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

It’s likely that many of our mothers used a similar proverb to try and tame our tongues: “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.” While a bit on the pragmatic side, it’s not a bad sentiment (even though, growing up, I would sometimes use my silence to speak in place of my words!). It seems to draw on several Scriptural sentiments while at the same time not taking them quite far enough. The Bible certainly has much to say about our words. For example, see James 3 in which James examines the destructive power of such a small member of the Body.

Yet, biblically, it doesn’t seem to be enough just to not speak evil of someone. In fact, Paul challenges us in Ephesians 4:29 to

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

It seems interesting to me that one of the areas in which we often forget this and similar admonitions is that of theological disagreement. Though we may not resort to Luther’s tendency of outright name-calling, we often leave charity at the door when it comes to theological disagreements. And, it seems, the “more important” the disagreement, the louder our voices become (or the more ALL CAPS sections appear if we happen to be typing). And yet, it’s Augustine who is credited with coining a phrase that ought to guide many of our theological pursuits: Unity in what is essential, Liberty in what is non-essential and in all things charity.

Don’t get me wrong. If you know me or if you’ve read here even for a short time, I hope that you know my dedication to theological precision and Biblical fidelity. I am passionate about the Truth of God and have dedicated my life to its study, presentation and application. Though by some standards I’m not an old man (it seems to depend on who you ask!), I’ve been a Christian long enough to be on both ends of some less than charitable doctrinal discussions, which now breaks my heart and I’d wish I had understood more of charity in many of those discussions.

I’ve also come to realize that a lack of charity is sometimes more subtle than an angry tone or outright name-calling. Theological study is often quite difficult. It requires the ability, not just to see “big-picture” ideas and how they relate to one another, it also necessitates attention to detail and the desire to wade through that muck many call “nuance,” grasping shades of detail and how those different shades color the “big picture” differently. And it also demands the willingness to understand the positions with which you differ. It’s generally a good rule that if you can’t explain an opposing viewpoint in such a way that someone who holds that position could say “Why, yes, you’ve said that well,” then you’re not fully prepared to present an opposing viewpoint. In most theological discussion, it would seem that we’re brothers and sisters in the faith, the least we could do is love one another enough to present the other’s position accurately.

And yet, this small modicum of Christian charity is far too often missing in theological discussion. I am the first to admit that I am often quite guilty, so I don’t pretend to point the finger with clean hands. But it’s out of guilt that I can also plead with my brothers and sisters not to make the same mistakes, which leads me to the issue at hand.

Some of you have read the recent Baptist Press article regarding “Calvinism” and Evangelism entitled “Evangelists Lament Calvinism, SBC Trends.” According to the piece, “A group of 15 evangelists meeting in Jackson, Tenn., Jan. 7-8 said they have concerns about the growth of Calvinism and the rise of a Willow Creek-style of non-confrontational evangelism within Southern Baptist churches.” I don’t think the meeting meant to equate Calvinism with “Willow Creek-style” evangelism, but I’m also not quite sure what the two had in common to the be major themes of this meeting. Regardless, the piece goes on to note that the meeting was initiated by Jerry Drace, “an evangelist from Humboldt, Tennessee: and that:

Drace told the group he currently is working with some young pastors who are “so leaning in this morphed Calvinism that they almost laugh at evangelism. It’s almost to the extent that they believe they don’t have to do it. So [Calvinism] gives them an excuse not to do evangelism.”

I do not know Jerry Drace, nor have I ever heard his name prior to reading this piece. But, what I take from these comments is that Drace is promoting the old rebuke that Calvinists don’t evangelize because they (we) believe that God has predestined those who will be saved, so why should I present the Gospel if God’s going to save who He’s going to save regardless (Mr. Drace, if I have misrepresented your concerns, please let me know and accept my apologies). Yet it’s interesting that, intentionally or not, the author of the piece, Michael Chute, Professor of Journalism at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee has already exposed the folly of Drace’s argument in the same piece.

Earlier in the piece, before he quotes Drace regarding evangelism, Chute references recent research conducted by LifeWay. The study, released in November, found that “10 percent of Southern Baptist pastors identified themselves as Calvinists. However, 29 percent of recent SBC seminary graduates espoused Calvinist doctrine.” Chute then expounds on some of the report’s other findings:

The study concluded that a minority of SBC churches are led by Calvinist-leaning pastors, but that number is increasing. Also, Calvinist-led churches are generally smaller in worship attendance and baptisms than non-Calvinist churches. However, the study said the baptism rates between Calvinist and non-Calvinist led churches are virtually identical. Additionally, the study found that Calvinistic recent graduates report that they conduct personal evangelism at a slightly higher rate than their non-Calvinistic peers.

In case you missed it, let me repeat the last line for you: Calvinistic recent graduates report that they conduct personal evangelism at a slightly higher rate than their non-Calvinistic peers. So, what LifeWay found actually contradicts what Southern Baptists at nearly every level are saying. Jerry Drace says that Calvinists use their theology as an excuse “not to do evangelism” while Christianity Today, in a recent piece called “TULIP Blooming,” references Frank Page, saying that he “worries that extremists could undermine the SBC’s emphasis on outreach.”

Just as I do not know Drace, I do not know, nor have I ever met Frank Page. But I do know that these sentiments are not new nor rare in the Southern Baptist Convention. This is all the more true with the new that Al Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, will be nominated as President of the Southern Baptist Convention itself. Calvinism has found itself as the center-piece of controversy in the nation’s largest Protestant denomination.

Yet, I would argue that it’s not Calvinism per se that is the controversy, but the misunderstanding of doctrine by Calvinism’s opponents, as demonstrated by the denomination’s research unit itself. While LifeWay is saying that recent seminary graduates who identify themselves as Calvinistic (that’s another can of worms of what exactly that means, but it’s not a can to be opened today) actually engage in personal evangelism at a “slightly higher rate than their non-Calvinistic peers,” many Southern Baptist leaders are saying that Calvinists don’t evangelize.

You can biblically disagree with the theological understanding known as Calvinism. That’s fine, but in the name of charity, I would beg these Southern Baptist leaders to stay clear of mis-representation. Let’s just publicly say we disagree and say why, but let’s at least be fair to one another’s positions. The charge that Calvinists don’t evangelize is not true to history or current experience. Nor is it consistent with the theology of mainstream Calvinism in any of its presentations.

It’s interesting that Drace attacks “morphed Calvinism” and Page worries about “extremists.” Yet neither define (at least in this context) what they mean by those terms. Yes, there has historically been an approach known as Hyper-Calvinism which has, in practice, not evangelized (see some of the historical debates over missions and even some Primitive Baptist churches today for examples). However, this has been condemned by the larger Reformed community and is not the belief nor practice of most “Calvinists.” Yet, the two, Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism are more than not equated in attacks like the ones we see here. This is neither intellectually honest nor loving.

Imagine the uproar that would swell if I accused my Arminian brothers of Open Theism, saying that it was the logical end of the teaching that salvation is up to the individual? If it’s up to the individual, then God is not in control over that situation and if He’s not in control of that situation, then maybe He doesn’t know the future, because it hasn’t been decided and maybe Open Theism isn’t so far off after all (Just for the record, I am not accusing Arminians as most understand and practice the theology of being Open Theists). Such arguments would not be tolerated, nor should they be. Yet, this seems to be exactly what is happening when many leaders condemn all Calvinists as Hyper-Calvinists.

In the name of charity, for the pursuit of “building up” and giving grace to those who hear,” I must again beg these and other Southern Baptists to please be fair. I am deeply troubled by these recent trends and it is through the lens of my own mistakes that I can beg my brothers and sisters to remember charity, even for the Calvinists.

• Read the Baptist Press piece “Evangelists Lament Calvinism, SBC Trends”
• Read Christianity Today’s piece “TULIP Blooming”
• Read Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God by J.I. Packer
• Read Let The Nations Be Glad by John Piper
• Read Chosen By God by R.C. Sproul

As you may know, we went to AZ to visit family over the Thanksgiving holidays. One evening we went to Peter Piper Pizza with some of my extended family so all of the cousins could have some good pizza parlor fun. A couple of days later, we had one of those “You know you’re Reformed when . . .  moments (as if the fact that we have sons named Owen and Carson and a dog named Baxter is not enough) when Miles, my oldest son asked if we could go back to “John Piper Pizza.”

• Visit Peter Piper Pizza’s official website
• Read John Piper for yourself

The Fellowship of Reformed Churches (FRC) exists as a platform for like-minded Reformed churches to come together for communication, cooperation and community. We desire to see God glorified through the proclamation of His Word, unity of His people, and the spreading of His name through the local church: To this end, we host an annual conference to encourage and support God-centeredness in all local churches.

Please join us tomorrow for this years Fellowship of Reformed Churches conference. We will be meeting tomorrow, November 17th, from 8:45am-3:45pm at the Leadership Development Center on the campus of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. We will focus on the theme “The Character of God in Everyday Life” and I’m very excited about our time of worship together this year. We will be exploring how the character (or attributes) of God are applicable to a variety of “real life” situations. Theology, as we hope to show, is not just for the ivory tower, but immensely practical. This year we will be hearing from Eric, “Gunny” Hartman, Pastor of Providence Church of Garland, TX, Bill Lovell, Pastor of Trinity Hillcrest Church of Dallas, Doug Helms, Pastor of Rock Creek Baptist Church, and Craig Cabaniss, Pastor of Grace Church of Frisco.Please consider helping us to promote this year’s conference.Please tell your friends, please mention it at your church, on your blog or even rent a billboard. We need help making this year’s event the most successful yet.

• Visit the Fellowship of Reformed Churches official website
• Learn more about this year’s conference
• Meet this year’s preachers
• View the 2007 conference schedule
• Register for this year’s conference

As you may or may not know, October 31st is not only Halloween, it is Reformation Day. It was on that day in 1517 that Martin Luther nailed his “95 Theses,” or points for debate to the castle church door at Wittenburg sparking what would become the Protestant Reformation. Though Luther is widely regarded as the spark of the Reformation, it was John Calvin whom many considered to be the theologian of the Reformation, codifying many of the doctrines that live on to this day in the Protestant Reformed tradition. Yesterday we examined Calvin’s relationship to the so-called “Five Points of Calvinism.” Today I want to examine one of the common charges that comes up with the mention of Calvin’s name.

Mention the name John Calvin to many and they picture a dry, dusty academic who was only concerned with esoteric doctrines removed from practical living. Others will tell you that he was the greatest theologian to have ever lived and still others will tell you with disgust that he was nothing more than a horrible murderer. Murderer? Really? The truth is that few incidents are open to as much speculation and contention as what took place between John Calvin and Michael Servetus.

Though a series of circumstances, Calvin found himself living in Geneva, a city he had originally only intended to pass through on his way to Strasbourg. By request from William Farel, Calvin soon found himself at the center of the religious and legal life of Geneva. Unlike Modern America, the separation of church and state was unknown at this time and though Calvin was part of the clergy, he was also trained as a lawyer and also exerted great civil influence. After being expelled from the city after the issue of excommunication came to a head with man of the city’s elite, Calvin returned to Geneva in 1541.

Upon his return to Geneva, one of Calvin’s first concerns was a series of ordinances that placed the government of the church in Geneva in the hands of the Consistory, whose members were the pastors and lay elders. Since there were give pastors, the lay elders held the majority of the positions in the Consistory, but Calvin’s influence was such that the Consistory usually followed his advice.

Over the next several years, the Consistory and the city government repeatedly clashed. The church, under Calvin’s promptings sought to influence the lives of the city’s citizens, who were also members of the church. By 1553, those who opposed Calvin’s authority in Geneva had come again to power in Geneva and Calvin’s political position was precarious at best.

It was during this time that the famous (or infamous) scene with Michael Servetus took place. Servetus was a Spanish physician whose physiological studies greatly contributed to medical science. But he was also the author of a number of theological treatises. Among other things, he argued that the union of church and state that happened after Constantine’s conversion was a great apostasy. He also vehemently argued against the doctrine of the Trinity and he was being tried as a heretic by the Catholic Inquisition in France. In fact, he had recently escaped from an Inquisition prison when he found himself passing through Geneva and was captured. The only reason he was not executed in France was because he escaped.

Servetus was quickly arrested and as the chief theological official, Calvin prepared a list of thirty-eight charges against him. Some who opposed Calvin’s authority sided with Servetus, arguing that since he had been condemned by the Catholics as a heretic, he should be seen as an ally in the Reformation. In response, the government sought the advice of various Protestant advisers from Switzerland. All who were asked agreed that Servetus was a heretic, not only by Catholic standards but also by Protestant standards. This put an end to the opposition’s case and Servetus was burned to death. Though it matters little to some, Calvin actually argued for a less cruel form of death: beheading.

At the time and now, Servetus’ death was severely criticized. His death has become for many, a symbol of the rigid dogmatism of Geneva under Calvin’s influence. Surely there are grounds to the argument that the judgment was harsh and that Calvin played a large role in the proceedings. However, we must not lose sight of the brutal fact that Geneva was acting no differently than were both Protestant and Catholics all over Europe. During that time, when church and state were often combined, there was little tolerance for heresy and it was often punished by death.

Servetus had already been condemned as a heretic by the French Inquisition which had not burned him only because he had escaped. Those wishing to condemn Calvin as a murderer must extend their criticism, for it is certainly applicable elsewhere. The Catholics had already condemned him to die and advisers from Switzerland were consulted on the matter. Calvin was certainly involved in Servetus’ execution, but to call it murder betrays a weak grasp on historical theology at best and outright slander at worst.

While we may not agree with what was done, Calvin was acting squarely within his tradition. It was commonplace, not just for church and state to blend together, but for those those deemed heretics to be put to death. While we no longer put heretics to death (we sell their books alongside everyone else’s), neither do we take doctrinal precision as seriously. Servetus’ death reminds us just how seriously Calvin, the French Inquisition and others took Scripture and their fidelity to it. While we may not defend their methods, we can commend their zeal, even if you feel it was overboard, misplaced or both.

But just as we cannot fully condemn Calvin for his role in Servetus’ death, neither can we gloss over it as though it is unimportant. The death of anyone must always be taken seriously and this incident ought to cause us to think deeply about the relationship between church and state, particularly in light of the New Covenant. But we must strive to be good students of history, actually looking at the facts rather than accepting opinions.

As we celebrate Reformation Day, me take both God and His Word seriously, learning from those who have gone before us, both from their successes and their mistakes.

• Read The Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin
• Read The Story of Christianity by Justo L. Gonzalez.
• Learn about the Reformation Day Symposium at Challies.com.

This year’s Fellowship of Reformed Churches annual conference is fast approaching. The Fellowship of Reformed Churches (FRC) exists as a platform for like-minded Reformed churches to come together for communication, cooperation and community. We desire to see God glorified through the proclamation of His Word, unity of His people, and the spreading of His name through the local church: To this end, we host an annual conference to encourage and support God-centeredness in all local churches. Below you will find two separate conference images. Please feel free to use them. You may even “hotlink” them if you desire. If you want something different, perhaps a different size or something, just let me know and I’ll work with you any way possible (or please ask if you don’t know the code to make an image a link):

 

Please make place to join us for this years Fellowship of Reformed Churches conference. This year’s conference will be Saturday, November 17th, from 8:45am-3:45pm at the Leadership Development Center on the campus of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. We will focus on the theme “The Character of God in Everyday Life” and I’m very excited about our time of worship together this year. We will be exploring how the character (or attributes) of God are applicable to a variety of “real life” situations. Theology, as we hope to show, is not just for the ivory tower, but immensely practical. This year we will be hearing from Eric, “Gunny” Hartman, Pastor of Providence Church of Garland, TX, Bill Lovell, Pastor of Trinity Hillcrest Church of Dallas, Doug Helms, Pastor of Rock Creek Baptist Church, and Craig Cabaniss, Pastor of Grace Church of Frisco.Please consider helping us to promote this year’s conference.Please tell your friends, please mention it at your church, on your blog or even rent a billboard. We need help making this year’s event the most successful yet.

• Visit the Fellowship of Reformed Churches official website
• Learn more about this year’s conference
• Meet this year’s preachers
• View the 2007 conference schedule
• Register for this year’s conference

The late Jerry Falwell, on Friday the 13th, April, 2007, in a Liberty University chapel service, called Calvinism heresy. The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology defines heresy as: “a belief or teaching contradicting Scripture and Christian theology.” Ergun Caner, current Liberty president once said: “Calvinists are worse than Muslims.”

What is this causing such ire? I thought we were Christians, why take a name other than Christ’s? Who is Calvin that he has an “ism” and what does this “ism” have to do with the so-called “Five Points of Calvinism,” which others call the “Doctrines of Grace?” As we approach Reformation Day, I thought it might be helpful to examine a bit of the history behind these famous (or infamous) “Five Points.”

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his “95 Theses,” or points for debate, on the door of the castle church at Wittenburg sparking what would later come to be known as the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Church taught that not only could they dispense grace, they could sell it in what they called indulgences. This sparked Luther’s historic move and he wanted to publicly debate that and other issues.

Luther didn’t intend to leave Catholicism, he wanted to reform it from within. That’s why it was known as the Reformation and why you hear of Reformed theology and “Protestant” because they were protesting the abuses and doctrinal errors of the Catholic Church. Luther died in 1546 in Esleben, the city of his birth. Though Luther is considered the spark of the Reformation, it was John Calvin who is considered to be the theologian of the Reformation, codifying many of its doctrines.

Calvin was born in Noyon, France in 1509. Exactly how Calvin came to break with Rome is unknown. Unlike Luther, he wrote little about his soul’s turmoil. But he did resign his ecclesiastical posts in 1534, wanting to quietly study the Scriptures and write about his faith. Some of these writings became The Institutes of the Christian Religion a two-volume treatise on a wide variety of doctrines. Through a variety of circumstances, Calvin found himself in Geneva furthering the Reformation. He wrote, preached and lectured in Geneva and saw his own theological shadow loom large over the growing Protestant landscape. Calvin died in 1564. But how did we move from Calvin to Calvinism, especially the “Five Points” that have come, for many, to summarize Reformed doctrine?

After Calvin’s death, much Protestant theology became centered in the Netherlands. Jacob Hermandzoon whose name was Latinized into Jacob (or sometimes James) Arminius, a distinguished Dutch pastor and professor whose theological training agreed with Calvin and the theology of the Reformation, soon found himself at the center of a theological storm. He was trained in part by Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor in Geneva but soon returned to Holland where he gained recognition for his preaching in Amsterdam. Because of his good theological reputation, the church leadership of Amsterdam asked him to refute the opinions of Dirck Koornhert, who particularly rejected the Reformed doctrine of predestination,. Arminius studied his writings and, with a view to refuting Koornhert, compared them to Scripture, early Christian theology and Reformed Theology, and after a struggle of conscience, he said that Koornhert was right.

Arminius soon became professor at the University of Leiden in 1603 and his opinions became a matter of public debate. A colleague, Francis Gomarus, held to predestination in the strictest sense and the two soon clashed. The issue was not if the bible teaches predestination, they agreed that it does; they debated the basis of predestination. For Arminius, it was God’s foreknowledge of those who would have faith in Christ, while Gomarus held that faith itself was the result of predestination. At the height of controversy, in 1609, Arminius died and political and economic considerations were soon added to the controversy. The Dutch struggle for independence from Spain was long and bitter and independence was not assured. Many merchants wanted improved relations with Spain but were opposed by the clergy who feared that ties to Spain threatened doctrinal purity. The clergy sided with Reformed Theology, while the merchants with Arminius.

In 1610, the Arminians issued five points of doctrine to be adopted official church positions. This was called a “Remonstrance” and those issuing it soon became known as the “Remonstrants.” The first ambiguously defines predestination, affirming that God determined before the foundation of the world that those who believe in Christ will be saved. The second, that Jesus died for all people, although only believers receive the benefit of His passion. The third denies the charge of Pelagianism, that people were basically good in the eyes of God. In response, they said that people can do nothing good on their own and that God’s grace is absolutely necessary. The fourth rejects both Arminius and Gomarus, saying that people can resist grace and the last argues that it is possible to fall from Grace, or to “lose” salvation.

In 1618, the Dutch Estates General called an assembly to review these points and end the debate. At this time, the idea of a separation of church and state had not yet been implemented, so it was the Estates General calling for a review of doctrine. That assembly, the Synod of Dort, met from November 1618, to May 1619 and included 27 delegates from Great Britain, Switzerland and Germany with almost 70 Dutch delegates, of which nearly half were clergy or professors of theology. The first sessions were devoted to administrative matters and ordered a new Dutch translation of the Bible. But the main purpose was the ongoing doctrinal and economic dispute. The Synod condemned Arminianism, offering five points of their own in response, which have become known as the hallmarks of orthodox Calvinism (though Calvin himself was dead, his influence lived on). Though they were given in a different order, we recognize them by the acronym TULIP.

• TOTAL DEPRAVITY

Not that we are as bad as we could be, but human nature was so corrupted at the Fall that we cannot and do not come to God on our own. Genesis 6:5 tells us that after the Fall, every intention of the thoughts of our hearts is evil, only continually. Jeremiah 17:9 tells us that we can’t trust our own hearts. Jeremiah 13:23 says that like a leopard cannot change its spots or an Ethiopian the color of his skin, we who are accustomed to doing evil cannot do good.

Romans 3:9-12: None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.

• UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION

God’s choosing of the predestined is not based on God’s foreknowledge of our response but the inscrutable will of God.

John 6:44: No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

Romans 9:15-16: For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

• LIMITED ATONEMENT/PARTICULAR REDEMPTION

Not that Christ’s atoning work was deficient, but that Christ died with a specific eye to save the elect. In John 10, Jesus says that He gives His life for His own sheep and in Ephesians 5:25, Paul says that Christ gave up His life for the church:

John 10:26: you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.

• IRRESISTIBLE GRACE

When God draws us to salvation, we will respond. Romans 9:19 asks: “Who can resist His will?”

Isaiah 43:13: Also henceforth I am he; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work, and who can turn it back?

• PERSEVERANCE/PRESERVATION OF THE SAINTS

Those whom God chooses will persevere in grace and will not fall from it. Although this perseverance is not the work of the believer, but of God, it gives us trust in salvation and steadfastness in doing good even though we still wrestle against the power of indwelling sin.

Romans 8:35-39: Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Immediately after the Synod of Dort, severe measures were taken against the Remonstrants, including a sentence of death and a life imprisonment. Almost a hundred Arminian ministers were ordered to leave the country or face life in prison and those attending Arminian churches faced huge fines.

What can we draw from this? There are several aspects to consider, regardless of whether or not you are convinced of the “Five Points of Calvinism,” each of which centers on the idea of our relationship to doctrine. Surely there are more, but here are ten points of consideration, some with further mediation:

• Our doctrine must be God-centered

Whether or not you agree with the “Five Points of Calvinism,” it is important that you see that there was an intentionality to keep a high view of God rather than man at the center.

• Our doctrine does not define us; Christ does
• Our doctrine must be consistent
• We cannot say “Don’t give me doctrine, just give me Jesus”
• We are expected to consider challenging doctrines

One of the things that keeps people away from discussions about doctrines like these is that they can be intimidating and we often shrink from challenges. But Scripture expects us to rise to the challenge. Ephesians 4:14 says that we must know doctrine so that we aren’t fooled and tossed around likes waves in the sea:

Hebrews 5:12-14: For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

The writer to the Hebrews says that, just like a child moves from milk to solid food, we must, in our Christian lives, move from the elementary principles to the more advanced. This means that we must be much in Scripture, we must be much about the business of thinking hard about hard Scriptures. This flies in the face of so much of what passes for Modern Christianity which tries to downplay difficult doctrines and tries hard to make everyone feel comfortable. It’s not comfortable to be stretched, but that’s exactly what needs to happen because when we’re stretched, we change. This of course, takes for granted that doctrine is important:

2 Timothy 1:13: Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

This is part of our job as churches, to provide ways and encouragement for people to move, from the elementary principles to ever-increasing things of difficulty. This means not only intellectually, but we are to be making progress in our fight against sin. We need to be thinking about Scripture, persisting in memorization, reading difficult books, thinking more about the things of God and fighting more against sin.

• Our lives and our doctrine cannot be separated

Notice that in the developments leading up to the Synod of Dort, people’s theological convictions affected every other area of life. Theological convictions were intertwined with political and economic considerations. In 1 Timothy 4:16, emphasizing this, Paul tells Timothy: keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching.

As much as we try, what we believe about God and the Bible and sin and salvation and everything in between, has tremendous implications on the rest of life. We need to overcome the notion that we are segmented people, as though we can believe one thing one area of life without it affecting other areas. We are whole people and our lives cannot be segmented.

• We must strive to love even those with whom we disagree
• We must strive for humble orthodoxy

It can be a dangerous thing when people begin to believe certain doctrines passionately. It can be a good thing, but it can also be the cause of much division because for many, theological precision is accompanied with pride. There are necessary issues over which we break fellowship. These are what we call issues of orthodoxy. If you get them wrong, you will not be saved. The deity of Christ and the Trinity are prime examples. However, many of the issues that get us most upset are more matters of personal preference than questions of orthodoxy. As we take care to make sure our doctrine is correct, we must also take great pains to make sure our hearts are not puffed up. Paul warns us that:

1 Corinthians 13:1-2: If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

Paul says that he could have all knowledge, but without love, it is for nothing. I wonder how many of us who have spent much time wrestling with difficult theological issues need to hear that startling truth again? In case there’s any question, Paul says:

2 Timothy 2:23-26: Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

We must develop the wisdom and discernment to know the difference between orthodoxy and foolish, ignorant controversies. We must not be quarrelsome, correcting in gentleness with the hopes that God would grant our opponents repentance. When was the last time you were in a doctrinal debate and prayed for your opponent’s repentance? Our doctrine must drive us to love God deeper which in turn should cause us to love others more fully.

• We must keep a long-term perspective

It was 102 years after Luther nailed his points to the door and 55 years after Calvin’s death that the Synod of Dort codified the Five Points. We want instant gratification and yet it doesn’t always happen. We wrestle with difficult doctrines not just for the immediate church, but also for generations to come.

As we approach Reformation Day, we do well to consider the lasting doctrinal implications of the Reformation but we must also consider the lasting practical lessons for there are many. On an issue such as the “Five Points of Calvinism” that can be quite contentious, we do well to keep in mind that doctrine is meant to teach us about and increase our love for God. On issues that do not compromise orthodoxy, we must be generous and humble. We must be sensitive that others who love the Lord as much as we do just might disagree. As we celebrate our doctrinal heritage, may be celebrate our God even more.

• 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
• Read The Story of Christianity by Justo L. Gonzalez.
• Learn about the Reformation Day Symposium at Challies.com.

This year’s Fellowship of Reformed Churches annual conference is fast approaching. The Fellowship of Reformed Churches (FRC) exists as a platform for like-minded Reformed churches to come together for communication, cooperation and community. We desire to see God glorified through the proclamation of His Word, unity of His people, and the spreading of His name through the local church: To this end, we host an annual conference to encourage and support God-centeredness in all local churches. Below you will find two separate conference images. Please feel free to use them. You may even “hotlink” them if you desire. If you want something different, perhaps a different size or something, just let me know and I’ll work with you any way possible (or please ask if you don’t know the code to make an image a link):

 

This year’s conference will be Saturday, November 17th, from 8:45am-3:45pm at the Leadership Development Center on the campus of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. We will focus on the theme “The Character of God in Everyday Life” and I’m very excited about our time of worship together this year. We will be exploring how the character (or attributes) of God are applicable to a variety of “real life” situations. Theology, as we hope to show, is not just for the ivory tower, but immensely practical. This year we will be hearing from Eric, “Gunny” Hartman, Pastor of Providence Church of Garland, TX, Bill Lovell, Pastor of Trinity Hillcrest Church of Dallas, Doug Helms, Pastor of Rock Creek Baptist Church, and Craig Cabaniss, Pastor of Grace Church of Frisco.Please consider helping us to promote this year’s conference.

Please tell your friends, please mention it at your church, on your blog or even rent a billboard. We need help making this year’s event the most successful yet.

• Visit the Fellowship of Reformed Churches official website
• Learn more about this year’s conference
• Meet this year’s preachers
• View the 2007 conference schedule
• Register for this year’s conference

Justin Taylor recently posted a link to an article by Roger Olson, professor of theology in George W. Truett Theological Seminary. In a nutshell, Olson takes great issue with the “God of Calvinism,” particularly in light of John Piper’s (though he doesn’t name Piper by name) reflections on the recent bridge collapse and God’s role in that collapse.

Olson develops a sort of an argument that God limits Himself in honor of human free will, “finitude and fallenness.” He argures that God is “in charge but not in control” and that He “wishes that things could be otherwise and someday will make all things perfect?” He concludes:

The God of Calvinism scares me; I’m not sure how to distinguish him from the devil. If you’ve come under the influence of Calvinism, think about its ramifications for the character of God. God is great but also good.

Aside from the unnecessary hyperbole and scare-tactics, one of the very first things that ought to strike the reader of this essay is that there is not a jot or tittle of Scripture quoted. Not one citation or even allusion. Olson’s thoughts here are simply devoid of Scripture; the one place one might think we would turn while trying to understand God. There’s some thoughts about what Olson thinks God is like (or ought to be like) and how the “Calvinists” have it wrong, but there is no Scripture.

The problem for Olson, of course is that there is much Scritpure to contend with. Olson’s theodicy (answer to the “problem of evil”) is that God is not actually in control. He knows what He would like to happen, but He can’t control us because of our “free will,” therefore, God is “off the hook” for anything we consider to be “evil,” such as the recent bridge collapse. Olson’s answer that God is “in charge but not in control,” simply doesn’t match the testimony of Scripture.

For example, at the end of the book of Genesis, when Joseph’s brothers realize the identity of their benefactor, they rightfully fear for their lives. After all, they had essentially beaten their younger brother, thrown him in a pit, sold him into slavery and lied to their father about it. But Joseph doesn’t retaliate. In fact, he notes God’s controlling hand in the circumstances (Genesis 50:20):

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today

In Isaiah 10:6-8, God asserts that He controls the Assyrians and in fact uses them to discipline the Israelites, even though that’s not what the Assyrians want to do. They just want to kill the Israelites, but God in fact says that they are just His tool. Surely most would consider Joseph’s predicament to be less than fortunate and the attack of the Assyrians on the Israelites to be despicable. But Scripture clearly asserts that these were the doing of God Hismelf.

Has Olson forgotten that Job’s calamity was brought about at the initiative, not of Satan but God? It is God who points him out to Satan (Job 1:8). I do not know Olson’s thoughts on this passage, but I would venture a guess that it does not honor a straight-forward reading of the text as it stands. In fact, we’re told Job’s response to the situation (Job 1:20-22):

Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped. And he said, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD. In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong.

Why is it that Job can say that God took away, “blessed be the name of the LORD” and the Scripture says that “In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong,” yet if I say that God’s hand was somehow behind the bridge collapse that, as Olson argues, “logic demands” that I am charging God with evil. Was Job charging God with evil by acknowledging His controlling hand? In the very next chapter, when Job’s wife urges him to curse God, Job responds (Job 2:10):

But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.

Olson’s “logical demands” require us to read Job’s reaction as charging God with evil, but the text clearly says otherwise. Job argues that we must receive “good” and “evil” from God, but Olson’s answer is that “evil” only comes because God is not in control. He’s in charge, but not in control. But what of Isaiah 45:7 where God says:

I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.

God does not say that He wishes there was not calamity but He has limited Himself to not be able to do anything about it. God says that He makes “well-being” and that He creates “calamity.” Surely Olson’s Scripture-less logic does not match the the teaching of God Himself. There is no more clear example of God guiding what we might call “evil” events than the Cross itself. Acts 2:23 tells us that the Cross happened “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” while Acts 4:27-28 says that Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles and Israelites, in killing Jesus did, “whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.”

The idea that God limits His sovereignty is not a new one. Nor is it a good one, much less a Scriptural idea. Psalm 115:3 tells us “Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.” The implication here, of course, is that God is able to do all that He pleases. While Olson wants to argue that God wants to limit Himself as part of the expression of His sovereignty, the Scripture does not support this claim. Job 42:2 tells us that no purpose of God can be thwarted. While Olson wants us to insert the paranthetical (”unless God wants it to be thwarted,”), it doesn’t take long to see how, as long as “logical” as Olson might want his position to be, we cannot say it is Scriptural.

Olson’s approach puts man, not God at the center of everything. It makes God answerable to man. We become the arbiter of what is “good” and what is “evil” and God then has to answer to us when His actions don’t meet our criteria. But again, this approach simply does not align with Scripture. God Himself is God-centered and we ought to be as well. Though we don’t have time to thoroughly examine the many passages on this topic, consider Isaiah 48:9-11 in which God leaves no doubt as to why He is doing what He is doing: for His own name’s sake because He will not share His glory with another. Paul asserts that whatever we do ought to be for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31). Yet Olson’s approach certainly lessens the glory of God. If God is not in control, can He truly be in charge? If not, is such a “god” truly worthy of glory?

We spend a lot of time and energy trying to “get God off the hook” when that is simply not our place. We may not understand, and quite often we don’t, how God can ordain what He forbids, but we cannot negate Scripture in our ignorance. I’m certainly not suggesting that God is the author of evil. But I am suggesting that Olson’s attempt to say that God is “in charge but not in control” simply doesn’t match the Scriptural record.

• Read the article for yourself
• Read God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism by Bruce Ware
• Read God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and the Christian Faith by Bruce Ware
• Read The Sovereignty of God by A.W. Pink

This year’s Fellowship of Reformed Churches annual conference is fast approaching and I’d apprecate any help I could get. I’d appreciate any help you could offer in helping to promote the event. I’ve created two different graphics. Please download (or even hotlink them if you want!) for use on your site and please link to the the Fellowship of Reformed Churches website.

This year’s theme is “The Character of God in Everyday Life” and I’m very excited about our time of worship together this year. We will be exploring how the character (or attributes) of God are applicable to a variety of “real life” situations. Theology, as we hope to show, is not just for the ivory tower, but immensely practical. This year we will be hearing from Eric, “Gunny” Hartman, Pastor of Providence Church of Garland, TX, Bill Lovell, Pastor of Trinity Hillcrest Church of Dallas, Doug Helms, Pastor of Rock Creek Baptist Church, and Craig Cabaniss, Pastor of Grace Church of Frisco.

Here are the graphics. Please use them or feel free to request different sizes or configurations and I’ll see what I can do. Thanks for your help.