Posted on 11/13/2008 6:57:12 AM PST by Between the Lines
WOODSTOCK, Ga. (BP)--The John 3:16 Conference, described by organizers as a biblical and theological assessment of and response to five-point Calvinism, was held Nov. 6-7 at First Baptist Church of Woodstock, Ga. About 1,000 pastors and laypeople attended.
The conference was sponsored by Jerry Vines Ministries, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, Luther Rice Seminary and Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
TULIP is an acronym for the five points of Calvinism—total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints. Each point was addressed by individual speakers.
"I want to help our people understand the issue," Jerry Vines said in a phone interview prior to the conference. "I don't expect to change a whole lot of minds; my primary interest is to bring balance to the issue."
During the conference, Vines and other speakers emphasized that the event was intended to address theological issues and provide information rather than attack Calvinists. "I've never felt that disagreeing was attacking," Vines said, adding that he has many friends with different views.
Johnny Hunt, senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Woodstock, opened the conference with a message from Psalm 119 about praying and leading with the end in mind. "What you believe determines how you behave," he said.
Vines spoke next on John 3:16, a verse he described as the gospel in a nutshell. The verse indicates God's love is global, sacrificial, personal and eternal, he said.
"We will never exhaust the content and the meaning of John 3:16. Here is a simple Biblicism that tells us of the mind of God, the heart of God and the will of God."
Vines said that the Greek word for "whosoever," which occurs more than a thousand times in the New Testament, carries the idea of "anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whosoever believes in Him is John's normal way of describing saving faith."
He emphasized the importance of starting with an exegesis of scripture, working forward to find a biblical theology and then attempting to develop a systematic theology.
"What I'm after is what does God say in the Bible and let the chips fall where they may," he said.
"In Scripture God commands men to believe," Vines said, asserting that God would not command people to do what they cannot do.
T -- TOTAL DEPRAVITY
Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, addressed the issue of total depravity from Romans, saying that depravity means no one is right with God. Any good deed done is tainted with sinfulness, and there is no fear of God or ultimate peace in a person's heart. All of mankind fell in Adam and are affected by his sin.
"Does that mean we are born guilty before God?" Patterson asked. "I do not think that can be demonstrated from Scripture. We are born with a 'sin sickness,' a disease that makes it certain that we will sin and rebel against God." The Bible says people are condemned for their own sins, he said.
"Look at what dead men do," Patterson continued, citing Ephesians 2:1: "... [Y]ou were dead in your trespasses and sin.' If you are dead, then you can't do anything to respond to God." Patterson pointed to verses 2-3, which says, "You walked according to the course of this world ... you once conducted yourself in the lusts of the flesh fulfilling the desires of the flesh and mind...."
"This is analogy, you are dead in trespasses and sin, and pressed too far, you will make it say more than it says," he stated.
"The atonement of Christ is God's way of saving the whole race, if the race would receive Him as Savior," Patterson said. Although sinners are unable to help themselves, lost men are able to "call out to God who can save you," he said.
U -- UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, spoke about the second point, unconditional election. Land provided a historical overview of Baptist beliefs on the topic and said election is consistent with the free agency of man; the question is how election is defined.
He also stressed the need to differentiate between God's corporate election of Israel and individual election, which he said is intertwined with and connected to God's foreknowledge.
Commenting on 1 Timothy 2:3-4, "... God our savior, who will have all men to be saved," Land said the Greek word for "will" is an earnest desire.
Reacting to Reformed commentaries that say "all" can't really mean "all men" because if God willed something it would have to happen, Land said, "I believe in a God who is so sovereign and so omniscient that He can break out of Calvin's box ... and He can choose to limit Himself and He can convict us and He can seek to bring us to conviction ... but He will not force us."
Understanding God's perspective of time and recognizing that He lives in what C.S. Lewis termed "the eternal now" should help Christians reconcile theological tensions. "All events are in the present for God," Land said.
L -- LIMITED ATONEMENT
David Allen, dean of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's School of Theology, challenged limited atonement quoting only Calvinist authors because "the best arguments against limited atonement come from Calvinist writers."
Allen named a long list of Calvinists, including John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards, who did not hold to limited atonement. Martin Luther and the early English reformers held to universal atonement, which means Christ bore the punishment due for the sins of all humanity.
"The debate is very much about the sufficiency of the atonement," Allen said. "In the high Calvinist position on limited atonement, Christ is only sufficient to save those for whom He suffered ... the non-elect according to that position are not savable, and the reason they are not savable is because Jesus didn't die for them ... they are left without a remedy for their sins."
Limited atonement has always been the minority view among Christians, even after the Reformation. The correct view, he said, is "all are savable but they must believe."
If "world" means the "elect" in John 3:16, "whosoever believes shall not perish leaves open the possibility that some of the elect might perish," Allen said. "That's a problem."
Any teaching that God doesn't love everyone, that God has no intent or desire to save everybody or that He didn't die for the sins of all humanity is contrary to Scripture and should be rejected, he stated.
"Limited atonement is built on a faulty exegetical foundation," Allen said, citing verses such as 2 Corinthians 5:15 and Romans 5:18. "... There is no statement in Scripture that says Jesus died only for the elect."
In his concluding remarks, Allen expressed concern about the effect of five-point Calvinism on preaching and evangelism. "Anything that makes the preacher hesitant to make the bold proclamation [of the Gospel] to all people is wrong," he said.
"Calvinism is not the Gospel," he said. "Should the Southern Baptist Convention move toward five-point Calvinism, such a move would be away from, and not toward, the Gospel."
I -- IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
Steve Lemke, provost of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, spoke about irresistible grace.
"Salvation is tied in some measure to our response," he said, citing several biblical examples of what he said were people resisting God. For example, in Acts 7:51 the Jewish men who stoned Stephen were said to be "always resisting the Holy Spirit."
Lemke said that while Calvinists don't deny people can resist the Holy Spirit in some situations, they believe the effectual call is irresistible.
"It doesn't seem to me that [the effectual call] helps in this particular situation, because the Jews after all were God's chosen people, they were under the covenant. If you have a covenant theology, then these people would seem to be among the elect ... it is precisely these divinely elected people who are resisting God."
Whether generalized or personalized, Jesus' teaching pattern seems to be inconsistent with irresistible grace, particularly in His lament over Jerusalem, he said. In Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34, where Jesus longed to gather His people as a hen gathers her chicks, Lemke said the Greek verb "to will" has an even sharper contrast, so Jesus is saying, "I willed but you were not willing."
In both examples, Lemke said, it is not just the current generation that is being addressed, but many generations.
In addition to the all-inclusive invitations of scripture, when people in the Bible ask, "What must I do to be saved?" Lemke said they are told to repent and believe.
He expressed concern that irresistible grace can lead to the denial of the necessity for conversion.
"Some Calvinists ... understand the effectual call to be grounded in double predestination and therefore conversion is unnecessary; it's under the covenant; it's infant baptism that is affirmed. Children [born into a Christian family] are seen as coming under the covenant of God...this is the position of the Synod of Dort, so if you say, 'I'm a five-point Calvinist,'... know what you're affirming."
Lemke also addressed the question as to whether a man is saved because he believes in Christ, or whether he believes in Christ because he's saved. He said that irresistible grace reverses the biblical order of salvation, so that regeneration precedes conversion.
He cited passages such as John 5:40, "You were unwilling to come to me so that you may have life"; John 20:31, "... by believing you may have life through His name"; and John 1:12, "But as many has received Him, to them He gave the power to become the sons of God, even them that believe on His name."
"[The Bible] does not say that by having life we might believe that Jesus is the Christ," he noted. "It says we believe in order that we might have life."
P -- PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS
Ken Keathley, dean of graduate studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, covered the fifth point, perseverance of the saints. Ironically, he said, many Arminians and Calvinists arrive at basically the same answer: Assurance is based on the evidence of sanctification in one's life.
While the Reformers taught that assurance is the essence of faith, the doctrines of the hidden will of God, limited atonement and temporary faith undermine this assurance, he said. Some argue that final justification is obtained by perseverance.
"Doesn't this come close to a works-based salvation?" he asked.
Keathley said the only basis for assurance is the objective work of Christ, and that saving faith perseveres or remains until the day when it gives way to sight.
"Any model that begins with Christ but ends with man is doomed to failure," he stated.
Charles Stanley, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Atlanta and founder of In Touch Ministries, closed the conference with a call for the church to fulfill its mission of evangelizing the world, noting that people are longing for the assurance that God is a God of love.
Stanley challenged the audience to obey God and leave the consequences to Him. "If you obey God, can you fail?" he asked.
"This is the first generation that has the capacity to get the Gospel to every single person on earth," he said. "Ask God, 'Lord, what do you want me to do?'"
From a TULIP perspective ... it is irrelevant whether or not we "honor" God. Such considerations only make sense if the "I" and "U" parts (at least) of five-point Calvinism are invalid.
What happens to us is not at issue. It’s not about us, it’s about Him.
Sorry, but that's obviously incorrect. In essence, that position implies that Jesus Christ is not relevant to mankind; and that mankind is irrelevant to God. But that is clearly counter-Scriptural.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. (John 3:16-17)
This passage sums up the whole point of Scripture, which is precisely that "what happens to us" is of central importance to God -- so much so that He delivered His only son up to the cross in order that we might be saved.
The problem with TULIP Calvinism is that it's a logically self-negating theology, and on many levels. For TULIP to be correct requires the rejection of free will, for example. The doctrine of "Unconditional Election" means that the promulgation of TULIP theology is utterly without meaning. And so on.
The problem here, as with the Pharisees, that ardent TULIPers are trapped within a limited view of Scripture that misses the point: "God so loved the world..."
Perhaps, but that would mean that some Calvinists don't know what they are talking about either. I've had some tell me that the 'whosoever' there refers to a chosen group of people, not the whole world.
Of course, not truly understanding what is being taught by the faith isn't exclusive to any one group.
However, since God is sovereign, it is not something an individual can choose to do. So if someone doesn't believe rightly, and God is not honored, then it would be because God chose not to open the eyes of that person.
I'm being a little bit facetious with that comment, but not completely.
Yup; you’re right. All this 4-points, 5-points, etc., is so stupid. When I was in Seminary it was cool to do the TULIP discussion to death. (It was the ‘60s, and that’s as “radical” as seminary students got. :) Pathetic, huh?) Even though I’m with the 5 group, the whole thing is not really an issue. Be a missionary. Period. End of story.
Norman Shepherd and, more recently, the Federal Vision propronents are accused by their critics of holding this position. However, the accused strongly deny that they hold such a position.
Ken Keathley, dean of graduate studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, covered the fifth point, perseverance of the saints. Ironically, he said, many Arminians and Calvinists arrive at basically the same answer: Assurance is based on the evidence of sanctification in one's life.
It figures that an Arminian would confuse perseverance with assurance, moving as they do from a Christocentric to anthropocentric theology.
How do you define "free will" and where is that concept as you define it taught in the Bible?
Correct doctrine is not necessary for salvation, but it is the desire of the redeemed heart to know God as intimately as possible, and that is only possible through correct doctrine.
Who is God, how does He act , what is He like , can he be trusted...
Those are the questions doctrine answers
We all know the real question is WHO will come and WHY
I define it as you might expect, and quite broadly: that humans have the capability to choose their own actions, and that includes the ability to choose to do things either according to God's will, or against it.
Within the context of TULIP theology (or at least FR discussions about it), "free will" has been said to apply to the ability to choose for or against belief in God, because a free-will choice to "repent and believe" would supposedly make man an agent of his own salvation.
Logically, however, that superficially limited constraint quickly leads to what one might call the "strict pre-destination" position: humans can have no free will about anything, as to allow it would mean that God is "not in control".
and where is that concept as you define it taught in the Bible?
Being made in God's image and likeness (Genesis 1:26) is a pretty good place to start (unless you want to deny that God has free will...). The Fall would show human free will in action. And the very fact of sin requires that humans have the ability to choose against God's will; to hold otherwise makes the concept of "sin" completely meaningless -- not to mention that it essentially makes "sin" an expression of God's will.
we know the scripture says whosoever, the question is who is the whosoever that will come and why/
Calvinism honors Calvin by knowing his little pocket deity as he (that is, Calvin) reveals him to us.
Feh.
***This conference is interesting considering early baptists and calvinists were for the most part in agreement.***
I aways thought Baptists were just dipping Presbyterians.
If you are dead, then you can't do anything to respond to God.
Bingo. God leads us to repentences, gives us our faith, and grant us our wisdom from above. Which of these would you like to deny?
Joh 15:15-16 "No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you. You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you."
It is interesting that Lemke quotes from John 5. John 5 is rather clear for irresistable grace.
Joh 5:21 "For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes.
