Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

John 3:16 Conference examines Calvinism
Baptist Press News ^ | Nov 12, 2008 | Don Beehler

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?'"


TOPICS: Apologetics; Current Events; Evangelical Christian
KEYWORDS: sbc; southernbaptist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 last
To: Dr. Eckleburg
Testy? I suppose so. And your "kindess" in pinging the usual suspects on my behalf does nothing to allay it.

The truth is that I tire of watching the strenuous gymnastics required to formulate a minimally logical justification of TULIP theology. I mean, really ... the fellow tells me that the only part of the human will affected by the Fall is that part which interfaces with God ... and that our interactions with humans have no bearing on our interactions with God. Ridiculous -- not to mention counter-Scriptural.

The Scriptures make it plain that our choices matter to God. Any theology that denies it is vain. The fact that you're trying so very hard to convince me that they don't ... well, I'm sure you can see the irony of your position.

61 posted on 11/23/2008 2:11:49 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
The truth is that I tire of watching the strenuous gymnastics required to formulate a minimally logical justification of TULIP theology.

Simply abandon logic and common sense and embrace sola cauvin and you're golden.

62 posted on 11/23/2008 2:13:09 PM PST by Petronski (For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden. -- Cdl. Stafford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: enat
Why pray “Thy will be done” or for that matter why pray at all if we are left up to our choices?

Just consider the context in which Jesus said it. It was the moment of His greatest temptation, and "Thy will be done" was an act of surrender and obedience. We are certainly called to obedience. But the thing is: "obedience" is a meaningless concept absent the possibility of choosing otherwise.

We are not simply "left up to our choices." We pray for God's help and guidance. Prayer is, in part, an act of surrender to Him. It is a way in which we enter into relationship with Him. It is one of the ways in which we return the love He has for us. But none of that makes sense unless we have a choice in the matter.

63 posted on 11/23/2008 2:21:16 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Simply abandon logic and common sense and embrace sola cauvin and you're golden.

Well, Mr. P, it's not really an "abandonment" of logic. Within the limited scope of TULIP theology, "God is sovereign, the whole thing actually makes a great deal of sense. And it's true that God is sovereign.

The problem is, equally Scriptural concepts such as sin, love, and atonement do not really make sense in a context that is limited to consideration of God's sovereignty. While we can acknowledge it, we must also acknowledge how Scripture makes clear that we are responsible for what we do -- and thus the TULIP version of "God's Sovereignty" is obviously false.

It makes for an interesting version of Pascal's wager: if our choices really don't matter, then it makes no difference whether or not we behave as if they do. But if our choices do matter....

64 posted on 11/23/2008 2:33:19 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

I personally find great amusement in the comfort some derive from the mass delusion that they have no free will.

Amazing.


65 posted on 11/23/2008 2:35:58 PM PST by Petronski (For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden. -- Cdl. Stafford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

***I personally find great amusement in the comfort some derive from the mass delusion that they have no free will.

Amazing.***

It’s a psychological state in which one absolves one’s self of any responsibility for one’s actions, and at the same time, one has one’s salvation pulled out of the bingo ball.

The perfect end for the high school student council - those who self identify as better than any other with any merit whatsoever.


66 posted on 11/23/2008 3:19:44 PM PST by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; enat; Dr. Eckleburg; r9etb; RnMomof7; P-Marlowe; Dutchboy88; Gamecock; Alex Murphy
I believe Sproul stated the most often quoted but the least believed verse in scripture is Rom 8:28, "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose."
67 posted on 11/23/2008 5:16:30 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: enat; Dr. Eckleburg; r9etb; topcat54; RnMomof7; P-Marlowe; Dutchboy88; Gamecock; Alex Murphy
Apart from special revelation the wisest and most educated of men have failed to discover gospel truth; in spite of their knowledge of God

Amen! I'm reminded of the magicians who had to acknowledge the power of God or the Pharisees who listen to the words of Christ but could not understand it because they were not His sheep. Christians are called to preached the gospel but it is God's Spirit that quicken us and gives us the wisdom from above to led us to salvation. And, just as important, God's Spirit sustains us to continuously understand His word.

68 posted on 11/23/2008 5:27:09 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

Only the believer can say the Lord’s Prayer, “thy will be done”, as communication between the Father and His child. The unbeliever’s recitation is mere superstition. Choices of the believer and unbeliever relate only to rewards; the believer’s-positive; the unbeliever’s-mitigation of the negative, but still negative.

Paul is clear that natural man cannot make a choice for God without a work of God preceding in the heart of the unbeliever. The unbeliever cannot know God.

1Cr 2:9-14, “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.”

1Cr 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.


69 posted on 11/23/2008 6:31:50 PM PST by enat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

***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.***

It is impossible for one to be NON-Calvinist and defend this statement. Oh, granted, they can defend the global & sacrificial part, but they can never defend the personal and eternal part.

For, if the sacrifice was PERSONAL and ETERNAL for a man that perishes, then, either the blood of Christ was insufficient or God killed two men for the same crime. Pick your poison, but the defect would be either in the Son or the Father.

But, we are Calvinist and we believe if the Son of man makes you free, then you are free indeed.


70 posted on 11/24/2008 7:43:51 AM PST by Lord_Calvinus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Calvinus

******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.***

It is impossible for one to be NON-Calvinist and defend this statement. Oh, granted, they can defend the global & sacrificial part, but they can never defend the personal and eternal part.***

That’s why Christians would never defend this statement. We would rather defend the words of Christ rather than the words of contemporary men.


