse 2. Behold, God [is] my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH [is] my strength and [my] song; he also is become my salvation.

First, in verse 1 Isaiah says “You have comforted me….” Isaiah was saying, “God was angry with me, but now he has comforted me.” Then in verse 2 Isaiah says, “Behold God is my salvation.” My salvation! What an affirmation. In the original language, “behold” means “surprise!” Wonder of wonders! God is my salvation!

Second, in verse 2 Isaiah says, “I will trust…” The Hebrew word is “batach”, which has the meaning of committing oneself to God and thus being secure forever. This is saving faith. It is not enough to have information about the gospel or even to understand it intellectually and agree about the truth of the gospel. Faith is trust. Saving faith is my wholly depending on the Lord.

Third, remember, God sent Isaiah to speak to King Ahaz, who was in serious trouble. The enemy had the strength and the ability to destroy Israel. Although Isaiah gave him the gospel, he refused to trust in God. So in 7:9 the prophet declared, “If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will nto stand at all.” That is always the truth. If we do not believe in the gospel when it comes to us we will fall That is why Hebrews tells us that “today is the day of salvation.” Implied is do not let it pass you by. Don’t procrastinate!

Fourth, Isaiah said, “I will not be afraid (of anything).” Trust and fear are opposites. Believers are delivered from God’s wrath; thus, their fear of death is gone. A believer therefore says, “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.” Then comes the glorious shout of jubilation: “But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Dr. _____,

Before I start, I want to confess that I may not have been as charitable as I ought have been before, in our discussions of these issues. My passion results from a zeal for the truth, but was not intended as disrespect. If you gleaned such from our encounters in the past, I apologize most humbly, and I ask your forgiveness. In that spirit, however, I do want to advance a thesis: perhaps, in your advancing this line of doctrine, it is warranted that my puzzlement should be real, when hearing them expounded in your class. From the pulpit, we are taught the opposite of what you have been teaching. That God’s grace in election is unconditional, and the freedom of man’s will to choose any thing is captive to either sin or righteousness. That God’s grace is extended to sinners who are totally depraved – extensive to their wills, which cannot choose anything but evil. That the atonement is not conditional upon the man who chooses to accept it, but upon the intent of Christ to save those for whom He died. That the drawing of all men to Himself is a work of God, worked upon those men who are regenerated by the Spirit, and come willing, not unwilling, to the cross of Christ, due to the effectual call, worked by the Holy Spirit. That we are not simply perseverers, but preserved BY the power of God – irrespective of the autonomous freedom of our wills in a state of salvation.

I pledge, Dr. _____, that my surprise and consternation, in light of what has been taught in the pulpit, was both warranted and truthfully grounded in a real shock as to the inconsistencies of the two gospels being presented. One which seems to require the exercise of a dead man’s “free will”, to accept the Lordship of a God he neither wants nor can desire – and the repentance of sins which a dead loves, and will not release – and a faith which is inexorably set upon this world; and another that requires the faith and repentance that God freely gives, to be the grounds for an invincible, impregnably mighty fortress of salvation which is decreed, empowered, actively aided, and only possible by the creation of new life by the spirit, prior to any exercise of will in the matter. This sovereign will of God is the only grounds I can see for any salvation of man, at all points, and in all means! This is the grounds for my zeal, and I humbly beg forgiveness if I have been too forward in my denial – but I cannot do otherwise in principle, and I apologize if my practice of that denial was lacking in respect.

My difference is grounded not in a desire to “win”, nor in a desire to be the “doctrine police” or any such thing. It is grounded solely in a very real concern and a zealousness (or jealousy!) for the sovereignty of God’s freedom of will over the lives and wills of men, which surely affects how the gospel is presented, why it is presented, and what the gospel itself is. Surely, by asserting that men are not autonomously free does not deny that men are *responsible*. The crux of the matter is that they ARE responsible – to God – the very God who is the self-existent living standard of justice! That is the answer Paul gives to the objector in Romans 9, and it must be our answer when we seek to discover that answer for ourselves, must it not? The salvation that belongs only to the Lord can have no other ground than in the power of God, the unconstrainedly free will of God which determiens the exercise of that power, and the election of men to salvation from before the foundation of the world, to a salvation bought specifically for those whom He elected before the foundation of the world, secured by the omnipotent, substitutionary atonement of the Son, and the justification of His blood – along with the sanctifying work of the Spirit, keeping us in all righteousness! We cannot have any other grounds for salvation, or assurance of it’s efficacy, can we?

