The following is a reprint of an article written by Wade Burleson, published in the Oklahoma Baptist Messenger in the June 1, 1995 issue. The editor of the Baptist Messenger asked Herschel Hobbs and Wade Burleson to write articles on Calvinism from differing perspectives to show how Southern Baptists can maintain friendship, cooperation and Christian unity though the Biblical doctrines of grace can be interpreted differently. Dr. Hobb's article, "God's Sovereignty and Man's Free Will," was posted Wednesday. Wade Burleson's article follows:______________________________________________
When I was a kid I once became sick immediately after eating my first Fudgesicle. Not just sick, I mean really sick. For years I never ate a Fudgesicle because I thought, mistakenly so, that the fudge made me sick. It was only after much convincing and even greater personal courage that I again ventured to eat an ice cold Fudgesicle. Eureka! I loved it! My misconceptions had cost me years of immeasurable pleasure.
I remember the first time I can consciously remember hearing the word “Calvinism.” My youth director was attempting to explain what John Calvin had taught concerning salvation, and in looking back, it seems Calvinism to the youth pastor was like Fudgesicles to me - something to be avoided at all costs. I now believe that my youth pastor was teaching what he thought Calvin taught. In fairness, if Calvin had taught what the youth director said he taught, it was something to be avoided. Unfortunately, misconceptions about Calvinism may have led him to miss the joy of fully recognizing the wonderful love of God found in His grace for His people.
That’s why I don’t like to call myself a Calvinist. Spurgeon never hesitated to “avow myself a Calvinist,” but I’m living in an age when too many people have a distorted understanding of what Calvin taught. Besides, I don’t agree with many things Calvin did teach, such as infant baptism, church/state unity and church polity. Therefore, I only take the name “Christian” and point others to Christ.
But don’t misunderstand; many, many Baptists have never hesitated to call themselves Calvinists. James Boyce, founder of Southern Seminary; John L. Dagg, the fine Southern Baptist theologian of the 19th century, and Charles Spurgeon, the prince of Baptist preachers, were all fond of being called Calvinists. However, Spurgeon said, “We only use the term ‘Calvinism’ for shortness. That doctrine which is called Calvinism did not spring from Calvin; we believe that it sprang from the great founder of all truth (Jesus Christ). We would be just as willing to call them (the doctrines of Calvinism) by any other name if we could find one which could be better understood.”
With Spurgeon’s spirit in mind, and with my desire not to be called a Calvinist, I will use the nomenclature “Doctrines of Grace” to describe what Boyce, Dagg, Broadus, Manly, Mell, Williams and thousands of other great Southern Baptist evangelists, preachers and theologians have believed concerning salvation. Beside these men in the Hall of Faith stand men like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Whitefield, Knox, Carey and Spurgeon plus an innumerable company of others throughout history who have proclaimed Christ to the nations.
THE TOTAL DEPRAVITY OF MAN
First, the doctrines of grace rest on the bedrock truth called The Total Depravity of Man. This doctrine teaches that all have sinned and that everyone has sin in the totality of his person. For example, the will is sinful, the emotions are sinful, the thoughts of man are only evil continually and all the actions of man are tainted with sin. It’s not that every person is as bad as he could be, but that every person is sinful in all he or she is. Even the good someone does in the eyes of other people is like filthy rags before a holy God.
Worse, there is no one who seeks God, and as a result, every sinful person is separated from God and couldn’t care less about finding his or her way to God. Natural man is lost in his sin and he loves it. Self rules the heart and self is unwilling to change so that God rules the heart. Therefore, total depravity teaches that man is wicked and sinful in every part of personhood, and it is impossible for the sinner to embrace the Son and love the Lord Jesus Christ because the sinner is satisfied (in love) with selfishness and evil. The prophet asks, “Can the leopard change his spots? How can you who are accustomed to doing evil change your ways?”
God graciously commands all sinners to repent rather than striking them dead immediately and bringing them before Him in judgment. God even more graciously commands all men to embrace His Son, the only Savior ever given for sinners. But, no sinner ever will believe or repent. Not one sinner will obey God because the sinner loves his sin, hates God (or at least the true God of the Bible) and embraces self more than the Creator. The invitation to take up your cross and follow Christ is universally given, but unfortunately, it is also universally rejected by sinners.
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
God knows no sinful man will naturally choose to repent and believe on His Son. Therefore He takes other steps, by His grace, to ensure that His Son will "see the travail of his soul and be satisfied." In other words, God will not allow His Son to die in vain. So God “unconditionally chooses” to change the hearts of literally thousands upon thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand people, or what the Bible calls "an innumerable company." This doctrine of grace, often called Unconditional Election, simply teaches that God first loved us in order that we might love Him. If a man is to be justified through faith in Christ, and if no man can believe in Christ because his wicked heart desires no Lord but himself, then God must choose to perform spiritual heart surgery. Regeneration, the new birth and quickening are all synonyms for this heart surgery God performs. Before a man will ever repent of his sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, he must be born again. This miraculous act of God, called "the new birth," is a work that He chooses to perform, and it is without conditions. In other words, God does not choose to regenerate a sinner (make him spiritually alive) because of the sinners’s wealth, fame, skin color, nationality, sex, goodness (humanly speaking!) or any other conditions found within the sinner, for God is not a respecter of persons. God's choice to redeem and regenerate undeserving sinners is a choice based on pure grace.
You ask, “Why does He not choose to redeem and regenerate the heart of every sinner?” I respond, “Why does He choose to redeem and regenerate the heart of any sinner?” You ask, “Can a sinner believe on Jesus Christ without this work of grace in his heart?” I respond, “Will a sinner believe on Christ without this work of grace in his heart?” If he will believe and repent, he will be saved, for the Gospel is a “whosoever will” gospel. But when we see a sinner who is willing to believe in Christ, we give God the credit, "for in the day of His power, His people are made willing."