The Son gives life to whom He wishes. It is not something that we do; a point ignored by Lemke.
Sorry but none of this is good scripture analysis of the TULIP. ;O)
I understand that a former pastor of that church is now a preacher in a Reformed denomination.
“....does a correct Biblical understanding of God and the Salvation he offers us honor Him or not?”
I was replying to a post that asked what happened to man if he did or did not accept 5 point Calvinism. My point was linked to that context and in that context you clained that nothing much depended on it for us. I don't want to disagree with that conclusion at this point. I simply asserted that the focus of the question was wrong. We should ask not what 5 point Calvinism does or does not do for us but whether or not it Glorifies God ( I assert it does).
I agree with your post only if you take my words out of context, which, respectfully, I think you did.
for what it's worth I once found Calvinism very wrong indeed. It is now for me a ‘sweet and wholesome doctrine, full of comfort’.
Let us lay aside claims of denying the gospel on both sides. We are saved by the blood of Christ alone and that (I understand) we both believe...and so as brothers in Christ will both inherit heaven.
I look forward to meeting you in glory.
I would agree that John 3:16-17 sums up the gospel, but not all of Scripture.
The problem here, as with the Pharisees, that ardent TULIPers are trapped within a limited view of Scripture that misses the point: "God so loved the world..."
Now you are on to something that is much broader and not limited to Calvinists.
Most Christians have a limited view of Scripture and choose to ignore or trivialize Scripture that appears to contradict with their view. They also have a tendency to give preeminence to that Scripture that supports their own view. Personally I cannot understand how any Bible believing Christian can do this.
Calvinists tend to be God (the Father) centered, evangelicals tend to be Christ centered and Pentecostals tend to be centered on the Holy Spirit. And all can make a claim through Scriptures that their views are correct.
So you may be wondering which camp I am in. I am firmly in the Calvengelicostal camp.
Is this unfettered capability and ability? How did the Fall affect this ability (if at all)? IOW, do you have the same capability and ability as Adam to act in all matters, esp. towards God?
If anything, I'd say that the Fall resulted in an ability that is less fettered than before. The effect of the Fall was not to dispense with a crucial aspect of being "in His image"; but rather to make us susceptible to the sorts of lies and temptations offered by the serpent in the Garden. Our perspective on reality is skewed, which hinders our ability properly to use the abilities God gave us. "Garbage in, garbage out," if you will.
It is not all "garbage in", of course -- unless you're willing to suggest that the world God created, and "so loved" that He sent Jesus to redeem it, is all garbage. And thus it's not all "garbage out," either, even if it's imperfect at best.
In the context of your question, what is the effect of the Fall: did it affect our judgment in such a way that we could only act against God's will?
Suppose that the answer is "yes" (which is tantamount to saying that we lost free will through the Fall). The logic here immediately collapses. If we can only act against God's will, it means either:
1) God is willing to countenance a class of actions that lie outside His will and sovereignty, in which invalidates the original basis for the argument against free will; or,2) It is God's will that we only act against His will ... the logical consequences of which seem a more than a bit spotty.
Now suppose that the answer is "no," the Fall did not constrain us only to act contrary to God's will. This leaves open the possibility of choice; and in particular, the ability to choose in accordance with His will, as well as against it.
Now, a plain reading of Genesis shows that both Adam and Eve chose to act contrary to God's will; and indeed, the serpent itself tends to signify that there is in fact a "decision space," broadly classed as "sin," over which God does not exercise His sovereignty. Why or how that space exists is a mystery, but its existence is nevertheless as real as the existence of sin itself.
The problem here seems to be a somewhat irrational view of what constitutes God's sovereignty. The TULIP view is essentially that "free will" is something that God not simply will not, but actually cannot allow without surrendering His sovereignty.
Are you saying that you deny the noetic effect of sin? Adam had the ability to obey God perfectly. He also had the ability to disobey. You and I no longer (since the Fall) have the ability to obey God perfectly. Every person sins because of the effect of that original sin. Our natural ability pro to the Fall (to obey God perfectly) has been lost to all those who have lived since the Fall. "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8)
While it is true that we are created in the image of God, we are also created in the image of the first Adam, since we are His offspring.
Thus, we know that we do not possess "free will" in the sense that Adam did prior to the Fall, esp. as wrt doing anything positive/good toward God , like "choosing" eternal life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.