If we try to have the grounds for our assurance be in the power of God over our wills, (which does not allow them to stray back to the old nature we were redeemed from, by the sanctification of the Spirit), then how can we say that God has no, or has chosen not to have, power over our wills in the regeneration unto salvation? Does a dead men choose to rise, or is he raised? The heart of stone which dead men have MUST be changed to a heart of flesh by the sovereign power of God. These dead men’s bones are very dry – and can only be knit together by the one who knit us together in our mother’s womb. This is the central issue, it seems. Can a dead man live, unless he is raised to life? If he is raised, will he not believe in the one who raised him, as surely as dusk follows the dawn? This is the glorious truth of the surety found in the doctrines of God’s grace, founded in the absolute sovereignty of God over all of every one of His creations. It is not a mechanistic, fatalistic system, but a glorious declarative truth – that God is our salvation, and that everything that God does, He does perfectly, precisely, and to His own great and majestic glory and purpose.

I’d like to make it clear – I’m not out for your job. I’m not out for you to step down as a teacher. I don’t desire either, and that, in fact is not even on the radar of my concerns. What I’d truly desire is for you to re-examine the Biblical foundation of what is, clearly, part of the very gospel delivered once and for all to the saints. God’s sovereign decree to the salvation of His elect throughout redemptive history, His active regeneration of their souls to prepare a will dead and unable to respond into a soul both alive and able to respond to the gospel presented by the preaching of the Word; God’s active, gracious gifts of faith and repentance to those very same souls, which, on the basis of all this perfect work by the Holy Triune God, believe savingly. This special series of gifts to God’s chosen is of course on the basis of Christ’s death, atonement, justification, and mediation for those self-same elect souls. To try to apply the atonement to one who is not also mediated for, is foreign to the perfect saving work of Christ. Further, to ground our assurance in the ability of God to *keep* our faith, surely necessitates God’s ability to actively direct our wills, and to move in power within those to whom all these good and gracious gifts are granted. Such a necessity surely negates any concept of an *autonomous* free will – and can only mean that the freedom of our wills is only a freedom within the limits of the nature which we possess! Since God can work all things to the praise of His glory, this is very basis of the creative purpose of God, and should be a thing glorified in, not condemned! When a doctrine of the ability of man to freely will is made central to the discussion, and further, cannot be found in scripture as a quality possessed by the children of men, this leads me to believe that perhaps we are placing more credence in a philosophical presupposition than in the words of holy scripture! It is the doctrine of an autonomous free will that is foreign to the Bible, sir, and I challenge you to frame a rebuttal to Romans 9:16, or John 1:13, which in fact state the opposite in the context of salvation – which is the issue.

While I appreciate that you believe no such perfect balance between the responsibility of man and the Sovereignty of God can be found in Scripture, I would respectfully disagree by pointing out that this is a doctrine which is not something new, can be demonstrated by a veritable mountain of scripture, and is perfectly consistent throughout the entirety of Scripture. A Potter whose hands cannot shape the pots as He wills, but leaves the pots to shape themselves of their own free will is not much of a Potter, is He? If God will accomplish all His good pleasure – and his pleasure is decreed from the end to the beginning – can we truly say that God leaves the salvation of His children to the exercise of their depraved wills, apart from any prior intervention of God’s regenerative, restorative grace on those wills? The will of God is always the cause behind all stages of the Work of Salvation. You may disagree with it – but I cannot say otherwise.

God did not create robots to inhabit the earth to fellowship with Him.