71 posted on 11/24/2008 8:00:20 AM PST by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; topcat54; RnMomof7; HarleyD; P-Marlowe; Dutchboy88; Gamecock; Alex Murphy; ...
Excellent post, Dr. E.! I love reading Calvin's sermons, thanks for posting. ---- I can't tell you how disappointed I was to see guys like Richard Land rip on us. In reading through all five speakers on the arguments I couldn't help but be embarrassed by their reasoning. If that's the best that these learned men can come up with, then that just bolsters my confidence in Calvinism all the more. :)
72 posted on 11/25/2008 1:29:59 AM PST by Forest Keeper (It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; Dr. Eckleburg

Interesting, Mark. What adjective(s) give you heartburn regarding the Atonement:

#1. global
#2. sacrificial
#3. personal
#4. eternal


73 posted on 11/25/2008 9:03:50 AM PST by Lord_Calvinus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Calvinus

***Interesting, Mark. What adjective(s) give you heartburn regarding the Atonement:

#1. global
#2. sacrificial
#3. personal
#4. eternal***

The philosophy behind them gives me the heartburn.

Calvin developed the idea of penal substitution in which Christ pays God for the sins of individual people and that is all that there is. This goes against most of Gospel teaching as well as the teaching of the early Church.

Surprisingly, Wiki provides a reasonable explanation:

The classic Anselmian formulation of the satisfaction view should be distinguished from penal substitution. Both are forms of satisfaction doctrine in that they speak of how Christ’s death was satisfactory, but penal substitution and Anselmian satisfaction offer different understandings of how Christ’s death was satisfactory. Anselm speaks of human sin as defrauding God of the honour he is due. Christ’s death, the ultimate act of obedience, brings God great honour. As it was beyond the call of duty for Christ, it is more honour than he was obliged to give. Christ’s surplus can therefore repay our deficit. Hence Christ’s death is substitutionary; he pays the honour instead of us. Penal substitution differs in that it sees Christ’s death not as repaying God for lost honour but rather paying the penalty of death that had always been the moral consequence for sin (e.g., Genesis 2:17; Romans 6:23). The key difference here is that for Anselm, satisfaction is an alternative to punishment, “The honor taken away must be repaid, or punishment must follow.”[1] By Christ satisfying our debt of honor to God, we avoid punishment. In Calvinist Penal Substitution, it is the punishment which satisfies the demands of justice.

Another distinction must be made between penal substitution (Christ punished instead of us) and substitutionary atonement (Christ suffers for us). Both affirm the substitutionary and vicarious nature of the atonement, but penal substitution offers a specific explanation as to what the suffering is for: punishment.[citation needed]

Nearly all of the Church Fathers, including Justin Martyr, Athanasius and Augustine teach substitutionary atonement. Indeed, the doctrine was clearly articulated by the prophet Isaiah in 800 BC. However, the specific interpretation differed as to what this suffering for sinners meant. The early Church Fathers, including Athanasius and Augustine taught that through Christ’s suffering in humanity’s place, he overcame and liberated us from death and the devil.

If we focus on some other adjectives of Calvinist theology: exclusionary, limited, irresistable; and also the reversal of cause and effect such as the practices of the Beatitudes and the perseverence of the saints, that expands my objections to what I consider to be an overwhelming level.


74 posted on 11/25/2008 4:04:14 PM PST by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; Dr. Eckleburg; 1000 silverlings; Gamecock

More later, but let it not be said that the core of the Reformation was the restoration of the Gospel itself.


75 posted on 11/26/2008 9:33:28 AM PST by Lord_Calvinus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Calvinus

***More later, but let it not be said that the core of the Reformation was the restoration of the Gospel itself.***

We certainly would not say it since the Gospel is the core of Catholicism.

We would say that politics and power played a major role and in the end ensured the success of the Reformation, such as it is. The core of the Reformation was the establishment of Christian Humanism (precedessor of current liberal thought) and the enticement of the creation of individual theology, essentially reversing the cause and effect of God and Creation.


76 posted on 11/26/2008 2:21:11 PM PST by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

Actually, the quote was “...let it NOT be said that...”

And I’m fine with that. In fact I agree, since the statement is false.

Am I missing something?


77 posted on 11/26/2008 2:23:11 PM PST by Petronski (For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden. -- Cdl. Stafford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; Lord_Calvinus

***Actually, the quote was “...let it NOT be said that...”

And I’m fine with that. In fact I agree, since the statement is false.

Am I missing something?***

Perhaps Lord Calvinus has had an epiphany of a magnitude that Paul did. We pray that God will change his merciful heart and ignore all calls to predetermination and extend His Grace to all men and not just the student council of 30 years ago.

At any rate, Lord Calvinus has confirmed that the Gospel is NOT at the core of the Reformation, which, of course, it is not. Based upon Reformed theology, the words of Jesus do appear rather apocryphal. Perhaps we can assist.


78 posted on 11/26/2008 2:43:43 PM PST by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

Don’t presume that my mistake is confirmation that the gospel is not at the core of the reformation cause you would be found to be a bearer of a false witness. If I understand Catholicism, unconfessed sin can send you to hell. And, that would be a shame just to try and score points with a Calvinist. ;^)


79 posted on 12/01/2008 6:54:22 AM PST by Lord_Calvinus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Lord_Calvinus

***Don’t presume that my mistake is confirmation that the gospel is not at the core of the reformation cause you would be found to be a bearer of a false witness.***

The core of the Reformation is the drive for everyone to be their own Pope. The Reformation only succeeded because the German princes and later, the Northern princes were able to use it to sweep to power and sack monasteries and Church properties. That is NOT false witness; it is well documented.

***I understand Catholicism, unconfessed sin can send you to hell.***

It’s only Biblical; so I have to apologize to you for adhering to the Bible.

***And, that would be a shame just to try and score points with a Calvinist. ;^)***

Perish the thought.


80 posted on 12/02/2008 5:38:19 PM PST by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson