Obama and Warren: Civil Disagreement at Work

Barack Obama is under fire from the fringe left for inviting Southern Baptist evangelical pastor Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation. Some of the comments being made by left-wing radicals are absurd, illustrated by this blog, which advocates attendees at the inaugural drown out the prayer with booing. The reaction is further evidence that the fringe, on both the right and the left, are absolutely intolerant. Give credit, however, to Barack Obama. He stood before the press corp yesterday and explained his choice of Warren, by saying:

"A couple of years ago, I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion. Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to speak. And that dialogue, I think, is part of what my campaign's been all about -- that we're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans."

The Southern Baptist Convention would do well express similar civility to those who disagree with our convictions. We may not be able to convince others of our views, but we may be surprised at how we are treated when we show respect and decency to those who disagree.

In His Grace,

Wade

Hardball Religion: Release Date - Spring 2009

I have spent the last several months working on a book that documents the intentional narrowing of the doctrinal parameters of fellowship and missions cooperation within the Southern Baptist Convention. Readers familiar with this blog will know the troubles I experienced at the International Mission Board of the SBC for speaking out against two doctrinal policies which IMB trustees adopted in 2005, doctrinal policies that exceeded the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. As a result of these policies, hundreds of otherwise qualified Southern Baptists were prevented from serving on the mission field. This book documents, in narrative form, the events at the International Mission Board that eventually led to trustees in leadership offering a motion to remove me from the board in order to discredit my character and silence my dissent. I then trace the events that led to the eventual unaminous rescision of that motion and the extraordinary action taken by the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention to repudiate the IMB's attempt to establish narrower doctrinal parameters for the SBC. Throughout the book I attempt to explain what is at stake if the SBC does not resist the trend toward neo-Landmarkist, separatist, ecclesiological fundamantalism, which cherishes Baptist Identity more than Christian charity. The book is currently going through the editing process at the publishing company and should be released sometime in the spring of 2009. Two of my fellow trustees have read the manuscript and confirmed to me that the facts presented in the book are precisely the way they remember events occuring at the IMB. The chapters of the book will be as follows:

Foreword
Chapter 1 Blindsided!
Chapter 2 At Home on the Range
Chapter 3 The Phone Call
Chapter 4 The IMB Policies That Became the Fuse
Chapter 5 The Chairman’s Outburst at Pensacola Beach
Chapter 6 The Day Adrian Rogers Died
Chapter 7 Discovery

Chapter 8 The Blog
Chapter 9 Teaching the Rookie a Lesson
Chapter 10 Closed Doors
Chapter 11 Those Weirdoes from Oklahoma
Chapter 12 Meet Me in St. Louis
Chapter 13 Trustee Leaders Trying to Save Face
Chapter 14 A Unanimous Reversal

Chapter 15 "Keep Your Mouth Shut and Your Pen Silent!"
Chapter 16 Religious Liberty and Baptist Freedom
Chapter 17 Turn Off His Mike!
Chapter 18 The IMB Motion at Greensboro
Chapter 19 The 2006 Southern Baptist Convention at Greensboro
Chapter 20 Reflections on the Historic 2006 Convention
Chapter 21 Welcome to the Neighborhood Dwight McKissic

Chapter 22 Sheri Klouda
Chapter 23 Continued Hostility at the IMB
Chapter 24 “What Idiot Said There Was No Investigation?”
Chapter 25 The Garner Motion in San Antonio
Chapter 26 Censured
Chapter 27 Resignation
Chapter 28 Future
After Word


In His Grace,


Wade

Watch Emmanuel's Christmas Pageant LIVE!

Watch the sixth of seven performances of Emmanuel Baptist Church's 35th Annual Christmas Pageant. Broadcast will be Tuesday night, December 16, at 7:30 p.m. Central Time. Click here to register.

Why Can't We Ever Admit We Might Be Wrong in Our Interpretations of the Infallible Word of God?

Last month the President of Bob Jones University publicly apologized for his school's racism. The President spoke on behalf of all of American Christianity and the problems that Christians, particularly in the south, had with slavery and racism. There are some who feel that any discussion of American Christianity's sins regarding race should never be discussed, much less used as a teaching tool for the present. I am of a different opinion, however, and so it seems is the President of Bob Jones. A discussion of our past sins is important for the integrity of our future. Bob Jones was absolutely correct in offering a public apology. However, though I commend the President for his apology, there was an interesting statement he made about the reason his university was racist:

(L)ike any human institution, we have failures as well. For almost two centuries American Christianity, including BJU in its early stages, was characterized by the segregationist ethos of American culture. Consequently, for far too long, we allowed institutional policies regarding race to be shaped more directly by that ethos (i.e. American culture) than by the principles and precepts of the Scriptures.

Did you catch that? American Christianity's view on "race," including two centuries of southern slavery, was because American Christianity followed culture rather than Scripture.

Sigh.

Christians in America, particulary conservative Baptists in the South during the 19th Century followed their interpretations of Scripture regarding slavery. Southern Christians, including Southern Baptists, promoted slavery because of their interpretation of Scripture, not the "ethos" of culture.

Let me illustrate. One of the passages that addresses slavery is found in Genesis.

"Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem.'" (Genesis 9:25-27).

Baptists, Presbyterians and other southern evangelicals in the 19th Century took passages like the above and taught that the Bible not only condoned slavery, but advocated it as a proper and just institution. For example:

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. Richard Furman, D.D., a Southern Baptist pastor from South Carolina.

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis. (Dunbar, Rowland, "Jefferson Davis" Vol. 1, page 286).

Now, fast forward a couple of centuries and we have conservative, evangelical Christian Bob Jones University apologizing for their racism - but the fault lies with the "ethos" of culture, not their faulty interpretations of Scripture.

A Modern Application

Some modern evangelicals, including we Southern Baptists, would do well to remember history. There is nothing wrong with interpreting the Bible and coming to conclusions about what you believe. In fact, every Christian should study the Word and hold fast to that which we believe the Bible teaches, always being willing to elucidate for others our beliefs when asked.

But other than the diety of Christ, salvation by God's grace through faith in Christ, and the foundational Christian doctrines it would be wise for all of us to have a little humility about our "interpretations" of God's Word.

Any Christian who acts mean-spirited toward those who disagree, or tries to bully other Christians to believe a certain way through intimidation, would do well to remember Christian history and the number of times we have wrongly interpreting the infallible Word of God. Advocates of closed/open communion, or a particlar ecclesiology, or those who are pro/con women in ministry, or promoters of cessationism or continuationism, etc . . . should always LISTEN to others, COOPERATE with those evangelicals who disagree, and REALIZE that one day we may end up apologizing for our previous understanding of what the Bible teaches.

If you don't see yourself as possibly being wrong in your interpretations, you are precisely the kind of Southern Baptist that would have kept slaves and justified it by claiming God's "infallible, inerrant" Word condones it - without ever questioning that your interpretation could be wrong.

A little humility and a great deal of love should characterize all of us Christians when it comes to our interpreting the infallible Word of God.

And when we discover a mistake, we ought not blame it on "culture."

In His Grace,


Wade

It's Best to Never to Bite the Hand that Feeds Us

The Woman's Missionary Union has always been the backbone of missions both globally and domestically in Southern Baptist life. It is a little known fact that the WMU legally owns the name and the right to use both the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering and the Annie Armstrong Easter Offering, but WMU never sees a dollar of the money collected through Southern Baptists who give to our Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong Offerings. The monies collected through these offerings are always sent directly to either the International Mission Board or the North American Mission Board. These two organizations thrive because the Woman's Missionary Union leads the way in the promotion of their respective missions offerings. Historically, the WMU has never backed away from their passion to see Southern Baptists involved in missions both through the prayer and financial support, and through mission mobilization.

The Woman's Missionary Union has always been there for Southern Baptists. During the Great Depression, Southern Baptists nearly lost the Home Mission Board to bankruptcy. It was the WMU who stepped into the gap and bailed Southern Baptists out of the embarrassment of losing the Home Mission Board. The WMU has been at the heart of our Southern Baptist missionary efforts. Until last year, the International Mission Board provided the WMU with a sizable monetary gift as a means of showing them gratitude for their support. That gift was eliminated last year, and this is the first year that WMU has had to make up the difference. Though the WMU said nothing publicly when the IMB announced that they would no longer be giving monetary support to WMU, there was a sense that the next year would be tough.

It has.

Day before yesterday, the employees of the Woman's Missionary Union were called to a meeting to announce difficult but preemptive measures that were being taken due to the economic down turn. The WMU is short two million dollars in revenue. The executive director of the WMU, Wanda Lee, is working very hard to keep all of the WMU's employees in place, not wanting to lay anyone off. To accomplish this, the employees of the WMU are having to take what amounts to a four week furlough, spread out over an eight month period, without pay. Obviously, these furloughs hit Southern Baptists employed by the WMU pretty hard. But my concern is not so much for individual employees as what it says about the SBC if we do not do something to help the agency that promotes our mission efforts.

During the difficult times of controversy in the SBC, the WMU has at times been caught in the middle, yet it has struggled to quietly maintain their place of influence in missions. Not one time has the WMU ever wavered from their original purpose and intent--to remain faithful to God and to Southern Baptists in keeping missions on the front burner.

I imagine the WMU will not publicly wave a flag, asking for Southern Baptists to step into the gap for them. However, in my opinion, this is a true test for those of us identified as Southern Baptists. Will we now turn our backs on WMU when they are at a low point, financially? The WMU's intention is to forge ahead so that Southern Baptists will continue to keep their focus upon the lost people of the world. Is it not time for Southern Baptists to stand in the gap for an old friend, who has proven itself over and over to be faithful to cooperative missions?

I call upon the International Mission Board and the North American Mission Board, as well as all of our Southern Baptist agencies to place the WMU within their annual budgets in appreciation for the support these agencies receive through the Woman's Missionary Union. I also call upon our 45,000 Southern Baptist churches to consider placing financial support for the WMU within our local church budgets.

It's best to never to bite the hand that feeds us.


In His Grace,


Wade

The Rise of Neo-Landmarkism in the Southern Baptist Convention and the Disconnect from 18th and 19th Century English Baptist Ecclesiology

Southwestern Theological Seminary has some fine Christian leaders, but the seminary has become the poster child for the rise of neo-Landmarkism within the Southern Baptist Convention. Southern Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, also has a handful of professors who hold firmly to neo-Landmarkism, and advocate its principles as the Baptist norm. Dr. Barber, a former SWBTS adjunct professor, has recently challenged my view of the rise of neo-Landmarkism in the SBC, implying that the fully separatist, closed-communion ecclesiology promoted by some in the SBC, including Drs. Malcolm Yarnell and Paige Patterson at SWBTS and Dr. Hershael York at SBTS, is similar to the ecclesiology of certain English Baptists of the 18th and 19th centuries. The purpose of this post is to show how modern neo-Landmarkism in the SBC differs from the teaching of Scripture and the practice of our English Baptist forefathers in several fundamental areas.

Dr. Barber wrote and asked me: to answer the following question:

Could you spell out for me in specific and careful terms what you perceive to be the differences between Neo-Landmarkism and the theologies of John Smythe, Thomas Helwys, William Kiffin, William Carey, Andrew Fuller, Adoniram Judson, Roger Williams, or John Clarke in the period of their lives in which they were Baptists?

The men mentioned by Dr. Barber are for the most part English Baptists, with just a couple of them, including Adoniram Judson and Roger Williams, having any connection at all with the New World and America. There are at three key differences that I will point out in this post between English Baptists of the 18th Century and modern neo-Landmarkers in the Southern Baptist Convention.

(1). Authority

In neo-Landmark theology, the only people with "authority" to baptize, serve the Lord's Supper, teach, etc . . . are men who hold an "office" that bestows authority. In other words, authority flows from "the church" and not Jesus Christ directly.

English Baptists, however, believed that the Christian's authority came directly from Christ, not the church, and that the fulfillment of Christ's commands was the duty of all Christians. For example, John Gill, speaking for English Baptists, said this about baptizing converts . . .

Baptism is not a church ordinance, (and by that) I mean baptism is not an ordinance administered in the church, but out of it, and in order to admission into it, and communion with it; it is preparatory to it, and a qualification for it; it does not make a person a member of a church, or admit him into a visible church; persons must first be baptized, and then added to the church, as the three thousand converts were; a church has nothing to do with the baptism of any, but to be satisfied they are baptized before they are admitted into communion with it.

It is impossible for a neo-Landmarker to understand the above statement because "baptism" is a church ordinance, and the authority to baptize comes from "the church" and not Christ. This is why the rise of neo-Landmarkism in the IMB has led to the new policy that any missionary candidate baptized in a church that doesn't believe in "eternal security" will be rejected as a Southern Baptist missionary. Rather than asking the individual Southern Baptist about his or her baptism and what it meant to him or her, the IMB trustees are now investigating "the church" in which missionary candidate was baptized.

(2). Communion

In a neo-Landmark church, communion is "closed," meaning that nobody else but "local church members" can partake. The idea that a Christian who has not been "properly" baptized could partake in communion with Southern Baptists is almost deemed "heresy" by neo-Landmarkers.

But the English Baptists, including those mentioned above, believed the following according to Dr. Greg Wills in Baptist History and Heritage:

Few Baptist churches in America practiced open communion, but most in England did. Many practiced open membership as well--they admitted persons to membership based on their profession of faith alone, whether they had submitted to believer's baptism or not. Open communion Baptists in England claimed an impressive heritage. John Bunyan, the great Baptist preacher of Bedford, whose Pilgrim's Progress was and remains a devotional classic, practiced open communion and ably defended his practice. In the early nineteenth century, Robert Hall Jr., the brilliant and eloquent Baptist preacher whose writing brought him extensive fame, persuasively defended open communion views. Baptist Noel, the immensely popular Baptist preacher whose defection from the clergy of the Church of England brought considerable notoriety, promoted open communion from his prominent London pulpit. Spurgeon's church combined open communion with strict membership. The combination reflected well his commitment to evangelical unity and believer's baptism.

The church I pastor, Emmanuel Baptist Church, holds to open communion with strict membership, a pattern followed by many within the SBC but called unorthodox by neo-Landmarkers in the SBC like Dr. Malcolm Yarnell. Ironically, again, the rise of neo-Landmarkism in the IMB has led to a clamp down on the Lord's Supper being served in "house" churches within countries like China where there are no men who can act as "pastor" and serve it. Here you have the problems that arise out of a neo-Landmarker's faulty understanding of both authority and communion.

(3). Cooperation

Cooperation with evangelicals is a very, very low priority to a neo-Landmarker. In a neo-Landmarker's mind, it is more important for there to be "doctrinal" conformity and purity before there is any evangelical cooperation and unity. All doctrines to the neo-Landmarkers are important.

Thus, a statement like the following from English Baptist Charles Spurgeon would be hard to understand by a neo-Landmarker:

"I am persuaded that neither the Church of England, nor the Wesleyans, nor the Independents, nor the Baptists, have got all the truth.... I would persuade you, my Baptist friends, that your system is not perfect. Nor can church polity prevent heresy and spiritual death. You cannot, by Presbytery, or Independency, or Episcopacy, secure the life of the Church. Ecclesiology does not preserve spiritual life in a denomination, but the "presence of the Lord" in its midst." (Spurgeon, "Things Unknown" (1858), in MTP, 46:105; Spurgeon, "Christ Is Glorious--Let Us Make Him Known" (20 March 1864), in MTP, 10: 163).

Sadly, the rise of neo-Landmarkism in the SBC and IMB is thwarting more evangelical cooperation and causing missionaries overseas to have to shut down cooperation with other Great Commission denominations and churches. To some Southern Baptists, it is more important that a person be baptized in a Southern Baptist church than it is to extend the right hand of Christian fellowship in evangelical cooperation.

For these reasons I will continue to write against the rise of neo-Landmarkism in the SBC. I trust I have fulfilled my promise to answer Dr. Barber's question.

In His Grace,

Wade

Baptist Identity Movement Is "Neo-Landmarkist"

I received an insightful, concise email from a respected Southern Baptist Convention leader regarding the new Baptist Identity Movement in the SBC. With permission, and on the condition of anonymity, I share the email with you below.

___________________________


Dear Wade,

Technically, those identifying themselves as part of the “Baptist Identity” Movement (BIM) are what might better be defined as “Neo-Landmarkists.” This ideology (BIM) tends to distance themselves from the old style J.R. Graves Landmarkists who believed you could directly trace Baptists back to the Apostolic Church through a succession of supposed like-minded churches and movements. Modern day BIM personnel eschew this type of ideology in favor of a more watered down version of traditional Landmarkism.

Nevertheless, the BIM seems strangely out of step with the needs of Southern Baptists in the early 21st century. At a time when Southern Baptists face a world and an America that is demographically different from its core constituency of white Southerners, the BIM has chosen to look inward at the Baptist community itself for its work and mission. The movement’s quest for a purer more disciplined Baptist orthodoxy and orthopraxy has consumed most of their energies at a time when evangelicals face very real dangers from radical Western secularism and emergent Islam (both the missionary and jihadist varieties).

Baptists are called to witness to a lost and spiritually-dying world. When Baptists should be thinking about finding a broader consensus to face these spiritual threats, instead, many have chosen to wage cultural warfare with our own. Baptists have always forged their own identity through consensus of the entire community rather than allowing a fringe element to determine that identity for the entire community. This was true of the pro-Missionary Baptists of the early 1800s who overcame the anti-missionary impulses of some Baptists, the Southern Baptists of the late 1800s who turned back the forces of Old Landmarkism, and the Conservatives of the 1970s and 1980s who wrestled the Convention away from the moderates. Wade, in our own states both you and I thought that this latter battle for identity was important.

Fortunately, the Baptist Identity Movement does not speak for all Southern Baptists and soteriology and eschatology prevent even those that might agree in ecclesiology from mounting a truly unified movement. Baptist Identity people in various state conventions, for instance, remain split on these issues, and strangely enough, many of them who look to Southern Seminary for inspiration took a dim view of the John 3:16 conference and hold pre-millennial dispensationalism in disdain.

I remain hopeful that eventually Southern Baptists will view the Great Commission as more important than trying to police Baptist orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

Blessings,


____________ (anonymous by request)

This Is Oklahoma Football: Big 12 Title Time

Please Don't Call Me a Calvinist, But . . .

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.

God's Sovereignty and Man's Free Will

The following article, entitled "God's Sovereignty and Man's Free Will" was first published by the Oklahoma Baptist Messenger on June 1, 1995. The article was written by Dr. Herschel Hobbs, Pastor Emeritus of First Baptist Church, Oklahoma City. The Baptist Messenger published another article on that same day, written by Wade Burleson, Pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church, Enid, Oklahoma entitled "Please Don't Call Me a Calvinist, But . . .". Herschel Hobbs and Wade Burleson were friends, and these articles are posted to show how two Southern Baptists, with differing interpretations of the doctrines of grace, can remain in fellowship, cooperation and friendship. "Please Don't Call Me a Calvinist, But . . ." will be posted here on Friday. Dr. Hobb's article is posted below:

_____________________________________________


At the close of Billy Graham’s first London Crusade a Church of England clergyman said that Billy had set Christianity back a hundred years. Hearing of this Graham said, “I am disappointed. I had hoped to set it back two thousand years.”

From recent articles in other state newspapers we are told that a small group of Southern Baptist scholars seeks a revival of five-point Calvinism. They propose to restore our theology to that of the 19th century. Among others they cite James P. Boyce. Writers note that about the turn of the century Southern Baptists saw a shift from that extreme position to a more moderate one. Mentioned in this regard are E.Y. Mullins and W.T. Connor. Some of them would even claim the Apostle Paul as holding to the Calvinistic view. Such seems to be putting the cart before the horse by about 1,500 years. That is the reason for this article. At the risk of being misunderstood, I am more interested in what Jesus said and Paul wrote than what Boyce, Dagg, et al wrote.

So, like Billy Graham, we do not need to go back to the 19th or even to the 16th century. We need to go back to the first century.