I know some of you are saying, “But I thought God simply looked down through the ages and saw I would believe, and then He called me ‘elect’.” Frankly, it makes no difference to me if you believe God looked to the future and saw you would believe and then called you “elect,” or if you believe the traditional view that God graciously overcame your sin and stubbornness and enabled you to believe, as long as you believe the third doctrine of grace, which is the cardinal truth of Scripture: Christ died in the stead of His people. In other words, the death of Christ was a substitutionary death. Christ died as a substitute for sinners who will trust in Him. He died in their place, and the righteous and pure anger of God due their sins was poured out on Him at Calvary.
LIMITED ATONEMENT OR PARTICULAR REDEMPTION
Why is not everyone in Heaven? Because Christ did not die for the sinner who refuses to embrace Him. To believe that Christ died for “the goats” as well as “the sheep” negates the symbolism of the Old Testament sacrifices and the direct teaching of both covenants of Scripture. Only the believing sinner had a substitutionary sacrifice. Only the sinner who laid his hands upon the sacrifice had the anger of God placated. Christ died as a substitute for sinners who will trust in Him.
If a sinner rejects his Creator, if he refuses to embrace the Son and if he dies while spitting in the face of the only Savior ever provided for sinners, then that sinner bears his own sin in hell.
The sins of every man will be punished; either at Calvary or in hell. It is the historic position of most who hold to the doctrines of grace that Christ atoned for the sins of all infants who die in infancy and the mentally challenged who die in their retardation. Thus, infants who die in infancy and those without mental capacity are in heaven, not because they are innocent (death is only for the guilty, and all died in Adam), but because Christ died for them and the Holy Spirit graciously regenerates them.
With the exception of infants who die in infancy and imbeciles, the unbelieving sinner will be punished for his own sins in an eternal hell. But those who trust Christ will be delivered. Often times this doctrine is called “Particular Redemption” to emphasize that not all men will be redeemed (universalism), but that only the bride of Christ, the church of God, believers, those who trust Christ, are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb (i.e. "the death of Christ").
IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
Every sinner experiences the grace of God in some form or fashion, for the sun rises on the righteous and the wicked. The preaching of the Gospel is an act of grace, as is being born into a Christian family, as is living in a nation that is Christian. However, as we have already seen, sinners are so wicked that all of these advantages are null and void to them. The sinner hears the Gospel but he is deaf spiritually. The sinner is commanded to repent and believe but he is a rebel at heart. Therefore it takes a wonderful work of the Holy Spirit to change his heart and cause him to be willing.
This fourth doctrine of grace is usually called “Irresistible Grace.” A better adjective would be the word effectual rather than irresistible. God’s grace is often resisted, but the Holy Spirit is an effectual worker. He gets the job done. As the appendix to the 1646 London Baptist Confession of Faith states in Article VII, “The Spirit of God doth not compel a man to believe against his will, but doth powerfully and sweetly create in a man a new heart, and so makes him to believe and obey willingly.”
So if you have a loved one who is a hardened sinner, a rebel toward the things of God, the absolute most important thing you can do for him is pray. God can save our families and nation without our prayers, but it seems He chooses not to save unless we pray, lest we take credit for the salvation of the lost ourselves.
THE PERSEVERANCE OR PRESERVATION OF THE SAINTS
Finally, the fifth doctrine of grace is called “The Perseverance or Preservation of the Saints.” Perseverance simply means a graced person keeps on believing in Christ and keeps on repenting of sin until he dies. Preservation is the divine side of perseverance and simply means He who began a good work in you will carry it on until the day of Christ.
All five doctrines of grace, sometimes called “The Five Points of Calvinism” seem to stand or fall together. However, it must always be remembered that our fellowship is around Christ Jesus. His person, His work and His attributes, and not necessarily around our systematic theology, no matter how beneficial it may be to us. Wesley and Whitefield came from both sides of the spectrum on this issue, and Baptists have disagreed over Calvinism and Arminianism from the beginning.
That is not to say, however, that I believe the doctrines of grace are not important. They have transformed my understanding of the Christian life. But I am not in control of whether or not anyone else can see the love of God in these doctrines, so I love and accept every brother in Christ who disagrees with my interpretations of Scripture. But the reason I take time to elucidate the doctrines of grace to those who ask is because of a threefold transformation in my life through an understanding of these doctrines:
(1). When I came to an understooding of God's grace, the everlasting love of God became real to me in ways I never before imagined. It became a transformational knowledge. When I believed that Christ died for me personally, that He came with a mission to save me and would not fail in it, then His unconditional, personal and eternal love for me came alive. Like the shephered who leaves the ninety and nine and goes after the lost sheep until he finds him and brings him home, so Christ came for me, threw me across His strong shoulders, and is now carrying me home. I love Him because He first loved me.
(2). I came to a sense of peace and soul satisfaction, like Job, that my "salvation is of the Lord." Rather than trusting in a religious formula or mantra, rather than trusting in my faith (which is sometimes weak), and rather than believing in any commitment that I make, I simply trust Jesus Christ and His work on my behalf. If He doesn't save me by His work, then I will never be saved. Even my faith and repentance are gifts given to me by His grace. Thus, if I am weak in either, I ask Him for more grace. Thus, when I sing the song "Have Faith in God" I really mean it. I have no faith in myself.
