An excellent series on the believer’s security

Glad to see Peter Lumpkins posting the series of articles by Steve Lemke on the doctrine of the believer’s security.

#1 – Why Your Faith Is Secure: Salvation is of God, Not of Us

Seven convictions about Southern Baptists and Calvinism

Seven convictions I carried away from the Building Bridges conference on Southern Baptists and Calvinism:

(1) There are a lot of misunderstandings and stereotypes about what Calvinism is: “Calvinists aren’t evangelistic.” There also are misunderstandings and stereotypes about people who don’t hold to Calvinism: “Non-Calvinists don’t believe in eternal security.” We need to work hard to be sure we understand exactly what someone else believes, rather than assuming we know what they believe because of a label we have assigned to them. The only way to get past misunderstandings and stereotypes is to listen to each other with open hearts and minds. We agree about a lot more than we disagree about.

(2) The issue isn’t what Calvinism teaches but what the Bible teaches. If a doctrine held by a Calvinist has a basis in Scripture, I have no grounds to disagree, even if his explanation of the doctrine is somewhat different than the way I would describe it. If a doctrine held by a non-Calvinist has a basis in Scripture, I won’t argue with him either, even if my own thinking about the teaching is somewhat different. We have to realize that no two people are going to see things exactly the same way. Instead of arguing, we need to try to find what the Lord would teach us through the people we disagree with. Paul exhorted the Corinthian church to agree and not be divided, that they should allow themselves to be “made  complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.” (1 Corinthians 1:10-13) We all follow Christ and should not identify ourselves in terms of some man’s teachings.

(3) Southern Baptists have been influenced by Calvinist teaching, and there is no arguing about that. It’s an historical fact. Most every Southern Baptist in history has agreed with one or more points of Calvin’s teaching; some have agreed with most of what he taught. Even in the act of disagreeing with Calvinistic teaching, we are being influenced by it. Again, it is more important that we take our focus off of Calvin and put it back on Christ and the Bible. We need to identify the fundamentals of biblical Baptist doctrine and agree on those, laying aside our disagreements on non-essentials until the day the Lord himself clarifies the truth for all of us.

(4) The biggest difference between Baptist and Calvinist teaching probably is in the area of church order, not Reformation doctrine. Baptists have historically been a congregational people, while Calvinists have been presbyterian. The truth is, many Southern Baptist churches actually are run by the deacons, not the congregation, and votes in business meeting only ratify what the deacons already have decided. An argument could be made that churches like that are in effect presbyterian, not congregational. On the other hand, 17th-century Calvinists baptized infants and persecuted Christians who practiced believer’s baptism. Even the most Calvinist Southern Baptists today are not about to adopt all the teachings of John Calvin and his followers. By the same token, virtually all Southern Baptists completely agree about teachings like original sin and complete depravity, and about salvation by grace through faith. If we are going to have a discussion about Calvinism, let’s focus on our Baptist distinctives about church order.

(5) The biggest difference between Southern Baptists on the issue of Calvinism probably has to do with election and free will. Some people emphasize the Bible teaching that “for whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” (Romans 8:29) Others focus on the Bible truth that God is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:18b) We realize that there is a tension between those teachings, and we sometimes make the mistake of emphasizing one over the other. The fact is, the Bible teaches both and both are therefore true, even if we don’t understand how to reconcile them. Non-Calvinists need to accept that the Bible teaches that if God made some people to be “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,” we are in no position to object. (Romans 9:20-22) Calvinists need to agree that salvation comes by grace through faith (Romans 10.9-10); God requires repentance and the obedience of faith. We can’t explain how both election and free will can be true, any more than we can explain how Jesus was both fully God and fully man, but the Bible teaches it. We should submit ourselves to the truth and refuse to argue.

(6) Where we think we disagree with a brother over an issue of being too Calvinistic, or not Calvinistic enough, we need to remember Paul’s admonition that where strife and divisions exist, it is because we are carnal and behaving like mere men. (1 Corinthians 3:3) We know that “the works of the flesh” include contention, outbursts of anger, and dissensions, while the fruit of the Spirit includes love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, and gentleness. (Galatians 5:19-23) We must be very careful to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. (Ephesians 4:3) All of us agree that we are surrounded by lost souls and that we are commanded to preach Christ crucified for their salvation. We all agree that Christ expects us to reach out and serve “the least of these.” We all agree that Christ commanded us to make disciples of all the world’s peoples. We serve and proclaim Christ, not Calvin or “non-Calvin.”

(7) We need to be busy with the work of the Kingdom, not arguing about the finer points of systematic theology, because we don’t know when the Lord will return. We want him to find us serving as “faithful and wise stewards,” because the punishment awaiting a disobedient servant is too awful to contemplate (Luke 12:40-48).  If he returns to find us arguing about election or free will, rather than preaching the Gospel and equipping the saints, we aren’t going to be hearing him say, “Well done, good and faithful servant.”

Spurgeon on predestination and freedom

I’ve just returned from an excellent conference, Building Bridges: Southern Baptists and Calvinism, hosted by LifeWay Christian Resources at their Ridgecrest Conference Center.

Southern Baptists have long had mixed feelings about Calvinism. On the one hand, you can’t honor the Scripture as God’s Word without submitting yourself to doctrines also affirmed by Calvinists. On the other hand, the rationalistic zeal of some Calvinists leaves many people cold. Some of them leave you with the distinct impression that their theological system is lord over Scripture, rather than the other way around.

The conference was a breath of fresh air in a debate usually stagnant with misinformation, misrepresentation, stereotyping, caricaturing, arrogance, and name-calling. If you are at all interested in sorting out the issues of atonement or election, or if you would like to understand more about how Calvinist theology has influenced Southern Baptists, I would commend the podcasts from the conference, which you can find here.

I’ll post a couple of short items about my own response/reaction to the conference, but I wanted to start with something Danny Akin, the president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, offered in his closing address.

Akin, who identifies himself as a compatibilist (someone who affirms the majestic mystery of both divine sovereignty and human responsibility) read a fairly lengthy quote from Charles Spurgeon, the great pastor/theologian well-known as a Calvinist with a heart for lost souls. The quote poses a great challenge to the either/or mindset of so many who argue over whether people are predestined to heaven/hell or free to choose our own fate.

The quote below is from Spurgeon’s sermon Sovereign Grace and Man’s Responsibility, based on Romans 10:20-21 and delivered Aug. 1, 1858.

I see in one place, God presiding over all in providence; and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions to his own will, in a great measure.

Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there was no presidence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to Atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free enough to be responsible, I am driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism.

That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other.

If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other.

These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.