Calvin emphasized God’s sovereignty to the neglect of man’s free will, both of which are abundantly taught in the Bible. More specifically Calvin held that before the foundation of the world God elected certain individuals to be saved to the neglect of all others. This is contrary to the very nature of God! Recognizing the place of faith, those who follow Calvin say that only the elect believe in Jesus as Savior. As I understand it, the opposite is true. Believers are the elect. I agree with Frank Stagg that election is not “a rigged television show.”

While Paul refers to election elsewhere, his extended treatment of that doctrine is found in Ephesians. Space forbids a thorough treatment of this epistle (see my New Men in Christ, Word, 1974, out of print). But I want to point out some salient facts in Ephesians.

In essence Paul says that God elected a plan of salvation (Eph. 1-2) and a people to propagate the plan (Eph. 3:1-6:20). But man is free to accept or reject either or both of them.

In Ephesians 1:4 we find the words “hath chosen.” This translates exelexato (ex, elexato). The latter Greek word has been anglicized as elected. The preposition ex intensifies the verb elexato. But note that Paul says that God elected us “in Him” or in God in Christ. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world [not a selected few] unto Himself” (II Cor. 5:19). “In love” (v. 4, KJV) more likely belongs in verse 5.

“In love having predestinated us.” Whatever God did, He did it in love (I John 4:8). Unfortunately many tend to interpret the English “predestinated” rather than the Greek word proorisas. The basic verb is horizo, among others things, to set a boundary. From it comes “horizon,” the limit or boundary of your vision from where you stand. The prefix pro means beforehand. So to set a boundary beforehand. I liken it to building a fence around a piece of land. The fence is Christ. In 11 verses (1:3-13) Paul uses “in Christ” or its equivalent 11 times (Greek text). So whatever God did He did it “in love” and “in Christ.”

“According to the good pleasure of his will” expresses God’s sovereignty. Which means that He can act in accord with His nature and purpose as redeeming love without the advice or consent of anyone outside Himself.

However, the Bible also teaches the free will of man as a person made in God’s image. To violate man’s free will would make him less than a person, only a puppet dangled on the string of fate. The Bible never teaches that. Man is free to choose, but is responsible to God for his choices. Otherwise God Himself is responsible for man’s sin, which is unthinkable! The free will of man is seen in Ephesians 1:13: “After that ye believed” or “beliveing.” Exercising faith is an act of the human will. To say that only those chosen by God can believe is to ignore the plain teachings of the New Testament. If this be true, then Jesus’ commissions to evangelize the world and the many pleas for lost people to believe in Him for salvation are meaningless.

God’s election of a people to propagate His plan refers to the church (Eph. 1:22-23). In Ephesians 3:10-11 Paul wrote that there “might be known by [dia, through as intermediate agent] the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.” I Peter 2:1-10 clearly identifies the church as God’s chosen people “which in times past were not a people [a constituted nation], but are now the people of God.” But like the plan any segment of God’s people can accept or reject this role – but it/they are responsible to God for the choices made.

In 1814 the Baptists of the United States divided over the issue of evangelism and missions. The anti-missionary group (hyper-Calvinists) have dwindled almost to the vanishing point. The group committed to evangelism and missions has flourished. Southern Baptists, the most committed, are the largest non-Catholic religious body in the nation. If we counted infants, as do Roman Catholics, it is possible that the “Southern Baptist Convention could well be the largest in the nation. And Southern Baptists have experienced their greatest growth since 1900!

Hyper-Calvinism offers no incentive for evangelism and missions. I recall hearing George W. Truett say, “The church that is not missionary does not deserve the ground upon which its building stands. For the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof, the world and they that dwell therein.”

God in Christ has done all that even God can do to provide redemption for a lost humanity. But each person through faith in His redeeming Son must receive it for himself. Refusing to so, such a person is lost without hope. Those who receive it receive eternal life. Christians and Christian bodies who of their own free will refuse to become God’s people to propagate His plan of salvation have saved souls but wasted lives.

If all of the Bible was lost except John 3:16, in this Gospel within the Gospel is the ability to save a lost humanity. And what does it say to us?

“For God so loved the world [not certain ones in it], that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever [anyone, anywhere, anytime] believeth [an act of man’s free will] in Him should not perish [be lost, destroyed, or go to hell], but have everlasting life.” This is not hyper-Calvinism but he Gospel in a nutshell!