(3). Understanding the doctrines of grace has empowered me to share Christ with confidence. I realize that the mysterious and divine work of regeneration is produced by the Spirit of God as He interacts with the good news I share with sinners. The Holy Spirit produces new life in the hearers of the gospel, and it is not up to my ability to articulate, my intellectual prowess, or my human abilities. Thus, I share Christ and pray for the soul of that one I have loved enough to personally share the gospel. I am also reminded of the words of my Savior, "If you ask for bread from your earthly father will he give you a snake or a stone? How much more shall your heavenly Father give to you that which you ask." My heavenly Father is delighted to do the very thing I am asking Him to do.
May my description of Christ in this article be understood by my fellow Southern Baptists. However, if what I have written is not understood by even one of my brothers or sisters in Christ, may each one realize my desire to fellowship with fellow believers is based solely on our love for Jesus Christ, and not our various understandings of why it is we have come to love Him.
220 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 220 of 220Tim,
You ask good questions, can pre-millennialists and post-millennialists co-exist in the SBC, but I’m hurt that you didn’t mention those like me who are pan-millennialists that believe it will all pan out in the end.
You said, “If Scripture said the same thing to all people, then there would have been no protestant reformation.”
A better statement would be: “If Scripture was interpreted to mean the same thing by all people there would have been no Catholics in 313 AD, no Anabaptist in 251 AD, no squabble in Third John around 90 AD, and no Jerusalem Counsel in Acts 15 around 50 AD.
The only names would be ‘Christians’.
The narrowing of theological parameters of the SBC will end when leaders love one another more than they love their egos.
Rex Ray
another pan-millennialists!
PTL!
Charles Page
Cheryl--thanks for your detailed explanations of your belief!
I had a pastor who called himself a "six point Calvinist". In some ways he adhered to TULIP, but also believed in prevenient grace making the offer real for all.
Thoughts? If you are still reading this, I mean.
Linda
Danny said...
"Calvinism doesn't adequately deal with the death of babies and children who do not have the maturity to respond to faith in Christ. Total depravity means that all persons all "born sinners" and this of course includes these little ones who would logically be excluded from heaven."
"I know Calvinists would not verbalize the position in that way, but following the logic of Calvinism leads to this conclusion."
On the contrary the "age of accountability" people have the problem. Since it is more tradition (historical position) it is a grand bet with the souls of children that they are infact saved. That is a bet that never offered me any consolation for my young daughter's salvation before they reached the maturity level. My consolation was not so much their conversion and baptism but what the Bible had to say about the faith of a man and his household. What consolation is there to offer a believing parent grieving the death of an infant if we hold to the theory of accountability. We have a hope hanging by a thread based on one passage: usually David's examp[le grieving the death of his young son. This belief has to be a largely overlooked import by the whole Bible.
My intense Calvinism has experiencial practical applications not derived from any scholarship nor even a clear understanding of scripture (sadly).
Dr Rogers (I heard him) say that Calvinism was wine and cheese theology! I wondered out loud, how could a man in a glorious sanctuary with elequent speech and rich hearers say such a thing? (well he didn't drink wine) but he had a sophisticated crowd.
Calvinism's appeal has always appealed to the common man. This is proved historically in the age of the reformers.
I work as a package handler in a large mega-hub and I am surrounded by young common people, urbanites! I am amazed at the grasp that these young people listen to me. Many, most are African Americans and they understand fate, providence and even predistination. They live day by day without a sense of varibles to choose from in life. They are raised in poverty and urban communities. They are ripe for salvation, believe me they are eager to follow Christ! With my own ears I have heard them. The elect are plentiful but they have no one to preach the word, the authetic gospel. There is a spiritual famine! The message of American fundamentalism will not prepare the way for revival.
Why? The sovereignty of God. He brings revival not man! I think by emphasising adult conversion, the required level of maturity, we eliminate the mystery of conversion. It has to be explained and understood and then tested by submission and therein we loose the convert. They were just a new born 'babe'. They have nothing but life to prove themselves authentic. Like a new born babe confused and scared their security is the embrace of a parent and it's milk.
but NO we want to make disciples not knowing we already have a disciple. He needs years of adult reassurance.
The convert needs to grow into the age of accountability. Somehow our theology must reverse the normality of conversion from adult conversion making children and those unable to achieve maturity being an exception to the normal way. Rather as the Bible seems to speak, the less capable are first and their salvation is premier and normal and an adult comming to the age of accountability are the exceptions rather than the rule.
In my church and others I hear ridicule of VBS revivals and massive conversions of children in emotional entertainment sittings. This is shameful Arminianism for the most part. A well trained EE worker must in an adult setting explain the "law" of conversion. And then we put the weight of the decision on the new convert as to the legitmacy of the decision. Ever wonder why there are so few Adult decisions at the altar? There are lots of membership transfers!
Linda
can i butt in on this?
I was raised a Wesleyan and for your pastor to say he was a six pointer believing in prevenient grace in addition to the five points of Calvinism would be an impossibility.
Consistent with prevenient grace is a denial of limited atonement and therfore iresistible grace and more importantly unconditional election. There are to my knowledge no Wesleyans holding to eternal security.
However the only point which Wesleyans hold consistent with prevenient grace is total depravity. According to them depravity is prevented from keeping the sinner from making a decision by a special grace from God.
My bet is your pastor was speaking in jest and not serious.
Charles
Rex Ray,
You asked Wade: "Do you agree that (Luke 23:39-41) gives more detail of what the thieves said at Calvary?"
I know that I am not Wade, but I would like to put in my Canadian dollar's worth (sadly only worth about 80 cents American!) into the pot, if I may.
What I have found in my study of the gospels is that Luke pays attention to the "bottom line" part of the story. It doesn't mean that Luke's account contradicts Matthew's account or vice versa. What it means is that the Holy Spirit used each person to highlight a different part of the story. John, for example, says nothing at all about what the thieves said or didn't say. His account focuses on Jesus' words that fulfill prophecy and on Jesus giving John the responsibility to look after his mother.
Mark recounts the fact that passers-by hurled abuse at Jesus but he doesn't document the abuse from either one of the thieves. Does this mean that one of the thieves didn't insult Jesus? No. It means that Mark's focus was not on the dudes crucified beside Jesus. His focus was on Jesus' own prophecy being used as a form of mockery by the crowd and Jesus crying out to the Father asking why he had been forsaken. Matthew also records Jesus' words about being forsake but Luke does not mention these words. Luke does record that Jesus asked the Father to forgive those who crucified him, something that Mark says nothing about. Each person had their own view that was important to them and together they give an entire view of the crucifixion.
Matthew 27:44 says that both thieves insulted Jesus and he does not record the promise that Jesus gives one of the thieves that he would be with him that day in paradise. Luke only gives the positive words of the repentant thief and Jesus' promise to him.
Now it would be very different if Matthew had said that both thieves abused Jesus and then said that neither one of them repented. It would also be very different if Luke said that only one thief abused Jesus and that one was repentant from the start and didn't abuse Jesus. That would be a contradiction. But it is not a contradiction to meld all the accounts together in order to understand that both thieves abused Jesus in the beginning but that one had a change of heart. Luke mentions in Luke 23:34 that Jesus forgave those who crucified him and this would have been a powerful witness to the one thief who changed his mind about Jesus. Luke chose not to focus on the sin of the thief but on his repentance and his words of faith given to Jesus.
I have seen the same tendency in Luke regarding another example of only one demon possessed man coming to faith in Christ. Matthew 8:28 shows two demon possessed men came out of the tombs.
Mat 8:28 When He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two men who were demon-possessed met Him as they were coming out of the tombs. They were so extremely violent that no one could pass by that way.
But only one demon possessed man was healed as only one came before Jesus and fell down at his feet:
Luke 8:28 Seeing Jesus, he cried out and fell before Him, and said in a loud voice, "What business do we have with each other, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg You, do not torment me."
The "we" here is the multiple demons, not multiple people.
Mark 5:1-20 also gives this account and only speaks about one demon possessed man. Is this a contradiction? No, not at all. Only one man was healed. Jesus does not force healing on anyone and only one man came to Jesus for healing. Matthew's faithfulness to let us know that there were two demon possessed men even though only one was healed shows a very important point that we would miss without his account. This point is that a demon possessed person still has enough of a will that he can respond to Jesus. Therefore no demon can fully take away a person's will. One demon possessed person responded to Jesus and fell at his feet and was healed. The other man came out of the tombs but he did not come to Jesus for healing. This tells us that even a demon possessed man will be responsible for his own sin on judgment day because even the demons cannot fully take away a person's will and cause the person to be unaccountable for their sin. A demon possessed man can respond to Jesus and by his own will choose to come to be healed.
In 1986 I was faced with what appeared to be a contradiction in the text of scripture and it brought me to a crisis of faith. If the scriptures were wrong in one area, what else was wrong? How could I, a mere human, decide what was right and what was in error? It was at that time that I made a decision to believe the bible and that God breathed his word without error in the original autographs and if there was an apparent contradiction then I would believe that the contradiction was because of my misunderstanding not because of an error in God's word.
Within months I had the answer to what appeared to be a contradiction and it was my own misunderstanding of the custom of that day that was the problem. I am so glad that I chose to believe God over my own fallible understanding. I trust the Lord Jesus so much regarding his word that I have full assurance not only from faith but from my own experience that he never fails. His word is true even though every man be found a liar. And on that I won't back down.
I hope that helps!
Cheryl
Linda,
You said: "I had a pastor who called himself a "six point Calvinist". In some ways he adhered to TULIP, but also believed in prevenient grace making the offer real for all.
Thoughts? If you are still reading this, I mean."
I really don't have much to say regarding 6 points. I have heard some say they were 3 or 4 point Calvinists but it is my understanding that Calvinism is actually 1 point glued together. When one point falls they all fall since each point builds on the other points.
I am just a plain old Berean who believes that all of Paul's teaching can be checked out by the foundation built in the OT. Paul himself commended the Bereans for testing him by the scriptures and all his teaching checked out just fine against the OT. I figure if it was good enough for brother Paul and the Bereans, it is good enough for me, so that is how I am test out Calvinism. I have found some amazing things. When you are using both eyes to view Calvinism (OT & NT) the depth of field increases and it makes everything sharper.
My pastor wasn't wesleyan, but an SBC pastor trying to prevent a church split over calvinism. He would always say he agreed with calvinism IF you could add prevenient grace. Or agree with the Arminians IF you added OSAS. Then he would say basically one side (Calvinists) looks to God's part in salvation and are right. Arminians look at man's part and are right. And that usually ticked off both sides.
My personal theology is very simple. Jesus Christ came to save sinners. All are sinners. If you desire salvation He will save you.....in His time.
Linda
Sheryl,
Thanks for taking your time to reply to the ‘Philistine’ that’s been daring the Jews (inerrantists) to ‘prove who’s right’.
I feel like a first grader discussing the Bible with a college teacher. I’ve learned much from your comments.
You explained the word “desire” in Genius 3:16 long before I read in the New Living Translation: “…And you will desire to control your husband…”
Therefore, I read with interest and respect for what you had to say. It’s true that the Holy Spirit spoke through different writers to ‘highlight’ a different part of the story and that didn’t make their parts conflict with other parts.
On the other hand, what if their stories do conflict in man’s brain?
You have expressed exactly the mind of all inerrantists when you wrote: (Rex has added numbers for easy reference.)
“In 1986, I was faced with what appeared to be a contradiction in the text of scripture and it brought me to a crisis of faith.
1. If the scriptures were wrong in one, what else was wrong?
2. How could I, a mere human, decide what was right and what was in error?
3. It was at that time that I made a decision to believe the bible
4. and that God breathed his word without error in the original autographs
5. and if there was an apparent contradiction then I would believe that the contradiction was because of my misunderstanding not because of an error in God’s word.”
(1) is know as ‘scare tactics’…one doubt and you’re on the slippery slope that takes you straight to hell. Did Moses ever lie? (Deuteronomy 1:37 3:26 4:21) Well how do we know when he told the truth?
To me, the Bible is divided into TRUTH (Scripture or God’s word) and UNTRUTH (words of man and the devil which includes lies, ignorance, confusion, and plain stupid.)
This belief is brought out in the BFM that reads:
“We believe the Bible has God for its author; salvation for its end; and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter and all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.”
I asked Michael Whitehead, lawyer for the SBC, why didn’t it read ‘…without any error’; what did “without any mixture of error” mean.
He replied, ““Those words means the truth of the Bible is true and the untruth of the Bible is untrue.”
Sheryl, there’s a difference between the Bible and Scripture.
(2) Jesus knew that us humans could not know truth from untruth in the Bible. That’s why he gave the Holy Spirit…‘He will teach you all things.’
Paul said he conferred not with flesh and blood…by studying the Scriptures. And “I received my message…by direct revelation from Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:12)
Without the Holy Spirit, do you think Paul would have believed as he did? In contrast, compare what James based his ‘judgment’ on: “For these have been preached against…for many generations.” James used tradition.
(3) You decided to believe from the heart regardless what your head told you. That’s typical of all inerrantists why no persuasion can reach their heads because their brains have been replaced by their hearts.
(4) You said “God breathed his word without error in the original autographs.” Why didn’t you use this argument instead of the lengthy discussion of the two thieves?
(5) “And if there was an apparent contradiction then I would believe that the contradiction was because of my misunderstanding not because of an error in God’s word.”
There’s over a hundred little picky discrepancies in the Bible that does not amount to a hill of beans.
Why did the Holman Bible change the dead girl to being alive? With the contradiction of the location of where the death angle stopped, one inerrantists said, oh the angle was extra big and had a foot in each location.
If a dog has a hundred flees, is the dog not a dog? I strive to have the faith of Job in saying ‘though he slay me, yet I’ll trust him.
As wind separates shaft from grain, and water separates sand from gold; we can depend on the Holy Spirit to separate untruth from truth and have faith in his Word that’s known as Scripture.
Maybe God wanted the Bible just as it is so we wouldn’t make it equal to Him because ‘having no other Gods’ includes the Bible.
Again thanks.
Wade,
I was disappointed in you while reading your paper on Calvinism. I knew you were a Calvinist, but your paper contradicted what I thought you stood for.
I thought you promoted cooperation between Calvinists and Non-Calvinist. However, your paper did just the opposite by calling Calvinism - The Doctrines of Grace. All Christians believe in God's Free Grace, yet you used a term that implies that other Christians do not believe in Grace.
I know that Calvinists have used the term Doctrines of Grace for many years. It makes one wonder why Calvinists think it is necessary to use a term that implyies a misrepresentation of what others believe.
If you really want to work with Non-Calvinists, then you would refrain from using terms that misrepresents the beliefs of the ones you claim you want to work with. Dr. Hobbs was much more considerate by not calling his belief something like The Doctrines of Salvation which would imply a misrepresentation of your belief.
Thanks,
Rex Ray,
About the different biblical accounts you said: "To me, the Bible is divided into TRUTH (Scripture or God’s word) and UNTRUTH (words of man and the devil which includes lies, ignorance, confusion, and plain stupid.)"
In the narrative passages, God has recorded the words of man as well as the words of the enemy. Each passage must be interpreted with this in mind. When Solomon said that "all is vanity", all is not vanity. These were his own frustration at the empty life without God. Yet God still inspired Solomon to write these words. Why? Because they are helpful in understanding man's mindset. Every scripture is inspired by God for a reason. Some scriptures take more work than others to understand them, but they are all there for a purpose.
You said: "(2) Jesus knew that us humans could not know truth from untruth in the Bible. That’s why he gave the Holy Spirit…‘He will teach you all things.’"
While we certainly need the Holy Spirit to understand what God has for us in the scripture, we still need to work hard to understand the scriptures. We are told to rightly divide the word of truth. We do this by reading the scriptures in context, studying the original words, comparing scripture with scripture. It can sometimes be hard work and time consuming, but what can be more valuable than the time and effort we put into God's word?
You said: "Paul said he conferred not with flesh and blood…by studying the Scriptures. And “I received my message…by direct revelation from Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:12)""
The revelation of Jesus Christ and his atoning work on the cross came through direct revelation for Paul because the NT scriptures had not been written yet. Paul is not saying that he did not confer with the OT scriptures as if they were "flesh and blood". This term means mere humans. Paul said that he did not have the gospel preached to him by mere human beings. Paul certainly would have studied the OT while he was learning the truth from the Lord Jesus. The gospel is founded in the OT and Paul shows us with his writings that he understood the foundation of our faith from the writings that were God-breathed before the time of Jesus.
You said: "Without the Holy Spirit, do you think Paul would have believed as he did?"
Paul had a revelation of the resurrected Lord Jesus. He had the teachings given to him just as the other apostles were taught by the Lord Jesus before Paul's time. God opens our mind to what is in the scriptures and while Paul had the gospel preached to him by Jesus, he also was shown the gospel in the Old Testament. He needed this revealed to him because the OT has the gospel concealed while the gospel is revealed in the NT.
You said: "In contrast, compare what James based his ‘judgment’ on: “For these have been preached against…for many generations.” James used tradition."
When I read the decision of James, it becomes clear to me that it was a revelation of the mind of the Holy Spirit, not tradition:
Act 15:28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:
You said: "(3) You decided to believe from the heart regardless what your head told you. That’s typical of all inerrantists why no persuasion can reach their heads because their brains have been replaced by their hearts."
No, this is not accurate of what I meant. I decided to trust God that his word was exactly as he said it was. It was not a head/heart issue for me but an issue of faith in the Sovereignty of God. I chose to trust God and I have never looked back. He has not failed me yet and I do not believe he will.
You said: "(4) You said “God breathed his word without error in the original autographs.” Why didn’t you use this argument instead of the lengthy discussion of the two thieves?"
In my discussion with Wade, the story of the two thieves worked in well with our discussion. I believe that Wade accepts the inspiration of scripture as I do, so we could look at the passages without judging them as being inaccurate. I think it made my point.
You said: "Why did the Holman Bible change the dead girl to being alive? With the contradiction of the location of where the death angle stopped, one inerrantists said, oh the angle was extra big and had a foot in each location."
I have not read the Holman Bible nor do I know what passage you are talking about. I spend much of my time in interlinears looking at the original languages. The "mistakes" from modern translations doesn't phaze me at all.
You said: "As wind separates shaft from grain, and water separates sand from gold; we can depend on the Holy Spirit to separate untruth from truth and have faith in his Word that’s known as Scripture."
There is no "untruth" given by God's apostles who faithfully wrote what God inspired them to write. The text of the original languages is very eye opening to read although for the most part the literal translations do a very good job. There are very few "untruths" said in the scripture and these can be fairly easily discerned. No "untruth" is ever spoken by God nor is it given by revelation to us by a prophet or apostle.
You said: "I strive to have the faith of Job in saying ‘though he slay me, yet I’ll trust him."
Wonderful! Keep the faith, brother!
You said: "Maybe God wanted the Bible just as it is so we wouldn’t make it equal to Him because ‘having no other Gods’ includes the Bible."
I do think that if we have something that was totally flawless, then many would worship that instead of God or in addition to God. Yet with the copies of the manuscripts we can be assured that we do have within these copies the God-breathed word of our God. This is the primary way that he speaks today - by his Word.
Yes the Holy Spirit speaks to us too and he makes his word come alive, but everything must be measured by the unwavering measuring stick of God's word. If we use our "impressions" and "feelings" as the measuring stick, we will be mislead. The Holy Spirit confirms the Bible and he does not speak in contradiction to it nor does the Bible speak in contradiction to the Holy Spirit.
Thanks for asking your questions. We may not agree on everything, but we can love and respect each other as a brother and sister in Christ.
Rex,
I think that your clarification hits the nail on the head. I did not include post-mills though, but a-mills, which I affirm. I guess that is similar to a pan-mill?
Too, Rex and Cheryl, your comments on innerrancy are intriguing. Something to chew on - do our presuppositions of what an innerrant Bible ought to look like actually rob some of the richness from scripture.
No literal inerrantist has been able to resolve how Jesus rode two animals in Matthew's palm Sunday account.
I place 100% faith in the reliability of the Bible, yet I hold back no questions when trying to interpret it.
Cheryl, your example of Ecclesiastes is exactly right. Job and Ecclesiastes do not fit what we think an innerrant Bible ought to look like and yet they are there. When we try to make them fit, we actually rob them of their richness.
We need to grow up in our interpretive methods and sto pasking questions like what, where, when and how and ask questions like who and why.
God Bless!
Cheryl
The English language has been delivered to us from Britan as a "political correct" form of communication. Good for politicians and lawyers but not good for Bible translators.
How do you think the "truth of the apostles" has been affected by the English tranlations? (I am not an admirer of the King James language)
Charles Page
Dear sister Cheryl,
I’m glad you replied again.
I agree that God recorded the words of the enemy. The Bible is like a cam-carder. Most of the time, the Bible tells what was said without saying if it’s true or false.
I like the way you quoted me and then made a comment. So many put their thoughts into what they thought a person says.
You quoted me on the Holy Spirit and about Paul’s learning truth. I’m in complete agreement on what you said. I kept wondering why you wrote all that because I thought that was what I had said or implied that Paul learned from the Old Testament and what Jesus had told him.
You disagreed with me saying James’ judgment was from tradition (“For these have been preached against…for many generations.”)
You said, When I read the decision of James, it becomes clear to me that it was a revelation of the mind of the Holy Spirit, not tradition: Acts 15:28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:”
Do you have any problem with the Holman Bible saying, “For it was the Holy Spirit’s decision—and ours—to put no greater burden on you than these necessary things:”
It’s strange you mentioned this particular verse that started me on a search more than twenty years ago on how Catholics originated if all early Christians had ‘Baptist’ faith.
I asked myself how two followers of Jesus and authors of the Bible could write opposing statements of claiming their opinion came from God?
Acts 15:10: “Now why are you trying to make God angry by placing a heavy burden on these followers?” (Contemporary English Version)
Other translations replace “angry” with, “temp”, “testing”, “correct”, and “challenging’. Most have the word “burden”.
In a nutshell, God didn’t want a burden on the Gentiles according to Peter, but God wanted a burden on the Gentiles according to James.
