Can SBC Today’s Bob Hadley Please God While Denying Baptist Faith And Message?

The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Regeneration | SBC Today.

Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.

A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.

Bob says:

Basically, there are two primary interpretations as to the how and when one is “born again” or regenerated, and both are related to belief, repentance and faith. One posits being born again as being essential for belief, repentance and faith to take place; and the other makes belief, repentance and faith essential for being born again.

What does the BF&M say regeneration is? 1) a work of grace whereby believers become new creatures 2) a change of heart wrought (past tense and a past participle of work) through conviction. It is a work of the Holy Spirit who changes the unconvinced heart of an unbelieving sinner to a convicted heart of a believing sinner who responds in repentance toward God and faith in Jesus. Even if one wants to make conviction moving a person toward the truth and a sense of guilt of sin, the question is still who works it. The BF&M states about the work of the Holy Spirit:

Through illumination He enables men to understand truth. He exalts Christ. He convicts men of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. He calls men to the Saviour, and effects regeneration. At the moment of regeneration He baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ. He cultivates Christian character, comforts believers, and bestows the spiritual gifts by which they serve God through His church. He seals the believer unto the day of final redemption. His presence in the Christian is the guarantee that God will bring the believer into the fullness of the stature of Christ. He enlightens and empowers the believer and the church in worship, evangelism, and service.

What does Scripture say:

And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

Are you so foolish (anoetos)? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

It is not man who is doing any of this. It is being a fool, Paul said, to think so.

What is the order in the BF&M, then? God by grace works regeneration -a change of heart- convicting of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance and faith. He baptizes (seals them) into the body of Christ and then seals them as the guarantee of ongoing sanctification to complete maturity and salvation of the final redemption. What is Bob’s order: repentance and faith is necessary prior to one being born again. To reiterate, the BF&M places “It” (being born again; a change of heart), prior to repentance and faith. In accord with that the BFM places illumination and enablement by the Holy Spirit prior to repentance and faith. Who is working the enablement and the illumination? And where? The Holy Spirit by his presence in the Christian.

To make no mistake about what he is speaking of, Bob states:

One thing appears clear: apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit or ones being “in Christ” there is no new birth or regeneration… Clearly to be born again one MUST have the Spirit living in his heart for if one does not have the Spirit in his heart that one does not belong to God. Regeneration is not possible apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

He then asks:

So the question now is this: does the Holy Spirit take up residence in the heart of the unregenerate so that he is able to believe, repent and be saved or does the Holy Spirit take up residence in the heart of an individual who has believed, repented and is then saved?

But as is seen in the BF&M the order is established- by the grace of God the Holy Spirit’s presence within changes the hearted, the believer is enabled, illumined, so as to understand. Which in turn, through conviction the sinner responds in repentance and faith. The BFM has already defined salvation broadly, and not narrowly as Bob has done. To be saved includes far more than Bob can allow, quoting the BFM:

In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification.

Again, note the order. Regeneration comes before justification. Scripture identifies the order of justification this way:

For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

Regeneration, the BF&M states, is the beginning of sanctification by which the believer is set apart to God’s purposes… So we need to ask, is faith set apart for God’s purposes in the believer, nor not? Is faith part of sanctification. Which comes first, a new heart which believes, or belief from an unchanged heart?

The question that should be asked is does the Holy Spirit take up residence in an unregenerate heart at all? That is, if as Bob says the Holy Spirit’s indwelling and regeneration are inseparable realities, in which he is right, how could it ever be that the Holy Spirit takes up residence in an unregenerate heart so that it is convinced to turn on its own?

First of all, Bob presents a canard. No Calvinist believes that the Holy Spirit takes up residence in the unregenerate so that he will do what is required by the commandment to repent and believe. Calvinists believe that in regeneration the Holy Spirit is resident in the newly created heart. We also need to ask, can an unbelieving heart believe? Bob believes so. The self-contradiction is obvious. For those who are, borrowing the term Jesus used, anoetos (not understanding, unwise, foolish), the answer is no! Unbelievers, by the very nature of unbelief, don’t believe. By the testimony of Scripture, an unbeliever cannot be saved, period. How does one who has not had a change of heart (the BF&M’s definition of regeneration) from an unbelieving one to a believing one, believe? Again, for the anoetos, he can’t. Or, quoting Romans 8 where Bob conveniently didn’t:

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

How does a hostile, unbelieving heart, submit? Paul says, it cannot. It will not obey the commands such as repent and believe. So we ask also, can an unbeliever please God? Or, can only a believer? And who is he who can believe? The BF&M is clear, only those who have had a change of heart, who are set apart for God’s purposes can believe. Interestingly, the section on regeneration in the BF&M is supported by Philippians 2:12-13 in which it is clearly stated that God works in us the things which are pleasing to God and John 1:11-14, where we find that those who received Christ were those who were born of God. They didn’t receive him and then were born of God. The BF&M’s own quotations refute Bob’s intentions. If Bob would have further developed Romans 8 he would find that the setting apart for God’s purposes, as the BF&M’s consideration of the grace points out, is part of the whole package of election (i.e. salvation) which includes regeneration and all other means of accomplishing it. It is consistent with free agency because man in bondage to sin while unregenerate has no means of moral choice by which he can submit himself to the commandments of God. The BF&M delcares that the illumination by the Holy Spirit establishes truth in man and by that working of conviction man is set free to do what God has commanded.

Bob quotes:

Consider the following passages. At Pentecost, “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’”

But this is misdirection. The manifestation of the Spirit given on Pentecost is not the indwelling. Peter and the others who were with Jesus prior to his crucifixion and after his resurrection already were indwelt by the Spirit, yet the gift Peter is speaking of is “this which was spoken by the prophet Joel… which also was given to Peter on Pentecost. So why quote it here? It is a non-sequitur. But since Bob’s motives are at best questionable, we can ask if it is sleight of hand meant to distract weak-minded anoetos.

He quotes:

“By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God”

But why didn’t he quote: “Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.”

Bob quotes:

“The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart’ (that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, ‘Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For ‘whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’”

So we ask, how can one call upon the name of the Lord and be saved except that he already has the Holy Spirit? Again, for the anoetos, he can’t. He must be regenerated, and in regeneration have the Holy Spirit before he can call upon the name of Jesus as Lord and be saved. For no one, not anyone, zero, zip, nadie sin excepciones, calls upon the Lord who does not have the Spirit.