Sir, what doctrinal system claims anything of the sort? I know of no such doctrine from any system that even claims Christendom.

He made man as free moral agents with the ability to make moral choices.

So, from that strawman, the opposite claim is: “He made man as free moral agents with the ability to make moral choices.”

Yes, He MADE man that way – but did man not fall? Additionally, in doing so, did He not show that man cannot be trusted to make moral choices? The statement is true – as far as it goes, but it only goes so far. Now, man is a slave to sin, dead in tresspasses and sins, and has a depraved mind – he cannot subject himself to the law of God by making righteous moral choices – in fact – that mind is “not even able to do so”!

They are free – within the limits of their slavery to sin. No one is anything but contingently free – contingent on their master. I would debate really using “free” in the context of slavery. Such a definition is not the Biblical definition of ‘free’ – only ‘free’ in the context of slavery.

Romans 6:18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
Romans 6:20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.

That’s the contrast that Paul makes – and that is the contrast we are thus required to make, from Scripture. There is no autonomous free will apart from a contingency upon a master’s influence over his desires, as Edwards would say.

But, we can expound on this from Scripture clearly.

Proverbs 18:1-2 Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh [and] intermeddleth with all wisdom. A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind.

Through desire / (a man) having separated / himself, seeks / to meddle (to contend with) / all wisdom.

The desire of man is to separate himself, and he thus seeks to contend with the wisdom of God. To separate himself from? The Righteousness of God. Thus, he isn’t interested in true understanding – but his only interest in his own opinions, which now have primary weight, given his focus on self, as a being separated by himself, to himself – not by God, to Himself.

A man is a slave – and always a slave – but he is also free, and always free – but ONLY to that which his nature belongs. When we are born again to Christ – we are made new – we have a new nature. Not one that is fully free of the flesh – but one that is being sanctified by the Spirit, and bought by the blood of Christ.

Romans 6:22-23 – But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Eph. 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

We were by nature children of wrath.

2 Peter 1:3-4 …seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of {the} divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.

We WILL be partakers of the Divine nature, which a child of wrath can never be, unless that nature is changed. We were given everything pertaining to life and Godliness – through the knowledge of He who called us!

John 8:36 “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.”

Not free in name only, as you are under sin – free of everything pertaining to life and godliness – but free of the slavery of sin, and slaves to righteousness of God, in which the only true freedom can be found.

John 1:12-13 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The NT tells a story about a feast that was ready. The guests did not have to worry about anything, but they had to come participate in it. In the same way, the feast prepared for us by Jesus Christ is ready, but we must come as guests, and eat. There is a personal responsibility involved in being a Christian. “In that day you will say…” and there is no doubt that every elect of God will confess “Jesus is Lord” and be saved. Jesus said “But I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me,” and so we will come, we will believe, we will trust. But that does not negate the Biblical obligation that we must individually believe in Christ to be saved.

The water is now available, but the thirsty must come and drink.

Those who were dying because they had been bitten by snakes in the wilderness had to look at the uplifted brazen serpent so that they could be healed. The Philippian jailer had to do one thing: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.

What happens if we do not turn to Jesus Christ for salvation? God’s anger will not be turned away from us. In john 3:36 we find a description of those who have never trusted in Jesus Christ: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” If a person does not trust Christ’s atoning sacrifice, he must perpetually atone for his sins. The problem is that our righteousness is as filthy rags.

Salvation is available for all who would come to Him in repentance and faith. We see this truth in verse 2. Behold, God [is] my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH [is] my strength and [my] song; he also is become my salvation.

Do you see what this argument depends on? OUR faith and repentance – the “doing” of the “exercise” of these things. Just as in James, the outworking of the Spirit causes in us the inevitable outworking of the gifts He grants to us – which were given to us for the *purpose* of these good works.

Eph: 2:10 – For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Sir, have you never seen the scriptures that say BOTH OF THOSE (faith and repentance) are gifts of God? Say whatever we will, that’s the killer for this argument, if we can demonstrate it from Scripture.

God has solved the sin problem, but each of us have to respond (The Father draws you to Himself) to that mercy (God’s) and grace (God’s) through repentance (God’s) and faith (God’s).

As used, this definition of faith and repentance is unbiblical, the Biblical nature of this definition of “free” will contradicts Scripture, and any election which is not the foreordained Sovereign choice of a free and omnipotent creator is no election, but subservience to the free and omnipotent will of man.

On Faith:

The Hebrew “batach” as “place one’s OWN trust in” as the definition of saving faith – clearly raises the question of the origin of the faith and repentance. As I’ve stated already, that origin is very obvious from scripture – as is our inevitable duty and priviledge to exercise those gifts for their intended purpose.

Hebrews 12:1-2 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Isn’t that incredible? The same verse we use to *define* faith is the immediate preceding context for the statement as to the origin of faith. What is our surety of this faith? The One who grants it is the One seated at the right hand of the Father and interceding on our behalf, as the One who bought us with a price.

Romans 12:3 For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

Phil. 1:29 For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,

Not only does Scripture testify to the provenance of our faith, but the historic confessions of Baptists also testify to their understanding of it.

1689 London Baptist Confession (and 1742 Philadelphia Confession)
Chapter 14: Of Saving Faith

1. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word; by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord’s supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened. (2 Corinthians 4:13; Ephesians 2:8; Romans 10:14, 17; Luke 17:5; 1 Peter 2:2; Acts 20:32)

2. By this faith a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word for the authority of God himself, and also apprehendeth an excellency therein above all other writings and all things in the world, as it bears forth the glory of God in his attributes, the excellency of Christ in his nature and offices, and the power and fullness of the Holy Spirit in his workings and operations: and so is enabled to cast his soul upon the truth thus believed; and also acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come; but the principal acts of saving faith have immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, and resting upon him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. (Acts 24:14; Psalms 27:7-10; Psalms 119:72; 2 Timothy 1:12; John 14:14; Isaiah 66:2; Hebrews 11:13; John 1:12; Acts 16:31; Galatians 2:20; Acts 15:11)

John Owen masterfully testifies to this reality as well.

The Death of Death in the Death of Christ – Book II, Chapter 5, Pgs. 234-235

Thirdly, This condition of faith is procured for us by the death of Christ, or it is not. If they say it be not, then the chiefest grace, and without which redemption itself (express it how you please) is of no value, doth not depend on the grace of Christ as the meritorious procuring cause thereof; — which, first, is exceedingly injurious to our blessed Saviour, and serves only to diminish the honour and love due to him; secondly, is contrary to Scripture: Tit. iii. 5, 6; 2 Cor. v. 21, “He became sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” And how we can become the righteousness of God but by believing, I know not. Yea, expressly saith the apostle, “It is given to us for Christ’s sake, on the behalf of Christ, to believe in him,” Phil. i. 29; “God blessing us with all spiritual blessing in him,” Eph. i. 3, whereof surely faith is not the least. If it be a fruit of the death of Christ, why is it not bestowed on all, since he died for all, especially since the whole impetration of redemption is altogether unprofitable without it?
In one particular they agree well enough, — namely, in denying that faith is procured or merited for us by the death of Christ. So far they are all of them constant to their own principles, for once to grant it would overturn the whole fabric of universal redemption; but, in assigning the cause of faith they go asunder again.

So does Spurgeon testify:

Nay, the doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works, lifted up; for he always thinks faith is a work of the creature and a condition of his acceptance. It is as false to say that man is saved by faith as a work, as that he is saved by the deeds of the law. We are saved by faith as the gift of God, and as the first token of his eternal favor to us; but it is not faith as our work that saves, otherwise we are saved by works, and not by grace at all.

If you need any argument upon this point, I refer you to our great apostle Paul, who so constantly combats the idea that works and grace can ever be united together, for he argues, “If it be of grace, then it is no more of works otherwise grace were no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more of grace, otherwise work is no more work.”

On Repentance:

Acts 5:31 He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
2 Tim. 2:25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,

1689 London Baptist Confession (and 1742 Philadelphia Confession)
Chapter 15: Of Repentance Unto Life and Salvation

1. Such of the elect as are converted at riper years, having sometime lived in the state of nature, and therein served divers lusts and pleasures, God in their effectual calling giveth them repentance unto life. (Titus 3:2-5)

2. Whereas there is none that doth good and sinneth not, and the best of men may, through the power and deceitfulness of their corruption dwelling in them, with the prevalency of temptation, fall into great sins and provocations; God hath, in the covenant of grace, mercifully provided that believers so sinning and falling be renewed through repentance unto salvation. (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Luke 22:31,32)

3. This saving repentance is an evangelical grace, whereby a person, being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his sin, doth, by faith in Christ, humble himself for it with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrency, praying for pardon and strength of grace, with a purpose and endeavour, by supplies of the Spirit, to walk before God unto all well-pleasing in all things. (Zechariah 12:10; Acts 11:18; Ezekiel 36:31; 2 Corinthians 7:11; Psalms 119:6; Psalms 119:12 8)

1858 Abstract of Principles Articles 8, 9, & 10

VIII. REGENERATION

Regeneration is a change of heart, wrought by the Holy Spirit, who quickeneth the dead in trespasses and sins enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the Word of God, and renewing their whole nature, so that they love and practice holiness. It is a work of God’s free and special grace alone.

IX. REPENTANCE

Repentance is an evangelical grace, wherein a person being, by the Holy Spirit, made sensible of the manifold evil of his sin, humbleth himself for it, with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrence, with a purpose and endeavor to walk before God so as to please Him in all things.

X. FAITH

Saving faith is the belief, on God’s authority of whatsoever is revealed in His Word concerning Christ; accepting and resting upon Him alone for justification and eternal life. It is wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit, and is accompanied by all other saving graces, and leads to a life of holiness.

There is a solution to the dilemma some consider insoluble: The Sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. It is not new, nor is it novel – in fact, it is not complicated.

Augustine perhaps stated it first. (Confessions, X, 29)

“Give what you command, and command what you will. You impose continency on us.”

It’s a truly simple concept. What is commanded is also given. What is given, is also commanded. How is God’s Sovereignty and human responsibility reconciled? In the grace of God, of course.

The Israelites had to kill the Passover lamb, receive its blood in a vessel, and apply it to the sides and tops of the doorframes of the house. Then they had to close the door, stay inside, and eat the meat of the lamb.

How can this be said to be analogous to saving faith?

Israel, when they come to the red sea, immediately complain that Moses has brought them there to kill them all. What was Moses’ response? “Do not fear! Stand by and see the salvation of the LORD which He will accomplish for you today; for the Egyptians whom you have seen today, you will never see them again forever. The LORD will fight for you while you keep silent.”

Second – did not God harden the hearts of the Pharoah, and the Egyptians (is that free will?), and did not the Egyptians hate the Israelites and want them to leave, out of fear? They had no choice but to obey. The Israelites had no more place among the Egyptians. God burned their bridges behind them.

Third – God gave the commands, the means, and the escape – from the Angel of Death, and the Egyptian army. God provided exactly what He commanded. How is this any difference than faith and repentance being both commanded by God, and granted by God? It’s the Sovereign decree which results in His glory being both radiated from and reflected back to Himself.

Of Election:

This idea that somehow God ‘elects’ His people and that they have no choice in the matter is foreign to the Bible.

Sir, election is personal, predestined, particular, and perfect. It is presented in many ways, it is outlined in many places, and it is God’s sovereign freedom that determines it. Our choice is not only completely irrelevant, but completely immaterial.

God’s decree of election takes place before the foundation of the world. It is a personal decree, a loving decree, and a particular decree. It depends on no will of man – no choice – but on the will of God – HIS choice. It depends on nothing man can, or will do, or has done. It rests solely in His divine pleasure. Not only is it anything BUT foreign to the Bible that election rests in no choice of man, but election by the choice of man is anathema to the gospel, and to Scripture itself, directly contrary to your claim.

Once again: John 1:12-13 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

God’s purpose is the purpose which matters in His election. His purposes, His decrees, are what declared the (Omega) End from the (Alpha) Beginning and which accomplish all His good pleasure!

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;

Romans 9:11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls)

Ephesians 1:3-6 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly [places] in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

Ephesians 2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

1 Thess. 1:4 knowing, brethren beloved by God, [His] choice of you;

Romans 11:5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to [God’s] gracious choice.

Romans 11:7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;

Romans 11:28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of [God’s] choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;

Acts 15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Isaiah 29;16 You turn {things} around! Shall the potter be considered as equal with the clay, That what is made would say to its maker, “He did not make me”; Or what is formed say to him who formed it, “He has no understanding”?

Isaiah 45:9 “Woe to {the one} who quarrels with his Maker– An earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you doing?’ Or the thing you are making {say,} ‘He has no hands’?

isaiah 64:6-8 For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. There is no one who calls on Your name, Who arouses himself to take hold of You; For You have hidden Your face from us And have delivered us into the power of our iniquities. But now, O LORD, You are our Father, We are the clay, and You our potter; And all of us are the work of Your hand.

Romans 9:11-24 for though {the twins} were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to {His} choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.” What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” So then it {does} not {depend} on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And {He did so} to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, {even} us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

“Isaiah said ‘I will not be afraid’ – Trust and fear are opposites.”

Yes – and God has not GIVEN you a spirit of fear – but of POWER, and of LOVE, and of a SOUND MIND

2 Tim. 1:7-10 For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline. Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with [me] in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,

His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity who has saved us AND called us!

Soli Deo Gloria. To God ALONE be the glory. In all things.

Dr, _____, You know who I am, and what I was. I’m a walking, talking example of the power, Biblical orthodoxy, and experiential efficacy of the Doctrines of Grace. Only a God sovereign over the will of man could, or would have dragged me out of my sin by a methodical destruction of all of my props, pretensions, deceits, sins, and wickedness. A God who draws all men to Himself has no trouble with recreating a will suited to serve Him, and employing His mercy to save a man such as me. I tell you – it was none of me – I was unwilling, I was unable, I was without power or hope in this world. He saved me, He dragged me out of the miry clay and He remade me to serve Him.

There is no power that can resist His call and power. None. It is to His praise, His glory, and to the jealous desire for His glory above all doctrines, theories, and constructions of man that I write this rebuttal. It is a zealousness for the glory of the God who justifies, the God who calls, the God who foreknows His elect, and is mighty to save those He chose before the foundation of the world. Truly, John tells us: We “were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Amen, and amen.

Dr. _____ – I love you, I care for you, and I want you to know that I in no way am motivated by any desire to “win an argument”, or to pugnaciously “demean” your abilities as a teacher, which I respect. I’m motivated by a call to defend the gospel of Christ, and by no other reason whatsoever. I consider the Doctrines of Grace the very Gospel – and Calvinism is merely the unfortunate nickname of men for the Biblical theology of God’s Sovereignty in salvation. I am forced to contradict what you are teaching by Scripture and by that “pattern of sound words” which we are commanded to maintain, and to defend. I’m an apologist at heart – and the task of the apologist is to defend the gospel of Christ, and I am more and more convinced that my purpose in Christ is to be “appointed for the defense of the Gospel.” Thus, I am offering this scriptural rebuttal in the spirit of reconciliation, and I am anxious that I do not appear puffed up by means of “superior knowledge”. I have nothing I have not received – and “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.”

Humbly yours in Christ,

Joshua.

I highly encourage you to take a listen to Tuesday’s Dividing Line. Dr. White went over, as Mr. Wright demanded on Hannity and Colmes a while back, one of Dr. James Cone’s books. It’s truly amazing (and sad) the amount of heresy the man manages to pack into 10-15 pages.