The purpose of the Church Counsel was to settle how Gentiles were saved. This decision was APPLES. (Gentiles were anxiously waiting to see if they had to visit the doctor.)
APPLES was defined by Peter—all are saved the same way—by the free gift of Jesus.
James’ judgment was how Gentiles would be accepted by Jews. This was ORANGES.
The letter to the Gentiles substituted ORANGES for APPLES, but the Gentiles accepted the letter as APPLES which distressed Paul as shown in his later writings.
I disagree that God inspired the enemy to say their words. On the other hand, sometimes God used the enemy by the Holy Spirit to present the truth such as the chief priest saying, ‘It’s better for one man to die, than the whole world perish.’
God cannot tell a lie. I don’t believe he inspires anyone to lie. Jesus said, ‘The truth will make you free.’
You said, “I have not read the Holman Bible nor do I know what passage you are talking about. I spend much of my time in interlinears looking at the original languages. The “mistakes” from modern translations doesn’t phase me at all.”
The Holman Bible has been accepted by the SBC as the “most perfect” translation. Lifeway gives a choice of King James or Holman.
With that said, the passage of the ‘dead girl discrepancy’ is what I asked Patterson to explain why (Matthew 9:18) had the ruler’s daughter dead while (Mark 5:22-26) and (Luke 8:42-52) had her alive? At that time all translations of Matthew had the girl dead.
Patterson had previously shouted to the crowd, “We got all the discrepancies!” But after I asked him about the ‘dead girl’, he whispered in my ear, “We got all we could.”
Sheryl, would you tell me in the original language if Holman got it right or not? Wonder if Patterson had any influence on the change?
The two conflicting locations where the death angle stopped is (2 Samuel 24:16-25, and (1 Chronicles 21:15-28)
I went to sleep thinking of a reply to you. I dreamed I had removed many short thorns from an automobile tire. I woke thinking the tire was the truth of the Bible, and the thorns were the untruth.
I’ve heard ‘if there’s one untruth in the Bible it should be thrown out the window.’ This person has to see the Bible perfect in order to believe just as doubting Thomas had to see Jesus. But Jesus said, ‘blessed is the person who has not seen but believes.’
Is it out of context if I say I believe the Bible without seeing it perfect?
Sheryl, I couldn’t have said it better when you wrote, “I do think that if we have something that was totally flawless, then many would worship that instead of God or in addition to God. Yet with the copies of the manuscripts we can be assured that we do have within these copies the God-breathed word of our God. This is the primary way that he speaks today – by his Word.
In fitting with Wade’s post on the narrowing of the SBC by leaders becoming more and more legalistic, I was sadden today when I read in the Baptist Standard the Georgia Baptist Convention had withdrawn fellowship and refuses their gifts from a 146 year old church that has given millions through the years. (Last year was $10,000) The reason for the Convention’s decision was the church had called a woman to be their pastor.
Also on the same page, I read where the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina disallowed their churches to give to the CBF.
It looks like the local church being antonymous is more and more a myth in the SBC.
Random thought leading to a revelation for me when it comes to eschatology. (no pun intended)
I think I will now consider myself a "when-mill".
:)
SL1M
Dear Rex Ray,
I apologize for being slower to answer than I would like. I am going through some things that are burdening me and so other important issues have to be set behind in order for me to keep focus. I will answer, but may be slow.
You said: "I asked myself how two followers of Jesus and authors of the Bible could write opposing statements of claiming their opinion came from God?
Acts 15:10: “Now why are you trying to make God angry by placing a heavy burden on these followers?” (Contemporary English Version)...In a nutshell, God didn’t want a burden on the Gentiles according to Peter, but God wanted a burden on the Gentiles according to James."
Thanks for asking, and it is a very good question. The answer comes from both the inspired words and references to where the Holy Spirit had already spoken.
Let's look at Acts 15:10 first from the version that you quoted:
Acts 15:10: “Now why are you trying to make God angry by placing a heavy burden on these followers?” (Contemporary English Version)
The translation here as "burden" is not a very good one as the Greek word actually means "to yoke" or "bind". Think oxen. If you bind one ox to another they are "yoked" together. When one moves the other must of necessity also move because they are bound together inseparably. The NASB renders this verse in the correct way to get the actual feeling of the original language:
Acts 15:10 "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?"
Here you can see a binding together, a "placing upon the neck" of a something that joins you to something else that restricts your movement and your freedom. What Peter is saying is that the Gentiles have already been accepted by God and he has proved this by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he gave the Spirit to the Jews. They are not now to bind them to all of the laws that the Jews themselves found impossible to keep.
Next let's look at the way James describes what should be given to the Gentiles:
Acts 15:28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:"
Here the word "burden" is the Greek word that means a weight in reference to its pressure, burden, load. It is a different Greek word than what was previously said.
The things then that James describes are the conscience "burden" of the Jews that would offend the Jews. Although Paul said that eating meat offered to idols is not a sin issue in itself, it violates the law of love if by your freedom you offend your brother who Christ died for.
Romans 14:15 "For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died."
Thus by refraining from all the issues of conscience that offended the Jews, one bears a "burden" of love.
Galatians 6:2 Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.
The term for "burden" in Galatians 6:2 is the very same word for "burden" in Acts 15:28 but it is not the same word that is inspired in Acts 15:10.
So while the Gentile believers were free from the ceremonial laws, yet as believers bound together in the same body of Christ, they were to "bear one another's burdens" and thus fulfill the law of Christ toward their Jewish brothers. The burden we have towards our brothers is a burden of love.
So we can see that the Holy Spirit's word of wisdom given throughout scripture conforms to James' admonition to bear the conscience burden of their Jewish brothers. Paul also confirms the Holy Spirit's instructions throughout the book of Galatians. Gal. 6:2 says to bear one another's burdens.