But Bob says:

Conversion is the result of the Holy Spirit taking up residence in a person’s heart and that takes place after one believes, repents and confesses Christ.

Again, this is a canard. Calvinists speak of conversion as the outward manifestation of the inward change (a lot like the BF&M). That is, salvation is much broader than Bob seems to have any concept of and begins with regeneration through the hidden work of the Spirit as John 3 explains. It is demonstrated by the fruit it produces, or as John 3 says, we don’t see wind coming or going but we know it by its effects. Conversion, like salvation is a continuum of events some hidden, others obvious. Typically, the outward work is what is acknowledged as conversion (which fits into the category of sanctification), and regeneration is that which cannot be seen and as the BF&M and Scripture testify come before a man’s understanding is opened so that he sees the kingdom and embraces it. When John says that God has blinded the eyes of some so that they cannot see and be converted, (John 12:40; cf Isaiah 6:9-10), the Greek word, which means to turn around, as in repent, is in the passive voice. In other words, conversion, according to John, is something which is being done to those who are turning around. What else should we expect from John who wrote that Jesus said without being born again, one cannot see, that is understand, the kingdom?

To clarify language, when speaking of being saved we acknowledge the inception, the process, and the consummation:

And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

So one is said to be saved in the beginning and to be saved throughout and saved in the end. Bob doesn’t make the proper clarification and so, again, he presents a canard by conflating meaning to the point of utter confusion.

So Bob continues to confuse the issues:

Consider Paul’s word of instruction in Ephesians 1: “In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory” (see also 2 Co 1:20-22). Clearly the sealing of the Holy Spirit takes place after one has heard the Word of truth presented in the proclamation of the gospel message and has believed it.

Yes, let’s do. What is the sealing spoken of here? Is it the indwelling? It doesn’t say that. The Holy Spirit’s work is varied. For our comfort, according to many places, such as 1 Cor 2, we are told we have been given the Spirit so that we might know the things God has freely given us and knowing the truth we would be set free and no longer fear the wrath of God. 1 Cor 2 says that we have received the Spirit, not that we should fear, but so that we can discern the truth, understanding the things which God has freely given. It also says that the natural man does not have the Spirit and so cannot discern the truth. But, if that is the case, then how does he place his faith in what he doesn’t know to be the truth and turn around, convert, from unbelief to belief? What faith looks to darkness for light? John writes that these things were written that we might know. But, Paul says, only those who have the Spirit can know the things which were written. Jesus said only the disciples know and that all the rest have been blinded so that they would not convert (repent) and believe. So, when the Holy Spirit, as Jesus said, brings to our minds the things he has said, the Holy Spirit seals the truth to our minds. But, he only does that for those to whom it has been given, to those outside it remains a mystery. And this is our comfort, that as Paul, we know him in whom we have believed, not that we first believe and then know him. First, though, before we can know, and knowing repent and believe, we must have the Holy Spirit.

We  also speak of the sealing of the Holy Spirit in another way. We speak of it in adoption. That having been made partakers of the divine nature, we are inextricably bound to Christ by the Holy Spirit. But, what we have been made to be in this latter sense is given in regeneration, the former is given in sanctification. The latter is what would include definitive sanctification and justification though faith which is the whole of salvation given as righteousness by  union with Christ which seals us to Christ. The former is progressive sanctification which includes all the works we are active in, and justification through believing in which the believer is also active through the power of the Spirit performing those things in him which are pleasing to God. The power of the Holy Spirit acts in believers as the confirming signature by which the saints persevere to the end and inherit the promise. As there is a nuance to the terms used in Scripture, such as saved, salvation, redeemed, redemption, and the myriads of ways we use those terms in doctrinal discussion, there is a variety of ways the terms seal or sealed is used. To seal can mean to bind together, or it can mean to affix a mark as in a signature or deed of ownership.

Then again, even if there is a more nuanced way in which Ephesians 1:13 can be understood, there is a sense in which some or all the aspects of one nuance of the whole of our salvation are true of others. Notice that in Ephesians we have a future redemption. But, is it not the fact that those who are believers are redeemed now? There is a comprehensiveness expressed in Ephesians from first to last, from predestination to consummation. Beside, the phrase, “having believed, you were sealed,” is not necessarily rendered correctly. “Having believed is an aorist participle and could well be translated, believing. And “were sealed” is in the aorist indicative and could be rendered “being sealed.” Thus, it could say, you believing being sealed… So simply, it could just mean that believing is the seal of the Holy Spirit’s working. And if we go to Ephesians 1:20 we find the current condition of believers as now seated in the heavenlies which is the future state as considered in the past and present. This is ongoing work, and not simply the initiatory work. In both the believing and the sealing in Ephesians 1:13, the full sense of the aorist tense needs to be considered. The sense of all of Ephesians is forgone conclusion from predestination to consummation. That is, that it began, is ongoing and has futurity. It moves from the grounding purpose to infancy, to maturity, to standing in the end. So again, it is not necessarily right to fix a cemented sequence to the verbage, especially in view of the wide application of the tenses being used and with the full mind’s eye on all that Ephesians is about.

We can add to this Abraham’s faith. Was righteousness imputed to him because he believed, or was believing imputed to him as righteousness? When we look at Ephesians 2:8-9 we find that faith, though it may not be directly the gift referred, is nonetheless, a part of salvation given by God. And it is not a verb, it is a noun just as in Romans 4:9. Since the righteous live by faith, and Jesus concludes that man lives only by the word of God, it is not a stretch to conclude that faith is God’s grace provision as the full provision of all that is meant by the promise of salvation. That faith is righteousness is further confirmed by the fact that it is the very nature of the Son’s life, especially displayed on the cross. His entire life is that faith in which we are given Ephesians says in such a way so that we are in him by virtue of his resurrection (see Peter 1:3). And further, the proper way of believing is shaped by Jesus’s own faith in his Father to whom he entrusted his spirit. To say then that God enables faith in all men though they themselves remain not submitted to God, dishonoring the Son until they act on it, is to mingle the meaning of faith with faithlessness. It pollutes the kind of faith Jesus had. Jesus did not move from being an unbeliever to a believer, nor was he a mixture of doubts, rather, he was the firstfruit of the faith, and we are made after his image, as he said, born from above, John 3:3; John 17. If one makes faith a neutrality which can at once mean to believe or not to believe, faith simply has no meaning. It is no wonder then that Bob believes that an unbeliever can believe. That is to say, Bob believes that an unbeliever can be saved, thus making nonsense of John 3:16-18. We must first be raised from the dead, the power of God’s love in us as it was in Christ, by which, as the Son did, we sons cry Abba.

