Is The Implication That I Don’t Believe John 3:16?
By now many of you have likely heard about the upcoming John 3:16 conference being put on by Jerry Vines ministries. No, this is not a conference on the Max Lucado book though that was my first thought too and that might be just as productive.
No, this is a conference during which several Arminian pastors will examine the issues of Calvinism. The Conferene’s website introduces it this way:
Did Jesus die on the cross for every person? Are believers eternally secure? Can grace be resisted? These and many other questions will be addressed.
This conference is not going to be a “Let’s bash the Calvinists” conference. This conference is going to be a biblical and theological assessment of and response to 5-point Calvinism. It will be helpful for lay people as well as preachers.
In case you were wondering, here is the proposed content:
John 3:16 - Dr. Jerry Vines
Total Depravity - Dr. Paige Patterson
Unconditional Election - Dr. Richard Land
Limited Atonement - Dr. David Allen
Irresistible Grace - Dr. Steve Lemke
Perseverance of the Saints - Dr. Ken Keathley
John 3:16 to the entire world - Dr. Charles Stanley
- There will be a 60-minute Q & A session following the last speaker -
I think it’s fine if some well-known Arminians want to examine Calvinism. I even think it’s fine if they choose not to have someone from the Reformed perspective present to clarify and explain. That’s their prerogative. But what I don’t think is fine is the implicit ad hominem nature of the conference itself. You see, even though they haven’t come out and directly said this, by making it known that they are taking issue with Calvinism, by naming the conference after one of the best-known of all Bible verses and closing with a session “John 3:16 to the entire world,” the organizers seem to be saying that Calvinists don’t believe John 3:16.
I’ve share many times (see here, here, here, here and especially here for example) that one of my frustrations in many of these discussions just how acceptable it has become in many circles to simply misrepresent the position of someone with whom you disagree. Of course Calvinists believe, support and promote John 3:16!
Some might say here something like “Well, yes, but by you Calvinists having conferences like Together For the Gospel and The Gospel Coalition, aren’t you implying that Arminians don’t believe the Gospel” No, and the reason I say that is because the purpose and topic of those gatherings was not to give the Calvinist “response” to Arminianism.
Perhaps I’m off here? Am I misconstruing this? Am I overreacting?
- Visit the official conference website
- Read The Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin
- Read The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner
- Read Chosen by God by R.C. Sproul
Yes, it is.
Perhaps ‘don’t believe’ is too strong a phrase. How about ‘don’t understand’?
And, from their perspective and understanding, you *don’t* understand John 3:16. Similarly, I would wager that most reformed folks don’t believe arminians to really understand Romans 9, or various other texts.
Arminians don’t think the reformed properly understand John 3:16 (and other texts), and the reformed don’t think the arminians understand Romans 9 (and other texts). It goes both ways, and I don’t think there’s any reason for either side to feel slighted. Often enough attitudes accompany such thoughts that do cause offense, but the fact that each side believes the other to be wrong shouldn’t be a problem.
Surely there have been conferences on Calvinism called something like The Doctrines of Grace, or For God’s Greater Glory, or The Potter and the Clay, or any number of other titles. I don’t think there would be a problem with those titles, and they all imply that Arminian doctrine does not properly glorify God, or set man in the proper light before Him, and so on.
I’ve touched upon this conference several times myself, brother. We both know the implication is that “we” don’t believe John 3:16…that we are concerned more for “man-made theology” than the Word of God. Atrocious! Still, I’m hoping the conference is a bit more kind and gracious than many are anticipating.
I think Richard, up there, said it pretty well. You are right in saying this conference is a reaction to popular “Calvinism”. However, Reformed conferences do the same thing (and rightly so). Even if it is not stated that a Reformed conference is a reaction to Arminianism, it is certainly implied. If the “conference” were not a response to Arminian thought, then it would just be a Bible conference or whatever… If you advertise a conference as Reformed or Arminian, then you are, by way of implication, contrasting yourself with the opposite known view. These sort of conferences are healthy and appropriate. Dever and Mohler (known Baptist Calvinists) are openly and deeply respected by several of theses speakers. I trust that nothing will be said by them that would damage their relationship. Likewise, if Dever hosts some reformed shindig on evangelism, Patterson will not likely be offended (he knows and trusts Dever’s heart). So then, yes, perhaps, a bit of an overreaction.
Yeah, I think you’re overreacting. Unfortunately, I’ve spent most of the evening reading blogs in which God’s people are tearing each other apart. Why not give your Christian brothers the benefit of the doubt, instead of reading the worst possible intentions into everything they say or do?
Yeah, I know; gracious blogs don’t seem to get much of a post count.
I sure hope you’re right.
I know that James, not agreeing with me, notices EVERYTHING that could possibly be construed as blatantly and intentionally Calvinistic - even things I didn’t intend that way. I think if you’re looking for confrontation, you’ll find it. Not to say that you shouldn’t or wouldn’t notice things, just that it may or may not be intended the way you take it.
Of course, I mean “you” generically, or moreso “we,” and not YOU personally.