Galatians 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren, only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
Galatians 5:14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
The entire law will be fulfilled by the Gentile believers by loving their neighbor as themselves. Loving their Jewish neighbor meant not offending their conscience.
Does this make sense?
You said: "The letter to the Gentiles substituted ORANGES for APPLES, but the Gentiles accepted the letter as APPLES which distressed Paul as shown in his later writings."
It is one thing to refrain from doing something to not offend your brother in Christ. It is another thing all together to submit to a yoking together (think oxen) with the law. Since it is impossible for one to be saved by fulfilling the law, one must see Jesus as having fulfilled the law on our behalf and any one insisting that the entire law must be kept is taking that person away from Christ and back to a place of an impossible yoke.
You said: "I disagree that God inspired the enemy to say their words."
I didn't say that God inspired the enemy. What I said was that the words recorded in the scriptures were inspired by God to be written down. If God quotes the enemy, it is not that the enemy is inspired, but that God wants the words of the enemy written down for our benefit or for our correction.
I will respond to your other requests about discrepancies shortly.
Brother Rex Ray,
You said: "With that said, the passage of the ‘dead girl discrepancy’ is what I asked Patterson to explain why (Matthew 9:18) had the ruler’s daughter dead while (Mark 5:22-26) and (Luke 8:42-52) had her alive? At that time all translations of Matthew had the girl dead."
There is no discrepancy when you go back to the original language as it was written. In Matthew 9:18 it says:
"...My daughter just now deceases, but come and place your hand on her and she shall live."
Mark 5:22-26 it says that she had her last breath.
Luke 8:42-52 it says she died. See the Greek here http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/luk8.pdf
In all gospels the Greek words mean she just died. Her father had stayed with her until her last breath and then he came in faith to Jesus believing that if Jesus came right away while she was just freshly dead, that she could be revived.
In Luke a relative from the ruler of the synagogues house came and told the father to stop troubling the master. It is a rebuke and a command to the ruler. The Analytical Literal Translation renders Luke 8:49:
"...Your daughter has died. Stop troubling the Teacher."
Mark 5:35 says the same thing in the ALT:
"Your daughter died: why do you still trouble the Teacher?"
A modern English translation could be:
"What is the matter with you? Why are you still bothering Jesus when you know your daughter is now long dead?"
There is no contradiction at all. The little daughter had just died (Matthew's account), she had just taken her last breath (Mark's account) and her father had believed that if Jesus would just come right away while her body was still warm, that she could be brought back to life. Jesus set out to come right away but he was delayed by a woman who touched the hem of his garment and her healing delayed Jesus. It appears that the synagogue leader who had come to Jesus in faith was losing his confidence. The time delay made a just freshly dead daughter now to be cold corpse. The synagogue leader was reprimanded by one of his own household that he was only bothering Jesus when nothing could be done for his dead daughter, now dead for a period of time that all had been told of her death. (Luke 8:52, 52 gives the account that the relatives had already gathered to wail over the dead girl and they laughed at Jesus when he said "...she has not died.") In Mark 5:36 Jesus appeared to read the man's heart after the father had been rebuked for bothering Jesus. Time had gone by because of the delay and the reminder to this man that his daughter was now stone-cold dead and the admonition that he was wasting his time bothering Jesus, appeared to bring fear that his faith in Jesus' ability to give his daughter life was too late. Jesus spoke to the man's fear by saying:
Mark 5:36 (ALT) But immediately Jesus, having heard the word being spoken, says to the synagogue leader, "Stop being afraid, only be believing!"
There is no contradiction in the passages. The issues then is one of a fresh death where a person could be physically revived without harm and a resurrection from the dead when there is no hope of a natural bringing back to life.
I believe that God caused the miracle of the woman's healing by touching the hem of Jesus' garments to delay Jesus enough so that the resurrection of the ruler's daughter would be seen as a genuine miraculous resurrection instead of a mere reviving of a still viable body.
Does this make sense?
That is all I have time for tonight. I thank God for his Word and for the multiple accounts that God has provided that give us a fresh insight into Jesus' work and his compassion and love.
Upon further reflection, I think my statement in comment "Thu Dec 04, 11:26:00 AM 2008" should have added this:
"If people try to call you a frozen chosen doctrinaire creedalist, then they run into the problem of your heart to evangelize and your openness to fellowship [and cooperate] with others."
I accidently went under my Dad's google name. The comment above-- Sun Oct 18, 01:35:00 AM 2009--is mine.
Benji Ramsaur
The subject should not be do we follow the doctrine of Calvin or Luther or Spurgeon, but rather do we follow the doctrine of Christ on these subjects. The scripture plainly teaches "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctorine of Christ hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ,he hath both the Father and the Son." 2 John 9 I too study the writings of Luther and Calvin and others, but I do not consider them as doctrine to be followed as I do that of Christ and the Apostles. If we do use the writings of Calvin and Luther or others as doctrine then we become guilty like the Pharisees in Matt 15:1-9 who were condemned by Jesus. We need to follow what the Holy Scriptures teach on salvation or anything which pertains to the Christian life. "All sctipture is given by the inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine,for reproof,for correction,for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect,throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Tim. 3:16-17. So therefor we should use the Word of God to answer the question as to who is saved and who is lost. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him shoulld not perish but have everlasting life". I can't see from this verse that anyone, except he who does not believe, is going to be lost. Again Jesus said " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned. Again I don't see anybody lost except he who does not believe and is not baptized. So from these verses we learn that we have to be of such an age to believe and realize we need salvation in order to obey what Christ has commanded in order to be saved.
Post a Comment