In Ephesians, it is best, probably, to understand that the Holy Spirit seals to our minds the knowledge of this comprehensive promise which is mentioned, as is clear in 1 Cor 2,through the word taught to spiritual men by the Spirit. Or, it might be said that this is the hope of glory which is in us, the Holy Spirit who, as with the disciples, was given after the disciples had already seen the risen Lord and had already believed, who brings to our minds the things Jesus said. As he said he would not leave them orphans but would send the comforter as the one who comes alongside as an aid in weakness, so also, even though by virtue of regeneration we have the Holy Spirit indwelling us as they did, Jesus further aids us by sending the Holy Spirit to teach, guide, and comfort. There is no reason to conflate the meaning of what the operation of the Holy Spirit is in grounding our hope in the promise of Scripture as a seal with the initial work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration which seals us to Christ. Because again, Scripture is so nuanced as to have, often, both near reference and far. The verse in Ephesians 1:13 proves no sequence of events, necessarily, especially in view of the comprehensive nature of the near context, and of broad category of salvation as it is spoken of throughout Scripture.

Bob concludes:

there is no ambiguity in the Scriptures where the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is concerned with respect to being born again or being regenerated. Regeneration is not possible apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God’s gift to those who have believed and have repented and trusted God by faith (Acts 2:38).

As I said before, the manifestations of the Holy Spirit are not the indwelling. The apostles already had the indwelling when the Holy Spirit’s gift spoken of in Acts 2 was given. The ambiguity is in Bob’s head where he conflates one meaning with another. In other parts of Acts it is clear that the Holy Spirit came upon those who already believed:

And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.(Acts 4:29-31)

By Bob’s formulation, Peter was born again, and born again, and born again. For when Jesus spoke to the apostles after his resurrection John writes:

And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.  (John 20:22)

The there is this:

And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.
(Luke 1:15)

And we must ask, when did John the Baptist believe? Before or after he was filled with the Holy Spirit? Surely not before. It could only be that after he was enlightened that he believed for he had to be old enough to understand. Yet, we have the testimony that he was filled before he was born.

Bob concludes his conclusion:

While some may try to make a case for a temporal or logical position for regeneration preceding repentance and the exercise of saving faith, such is not the case for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

As we have just seen, this is not the case. Bob is just confused about the indwelling.

Since regeneration is not Scripturally possible apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, one must conclude regeneration prior to repentance and saving faith is not possible either.

There is no logical sense in which Bob draws this conclusion. The case is that we have the testimony Scripture that John was regenerated in the womb. Bob has simply failed to read the Scripture.

The lost are not regenerated so they may then repent and by faith trust Christ to be justified or saved; the unregenerate are convicted of their sin and their lost state by the work of the Holy Spirit through the proclamation of the gospel and through believing and repentance, they by faith in the person and the promises of God are converted and justified and receive right standing before God when the Holy Spirit takes up residence in their hearts.

Bob’s redundant assertion, I suppose, he hopes will carry his argument. Is he equating justification with being saved? But as we have seen, being saved is far more expansive than a one time event. Above it has been shown that an unbelieving heart is not convicted of anything. It hates the word of God, it cannot submit to it, it cannot please God. It, as the BF&M correctly affirms, must be changed. It is the Holy Spirit which works through conviction. But that is both the knowledge of God and of sin in truth. And Paul is clear that the man without the Spirit has no knowledge is a spiritual sense of anything pertaining to the promises of God. A man without the Spirit does not comprehend the things of God, because he cannot judge right from wrong. It is only the spiritual man who can,

Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.(1 Corinthians 2:12-15 ).

If there is one thing we can be sure of, it is that we must be spiritual, that is born of God having been given the Spirit, before we can understand spiritual truths interpreted to us (i.e., the Gospel, 1 Cor 2:1-5).

This is the clear position presented in Scripture.

Having Lost All Arguments Rick Patrick Plays The Servetus Card

Incineration vs. Decapitation: What to do with Servetus?

Calvin and Servetus Revisited

When you’ve lost the argument, what is left but to attack the man. Servetus is not even a card in the deck! What fool pulls a red deck card from his sleeve when the blue deck is in play?

Let’s see if it is right to play the murder card. Since Rick thinks that anyone who has committed murder is an invalid authority, what are we to do with David? What are we to do with Paul? That’s a large chunk of Scripture to trash.

Is Rick above the scrutiny? What about his own evil heart? Doesn’t he stand to the same level of accountability?

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.

Unless Rick is another Jesus Christ, he is imperfect, and has broken the law. Rick Patrick is a murderer, according to Scripture, since Scripture requires perfection or guilt. Why should we trust anything he says? Why should we think his testimony to the grace and mercy of God is any more valid than Calvin’s? Or any other Calvinist? You see, beside the fallacy of generalization in the individual to the whole of the individual, Rick throws another, the guilt by association card, the generalization from an individual to all those who have any association, of any kind, with him. One would wonder that since Rick is trinitarian and so was Calvin, if that doesn’t imply Rick, by the bad company he keeps, is a secret Calvinist?

The depths of the ignorance that the Southern Baptist Arminians (Traditionalists) stoop to is no cause to challenge their salvation. Still, we must consider why the individuals, like Rick Patrick, promoting hate for their brethren within the Southern Baptist Convention and without, should be considered brethren:

Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling. But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

As can be heard from James White in the twenty-minute clip linked above, Rick Patrick is stumbling in the dark and spreading that darkness in front of others so as to make them stumble. If he is not ignorant, then he is knowingly spreading ignorance and taking advantage of the weak. What is to be said of such a one? He can’t be called loving. He may just be blind, but a blind leader of the blind will not only fall into the pit but drag others along with him. One spreading lies is showing neither the mercy nor the love of God, but hate, willfully or ignorantly. A fool is not above reproach simply because he is a fool.

He has not as yet gone so far as to deny Jesus Christ. So then what? As Calvin did with Servetus, should the SBC seek his reconciliation as long as possible and shelter him? Perhaps. But what if he insists on going down this road of hate. Shouldn’t some one in the SBC, at some point, demand he be abandoned to his choice of darkness over the light, lies over truth?

A Reply To A Reply to Jared Moore Regarding SBC’s Seminaries and the BFM | Obscurantism At SBC Today

Reply to Jared Moore Regarding Southern Seminary and the BFM, Part 1 | SBC Today.

Your committee respects and celebrates the heritage of the Baptist Faith and Message, and affirms the decision of the Convention in 1925 to adopt the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, “revised at certain points and with some additional articles growing out of certain needs . . . .” We also respect the important contributions of the 1925 and 1963 editions of the Baptist Faith and Message… The 1963 committee rightly sought to identify and affirm “certain definite doctrines that Baptists believe, cherish, and with which they have been and are now closely identified.” Our living faith is established upon eternal truths. “Thus this generation of Southern Baptists is in historic succession of intent and purpose as it endeavors to state for its time and theological climate those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us.” BFM2k

The 1925 Statement recommended “the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, revised at certain points, and with some additional articles growing out of certain needs . . . .” Your present committee has adopted the same pattern. It has sought to build upon the structure of the 1925 Statement, keeping in mind the “certain needs” of our generation. At times it has reproduced sections of that Statement without change. In other instances it has substituted words for clarity or added sentences for emphasis. At certain points it has combined articles, with minor changes in wording, to endeavor to relate certain doctrines to each other. In still others — e.g., “God” and “Salvation” — it has sought to bring together certain truths contained throughout the 1925 Statement in order to relate them more clearly and concisely. In no case has it sought to delete from or to add to the basic contents of the 1925 Statement…

…Such statements have never been regarded as complete, infallible statements of faith, nor as official creeds carrying mandatory authority. Thus this generation of Southern Baptists is in historic succession of intent and purpose as it endeavors to state for its time and theological climate those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us.
Preamble ’63

In pursuance of the instructions of the Convention, and in consideration of the general denominational situation, your committee have decided to recommend the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, revised at certain points, and with some additional articles growing out of present needs, for approval by the Convention, in the event a statement of the Baptist faith and message is deemed necessary at this time. Preamble ’25

We believe that man was created in holiness, under the law of his Maker; but by voluntary transgression fell from that holy and happy state; in consequence of which all mankind are now sinners, not by constraint, but choice; being by nature utterly void of that holiness required by the law of God, positively inclined to evil; and therefore under just condemnation to eternal ruin, without defense or excuse. The New Hampshire Baptist Confession, 1833

He was created in a state of holiness under the law of his Maker, but, through the temptation of Satan, he transgressed the command of God and fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and in bondage to sin, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors. ’25

In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence; whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin, and as soon as they are capable of moral action become transgressors and are under condemnation. ’63

In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. BFM2K

As can be seen, even though the wording has been changed, by the BFM’s own declaration the intent has not, nothing has been deleted.

It is not Jared Moore who is wrong. It is Harwood. Harwood rejects the BFM’s formulation of its heritage. Not only can some who disagree with Harwood’s interpretation of the BFM at Southern Baptist seminaries affirm it, they are compelled by the logic of the document and their faith to do so.

I believe there was a reason for the obscurantism of the BFM’s rewording of the ’25 and the New Hampshire, but a discussion of that would be a digression. The fact is that the “and” clause does not stipulate a result, merely the condition. Reading it as such, with the view of the NCF and the ’25 in mind, nothing has changed. All mankind has inherited a nature which will lead to sin and they are under condemnation. The sentence could well read, Therefore, (they)are under condemnation, without violating any intent of what is causal, namely, that they in the federal headship of Adam transgressed and lost their innocence. Notice, that man is the parallax. Though Adam is at first in view, the focus shifts to the whole as his posterity inheriting what he had become.  It’s precisely that which allows for the orthodox Christian, anti-semi-pelagian, position of inherited guilt in the BFM.

Try as he might, Harwood cannot extricate the they from the man who fell from his original innocence into guilt. Free choice is indeed exercised, but it is concluded that each freely chose in Adam who in the BFM is called man, which is to say, as the NCF’s shift of focus concludes, mankind. It is not that we are guilty for Adam’s choice. To the contrary, the construction of the BFM concludes we all chose individually in Adam. That being the case, each is guilty prior to rational moral choice in actual time. The declarative judgement is seen in what will happen. It is not what comes after which incurs guilt, but the guilty condition which secures action.

So, the BFM concludes that mankind (each individual) fell from his original holiness and righteousness. Innocence in the ’63 and 2000 has been substituted for that. No matter how you slice it, all inherit unrighteousness and unholiness prior to capability of moral action. As the BFM heritage unequivocally states, mankind, the whole posterity, fell in Adam from that innocence inheriting a nature contrary- unholy, unrighteous- and guilty as charged, having freely chosen in Adam. Mankind is not neutral, but lacking the former state of innocence, he is guilty.

By its own admission the BFM has not deleted or change the original intent of:

We believe that man was created in holiness, under the law of his Maker; but by voluntary transgression fell from that holy and happy state; in consequence of which all mankind are now sinners, not by constraint, but choice; being by nature utterly void of that holiness required by the law of God, positively inclined to evil; and therefore under just condemnation to eternal ruin, without defense or excuse.

Update: Harwood misreads the BFM and misrepresents its intent.  One respondent accurately notes the double-speak Harwood engages in to avoid the clear teaching of the BFM and of Scripture:

I do not understand your comments above. I understand that you are saying that an infant who has never became a transgressor is not guilty and thus not under condemnation.

But then you state “I am aware of no biblical text in which God states, “You are judged guilty and condemned due to the sin of Adam.” Of course we’re all in sin, condemnation, and death due to Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12-21).”

This is confusing. Are we ALL under condemnation or not? It appears to me that according to your theology that some of us are not condemned until we actually become transgressors. Or maybe we are under condemnation with no guilt. But then can you flesh out how one can be under condemnation but have no guilt?

Carl is right, Harwood is confused and so speaks with a double mind, redefining as he goes. The result is semi-pelagianism and patently against the tradition of the BFM and the orthodoxy of Christianity. Harwood is astounded in this second part that many call him what he is, a false teacher, a teacher of heresy. In the first part he took umbrage at being addressed publically for making a public statement. In the modern tongue, “Well duh!”

It is astounding that Harwood has a PhD. Condemnation is the sentencing for guilt. It is simply amazing that the SBC is being led by such fools thinking themselves wise.

No One Is Called To Be A Pastor

Pyromaniacs: The Pastoral “Call,” and how there isn’t one.

Acts 20:28 uses the same term for the placing of overseers as 1 Corinthians 12:28 uses when speaking of specific callings. To appoint is as near a synonym to call as any. And Ephesians 4 makes it clear that the gift by which some are appointed is not a mere career as any other vocation, but a necessary calling to the ministry for a specific purpose, carrying duties and requiring giftings, with rewards and punishments, far different than any other in the body of Christ. Does the Holy Spirit “speak” in some way to those he has particularly chosen for the ministry? (One might ask at the same time that if the Holy Spirit effectually calls believers to life in Christ does he in some way speak to them?)

Another question is that if there is no calling to the pastorate, why is there greater accountability? If it is the Spirit who makes one to be an overseer, I can understand there being such heightened account, but if it is just a matter of one’s personal itch to become an overseer, then the accountability angle would seem to be no greater than becoming a baker. Is there no sense in Scripture that this is no ordinary occupation? Is there is no room for God’s moving in the heart of a man to seek such a calling? The problem I see with diminution of the call is the fact that it really undermines the fact that there is particularity in the church as far as hierarchical structure and governance is concerned. The church and her structure is not merely a matter of man’s conventional wisdom drawn from a best guess of Scriptural admonition, but a sacredness imposed upon it by God. It is not just another coterie, is it? It is after all the bride of Christ and her groomsmen we are speaking about, is it not? It seems a little bit of a betrayal to think of her being manhandled rather than groomed.

If there is no sense in which the Holy Spirit makes one an overseer, and in that sense calls one to be an overseer in such a way that one knows, then much of the Scripture’s call to heightened responsibility and soundness flies out the window along with the need to submit to such leaders -for after all they are not truly set apart and above, but are merely self-selected rulers. I could understand the part-time life of those who abandon ministry for another occupation if there is no sacredness, no sense in which the Holy Spirit particularly calls one out from the many. I can’t understand why any would leave the general workforce, however, to embark on a passionless quest if there is not. Are there not those things in which a pastor is called to be different from that of the common lot’s occupations? I mean, forsaking all, not getting hung up with domesticity, et cetera? Is it really just your best life now which drives a person to seek the eldership? Some self-imposed sense of higher moral duty? Is the passion for ministry just a fancy? Let’s hope that our pastors feel, and know that they are called. Otherwise, I am afraid when they see the wolf coming they will flee and sacrifice the sheep rather than their careers. What trust can be found in someone who has no greater responsibility for your soul than you do? Would you trust the helm knowing that the captain might jump ship in the middle of the storm?

The following is from Calvin on Acts 20

Take heed, therefore. He now applies his speech to them, and by many reasons shows that they must watch diligently, and that he is not so careful but because necessity does so require. The first reason is, because they are bound to the flock over which they are set. The second, because they were called to this function not by mortal man, but by the Holy Ghost. The third, because it is no small honor to govern the Church of God. The fourth, because the Lord did declare by an evident testimony what account he makes of the Church, seeing that he has redeemed it with his blood. As touching the first, he not only commands them to take heed to the flock, but first to themselves. For that man will never be careful for the salvation of other men who will neglect his own. And in vain shall that man prick forward others to live godly, who will himself show no desire of godliness. Yea, that man will not take pains with his flock who forgets himself, seeing he is a part of the flock. Therefore, to the end they may be careful for the flock committed to them, Paul commands and warns that every one of them keep himself in the fear of God. For by this means it should come to pass, that every one should be as faithful towards his flock as he ought. For we said that Paul reasons from their calling, that they be bound to take pains in the Church of God, whereof they have the government. As if he should say, that they may not do whatsoever they like best, neither are they free after they be made pastors, but they be bound publicly to all the flock.

The Holy Ghost has made you overseers. By the very word he puts them in mind, that they have been placed, as it were, in a watchtower, that they may watch for the common safety of all men. But Paul stands principally upon this, that they were not appointed by men, but the charge of the Church was committed to them by God. For which cause they must be the more diligent and careful, because they must give a straight account before that high seat of judgment. For the more excellent the dignity of that Lord and Master whom we serve is, the more reverence do we give him naturally, and the reverence itself sharpens our study and diligence. Moreover, though the Lord would have ministers of the word chosen from the beginning by the voices [suffrages] of men, yet he always challenges the government of the Church to himself, not only to the end we may acknowledge him to be the only governor thereof, but also know that the incomparable treasure of salvation comes from him alone. For he is robbed of his glory if we think that the gospel is brought unto us, either by chance or by the will of men, or their industry. But this Paul attributes peculiarly to the Spirit, by whom God governs his Church, and who is to every man a secret witness of his calling in his own conscience.

And from Ephesians 4

And he gave. The government of the church, by the preaching of the word, is first of all declared to be no human contrivance, but a most sacred ordinance of Christ. The apostles did not appoint themselves, but were chosen by Christ; and, at the present day, true pastors do not rashly thrust themselves forward by their own judgment, but are raised up by the Lord. In short, the government of the church, by the ministry of the word, is not a contrivance of men, but an appointment made by the Son of God. As his own unalterable law, it demands our assent. They who reject or despise this ministry offer insult and rebellion to Christ its Author. It is himself who gave them; for, if he does not raise them up, there will be none. Another inference is, that no man will be fit or qualified for so distinguished an office who has not been formed and moulded by the hand of Christ himself. To Christ we owe it that we have ministers of the gospel, that they abound in necessary qualifications, that they execute the trust committed to them. All, all is his gift.

As I put in parenthesis above, if we are called effectually by the Holy Spirit to believe the Gospel and that is not some form of mysticism but an actual knowing that one is saved, why is it not the province of the Holy Spirit to specially call some to be pastors? Or as Calvin believed, callings are yet gifts actually, not merely theoretically given as interpreted text. Beside, I am confused about what DJP thinks is subjective, or what he means by subjective. Salvation is subjective with an objective truth value. Without the subjective account it simply doesn’t exist in any in any meaningful way. Likewise, the call to be a pastor cannot in any meaningful way exist if not both subjectively and objectively realized. Experiential, that is subjective Christian experience, is a necessary reality in Scripture. The Holy Spirit testifies to our spirits and that conforms to the facts as they are written so that we know not merely externally, but internally, that we are the children of God. Seeing that, as Calvin notes, the calling to pastor is no less the work of God, and no less important for the establishing of the believer in the faith, we should expect that some will confess that they know they have been called. Like the calling to salvation, we don’t question the possibility of such a reality in the confessing believer. We apply Scripture to test the spirits, most assuredly, but we must accept that such a reality exists, or we have no hope of salvation at all for it is the hope that is within us to which we testify. Neither can we, if indeed the church is, deny that in some who are called to be elders such knowledge exists. How it becomes in a man: The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will (Proverbs 21:1 ESV). The church was constituted specially and each part was appointed by God, or it isn’t the body of Christ.

As Calvin says, to deny such a calling is to deny the very work of Christ for his blood bought bride. The pastorate is a very terrible calling, one which no man willingly takes upon himself out of fleshly desire. To the contrary, what makes this calling special is that another girds the pastor about and takes him where he would not will to go if it were up to him.

The Call to the Ministry « Reformed Baptist Fellowship

SBC Today Continues Attack On Calvinism | On The Other Hand Ron Hale Ought To Read All Of John Calvin On Who The Whosoever And World Are

John Calvin in his own words, Article 3: John 3:16 | SBC Today.

John Calvin wrote a lot of words. When he did he was mindful of other things that he had written. Contrary to Hale’s assertion, Calvin didn’t import his philosophy into the text instead of proper exegesis, he drew from other works of his in which he had commented where he clearly draws from Scriptures everywhere those things which attach themselves to the subject at hand. For instance, where Hale neglects Calvin’s work on John 1, Calvin writes:

This is what Paul says, that the destruction of one nation was the life of the whole world, (Romans 11:12;) for the Gospel, which might be said to have been banished from them, began to be spread far and wide throughout the whole world. They were thus deprived of the privilege which they enjoyed above others. But their impiety was no obstruction to Christ; for he erected elsewhere the throne of his kingdom, and called indiscriminately to the hope of salvation all nations which formerly appeared to have been rejected by God.

You can begin to get a taste for what Calvin means by world, then. This broad category is further refined by what he says about who the whosoever are who believe.

Commentary on John – Volume 2 – Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

Calvin’s commentary on John 3 is not isolated from his commentary on John 12, neither is it isolated from his commentary on the other Gospels:

Similar reasoning may be applied to the passage in John, (12:38;) for he says that many believed not, because no man believes, except he to whom God reveals his arm, and immediately adds, that they could not believe, because it is again written, Blind the heart of this people. Such, too is the object which Christ has in view, when he ascribes it to the secret purpose of God, that the truth of the Gospel is not revealed indiscriminately to all, but is exhibited at a distance under obscure forms, so as to have no other effect than to overspread the minds of the people with grosser darkness. In all cases, I admit, those whom God blinds will be found to deserve this condemnation; but as the immediate cause is not always obvious in the persons of men, let it be held as a fixed principle, that God enlightens to salvation, and that by a peculiar gift, those whom He has freely chosen; and that all the reprobate are deprived of the light of life, whether God withholds his word from them, or keeps their eyes and ears closed, that they do not hear or see.

via Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke – Volume 2 – Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

Calvin restricts the meaning of both world and whosoever. He is acutely aware that among the Jews, as well as among those in the rest of the world, there are those to whom the Lord reveals himself and those to whom he doesn’t. The first division of the category world is the elect. The second is the reprobate. Calvin fully believes that whosoever believes will be saved, and that the Gospel is promiscuously preached to the whole world (which we must recognize is not every person who has or will ever live) so that the elect are revealed as the sons of God. He also recognizes what Hale fails to see. The Gospel itself is sent so that those who will not believe are hardened in their unbelief. Calvin makes a further division in the sub-category of unbelievers which includes those who have heard or will hear the Gospel and those who never did, or never will.

Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”

The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” (John 10:25-38 ESV)

You can see how in this one Scripture Jesus is testifying that there are his sheep and that there are those who are not. Those who are were given him, they can hear, John 12. Those who are not given to him, not being his sheep, cannot hear. Not only that, but they are hardened by the testimony that God has a chosen people and has sent a savior for them alone. Not only do they disbelieve Jesus they further that testimony in seeking to have him arrested and murdered. Jesus testifies that what he has said about the opening of eyes and the closing of them was the work of the Father. He condemns those who cannot see him and the Father who sent him. At the same time he reminds his disciples that their eyes were blessed so as to see what the outsiders, the non-sheep, cannot. The hardening effect is abundantly testified to by Calvin and he does so by Scripture, not philosophy. It is Jesus who says that the Gospel separates those who will believe from those who won’t, and it is he who fixes the cause in that it was God who blinds, and makes deaf and dulls the understanding so that some of those in the broader category of the world will never believe even though they have the Gospel preached to them.

How does God so love the world? By saving some, not all. How does he save some and not others? By opening the eyes of the blind and blinding the eyes of those who are blind though they say they see. Those who are not of the elect saw him as a blasphemer, they did not see him in the way that Jesus commended Peter for- You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Who was it that revealed that to Peter? It was not the words preached by man, not even the Son, but the Father, Jesus said. It is the Father who does this by the Spirit, John 3:3. But it is only for those who have been given to Jesus, who are from above, not below, born of the Spirit of God and not by the freewill choice, Calvin confirms, of man, John 1:13. Who is Jesus sent to so as to save the world? Whosoever believes. And they are those alone who God has graciously opened the eyes and ears of their understanding. Calvin without doubt declares that regeneration precedes faith. He does so on the account of Jesus words from John 1,3,10,12, et cetera, and also from other Scriptures which declare that it is the Spirit, which reveals the arm of the Lord, and that to only some, not others.

And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:
“‘“You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.”
For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’ (Matthew 13:11-15 ESV),

You can see that the category world includes the two sub-categories: those who are gifted and those who are not. And more, that those who are not gifted, even what they have is taken away. We cannot neglect this in Calvin’s interpretation of John 3:16, as this juxtaposition is also found in John 12. Let’s stop for a second… John 3:3 is not unconnected to John 12, either, and the synoptics declarations of the same thing. Unless one is born again he neither has the eyes, nor the ears, nor the understanding of those things to which faith must cling, e.g, the things of the kingdom of heaven. Those things and the ability to believe in them all are, as Jesus, not John Calvin, said, a gift from the Father. It is a gift, Jesus, not John Calvin, said, and is not given to all, but to save the world is it given to whosover by that gift believes.

Choosing Sides Or Being Chosen To Take A Side | Ending The SBC Wars

Choosing Sides | SBC Voices.

Max (August 13, 2012 at 3:51 pm) as SBC Voices said,

When it comes to the current theological debate in SBC ranks, it’s increasingly clear that both sides can’t be right. But it could be that both sides might be wrong. In such case, the Scripture cited by David Rogers would be appropriate: “Joshua looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand,” and asked him, “Are you for us or for our enemies?” and he replied “Neither, but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.” (Joshua 5:13-14)

There is a vivid example of the Lord taking sides as recorded in Ezekiel 9. Only those who escaped His “slaughter weapon” were those “that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.” When the Lord decides to put an end to the SBC war of words, it would be best to be in the ranks of those who carry a burden for the lost that we’ve been called to reach.

Actually, that wouldn’t be right at all, unless Joshua wasn’t fighting against the enemies of the Lord of Hosts. But, he was. The negative answer isn’t neither, but “no, you’re either on my side or against me.” As Rogers notes we see this again out of the mouth of the Lord of Hosts in the NT. As Matthew Henry says: “Christ’s sword drawn in his hand, denotes how ready he is for the defence and salvation of his people. His sword turns every way. Joshua will know whether he is a friend or a foe. The cause between the Israelites and Canaanites, between Christ and Beelzebub, will not admit of any man’s refusing to take one part or the other, as he may do in worldly contests. Joshua’s inquiry shows an earnest desire to know the will of Christ, and a cheerful readiness and resolution to do it. All true Christians must fight under Christ’s banner, and they will conquer by his presence and assistance.”

The quintessential, perennial problem with the SBC wars is the kind of extra-biblical inference that David Rogers made. It is imposed upon the Scripture rather than taken from it. The entire context argues against his interpretation.

In Corinthians, Paul is not saying that we shouldn’t take sides with Christ, exactly the opposite. Paul’s admonition is not that it is wrong for one to say he is of Christ, that would be foolish. And, that would divide Paul against himself. For Paul said there is no other foundation but Jesus Christ. So, to the contrary, there is a party which one must belong to and others that one must not. It is neither, Paul nor Apollos, Peter or any other, but Christ, for he is not divided.

Paul further reminds the teachers of this, that there is one truth and not many. All who teach not according to that truth destroy the temple. All have received the same truth and all should follow Paul’s example and not go beyond what is written. If Paul is incorrect in what he teaches, the rest of Corinthians is a sham. In fact, all that Paul writes is a sham. He finds himself in need of being rejected if he were to teach another Gospel than what Christ had delivered to him. And he instructs his readers in that very thing.

The question is, is the Gospel contained only in the evangel, or is it the entire corpus of the faith once and for all delivered to the saints? Did Jesus only send his Holy Spirit to lead us in to some truth, or all that Jesus taught, OT and NT? What Paul teaches in Corinthians and elsewhere goes far beyond the evangel. All he teaches is meant to be adhered to for the very reason that any deviations from it leads to the divisions found in Corinthians. There is no triage of primary, secondary or tertiary doctrines according to Paul’s Gospel.

Here is the issue: There can be only one truth. Want to end the SBC wars, or any divisions in a church? Either declare that yours is the truth and all others are false and the teachers of them false teachers, or admit that you don’t know what the truth is. Clarity in doctrinal teaching will admonish, convict and convert, or it will drive away those who are not of us:

Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge. I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that he made to us—eternal life. I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him. (1 John 2:18-27 ESV)

John, obviously, did not think that the truth in Jesus Christ was just the evangel. The scope of the teaching which is the truth and not a lie is about everything. It is not a shame to admit that you might be wrong. It is a shame and condemnable to lead others to believe that your opinions which may be wrong are doctrine. In the latter case Paul is clear, you are to remain silent, for all that you teach which has not been proven to be the truth is nothing more than vain babble and arguing over words which do not profit. What is not truth, and proven such, is only destructive to the hearers.

Such worthless words Jesus held is the highest contempt as words which do not work and for which he said that such as teach them would be judged severely. For those who hold to truth and pursue it, eternal life, to those who hold to opinions of men and teach them, there is eternal condemnation. His warning is in connection to blasphemy. What higher blasphemy is there to claim that what one teaches is the truth when it is not and thereby makes the Holy Spirit unclean? Let God be true and everyman a liar and let it be that when you speak you speak as an oracle of God. Remain silent, and even though you might be considered a fool, you are far wiser than the wisest man who opens his mouth and reveals foolish things. Be sure then that what you teach is truth if you say that it is what Scripture teaches. For that one Holy Spirit is the one who according to Peter spoke through men of old as he carried them to write such. It is that same Spirit, John said, which now abides in you to teach you the truth about what the Scripture means. Don’t make Him a liar by making Him say what he did not.

Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.” Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house. Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matthew 12:22-37 ESV)

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:16-21 ESV)

What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
(1 Corinthians 1:12-13 ESV)

Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple. Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,” and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s. (1 Corinthians 3:16-23 ESV)

This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found faithful. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God. I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it? (1 Corinthians 4:1-7 ESV)

Paul and Peter understood the critical duty of being faithful stewards of the word of God. The admonitions of the Lord were there with them each time they spoke. By their words they would be judged in the Day. The danger is real and deadly, that those who upon pretense feign to speak in the Lord’s name yet bring bad fruit forth are making the Holy Spirit out to be unfaithful to the promises of God.

Paul said that it was God who made believers to be in Christ. There is no other way to get there. Some have taken it upon themselves to make Christ accessible by another means. In doing so they make Paul who spoke by the Spirit to be unfaithful to his charge. Even to the extent that they have not waited until the Day, as he said they should. That Day will expose every man’s words to the fire. It is not enough, it seems, that Paul doesn’t allow for error and men violate his teaching, but men even make Jesus to be a liar when he has said that every word which is unworkable will be brought into judgement.

The fact is that Paul didn’t say that we shouldn’t call ourselves of Christ. He is not an option, he is the only party where in life is found. We either believe and teach what he taught or we teach against him. His strict warning is to those who teach error. Error is destructive to the foundation. It is both wrong to build upon sand and to build upon rock with corruption. Both lead to death. Many think that peripheral teaching, secondary and tertiary doctrines, those things built upon the foundation, are not important. However, Paul says that those things which are added to the foundation which men teach do indeed seek to undermine the first and establish another foundation. They deny Christ and set themselves up in his place, as John would say, they are antichrists.

The apostles connected false teaching to the judgement Day. There is a way, Paul concludes, which insures that what is taught is of the proper materials. Peter and John conclude the same. Timothy was instructed along with Titus to keep themselves and their doctrine pure, teaching only that which accords with sound doctrine. In todays church, there is a liberty which is taken which Scripture does not allow. That is to build with whatever is at hand without having put it to the fire to assay its purity. You see, if you put wood, hay and stubble to the test before it is taught, it will not come into judgement. This was Paul’s way, to test everything establishing its worthiness before adding it to God’s temple.

What a simple thing it is to teach only what you know is truth, yet men go beyond that, even so far as to grant themselves what God has not, the freedom to decide for themselves what is true.

Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. (1 Timothy 4:16 ESV)

David Allen: Hypocrisy Or Incompetence? | SBC Today

“A Selective Review of Whomever He Wills – Part 1” | SBC Today.

Though each of the statements quoted above range in my estimation from moderately problematic to egregious, taken together they seem to indicate something of a mindset concerning how the authors of the introduction in WHW view those who disagree with them. We should all remember that in one sense a way of seeing is a way of not seeing. We all come to the table with a certain grid through which we filter and interpret things. We think that our interpretation is the correct one; otherwise we would not hold it. But when we express ourselves in language that identifies our view with Scripture and the other guy’s view with “attacking” a Scriptural doctrine or when we give the appearance that we could not possibly be mistaken in our view and thus have to lovingly help or monish the errant one to see the error of his ways, we have moved beyond the boundary of suasion and have foreclosed on the discussion at the outset. At issue is the correct interpretation of texts, yes; but it would be helpful if we did not speak or write in such a way that tends to place our counterparts in the discussion on the defensive by assuming or overtly claiming the biblical and hermeneutical high ground. This appears to me to be especially important in an introduction to any work since the introduction usually serves to set the tone for the discussion.

The hypocrite speaks. Did Allen even read Neither Calvinists nor Arminians but Baptists? His name is on it.

Here’s their assertion of their claim to the high ground:

… in light of our own priorities. First, we do not believe that Dortian Calvinism properly represents the gospel of Jesus Christ in its simplicity and profundity according to the Bible. We are uncomfortable with Dortian Calvinism because we believe its rigid structure is imposed upon Scripture and that it does not allow Scripture to form theology. As philosopher Steve Lemke queried about the Calvinist belief in irresistible grace, “Is Scripture being shaped to make it agree with one’s theological system, or is one’s theological system being shaped according to Scripture?” (127). Malcolm Yarnell was similarly concerned that an exemplary Reformed theologian’s methodological approaches to Scripture “reflect a thoroughgoing rationalism that is prior to and formative for his treatment of Scripture” (The Formation of Christian Doctrine, 50).

Second, we are not Calvinists because we do not believe certain Calvinist doctrines can be found in a gospel-ruled, canonical reading of Scripture. This is why the authors of Whosoever Will repeatedly refer to the plain sense of scriptural passages according to the grammatical and historical context. From the detailed expository approach to John 3:16 by Jerry Vines (Whosoever Will, ch. 1), to the commonsense contextual reading of Ephesians 2:1ff by Paige Patterson (ch. 2), to the canonical approach to defining biblical language utilized by both David Allen (78–83) and Steve Lemke (117–29), the authors repeatedly demonstrate a necessary return to Scripture. Scripture is sufficient for the substance and structure of our preaching, and though we seek to address those living in contemporary cultural contexts, we call our listeners to begin with hearing the Bible in its own context and end with contemporary personal submission to that Word. As a result, most of us are convinced, against Dortian Calvinism, that Scripture does not teach that man is totally unable to respond to the call of God to believe, or that grace does violence to the human will, or that Jesus Christ’s death failed to propitiate for the sins of “the whole world” (1 John 2:2).

Third, we are not Calvinists because we are genuinely concerned about the impact of Dortian Calvinism upon evangelism. As David Allen asserted, “Christians must evangelize because God wills all men to be saved and has made atonement for all men, thus removing the legal barriers that necessitate their condemnation” (97). How could God offer salvation to all people with integrity if Jesus did not die for all (2 Corinthians 5:20)? Since the Calvinist doctrine of limited or particular atonement “provides an insufficient motive for evangelism by undercutting the well-meant gospel offer” by God to all men, as well as by us to all men, Southern Baptists should reject five-point Calvinism (107). We decry the efforts of Calvinist professors of limited atonement who argue the evangelistic altar call is unbiblical or that it somehow represents an attempt by those who deliver altar calls to “manipulate the sovereignty of God” (101). We are motivated to offer the gospel to all, and to invite all to respond, even in a public fashion, because Christ died for all.

Moreover, as the evangelistic preacher Jerry Vines argued, the crisis behind our understanding of Christ’s offer of “whosoever will” comes down to the type of God we are worshipping: “It is the design of the sovereign God to make the salvation of all people possible and to secure the salvation of all who believe. What kind of God would not make salvation possible for all?” (25). We do not ask such questions in order to score rhetorical points against our Calvinist Baptist brethren, but because we believe that the God revealed in Scripture is a God who loves all men, desires their salvation, and has made salvation possible for all by Christ’s death for all.

We say such things because we perceive grace when we hear the gospel verbally and enthusiastically offered to all men freely through personal repentance toward God and faith in Christ. With the first Baptist pastor in England, we believe that Christ died for all men. This is a “comfortable doctrine,” because “every poor soul may know that there is salvation for him by Christ and that Christ hath shed His blood for him, that believing in Him he may be saved, and that God wants not the death of him, but that he should repent and live” (Thomas Helwys, A Short and Plain Proof by the Word, 1611). This is our passion: that every sinner, without qualification, may hear the gospel of Jesus Christ, believe in Him and be saved! With regard to this God, who loves all people, we can agree with Roger Olson, who claims that Arminians “are in love with God’s goodness and unwilling to sacrifice that on the altar of divine determinism.”

I repeat Allen’s statement: But when we express ourselves in language that identifies our view with Scripture and the other guy’s view with “attacking” a Scriptural doctrine or when we give the appearance that we could not possibly be mistaken in our view and thus have to lovingly help or monish the errant one to see the error of his ways, we have moved beyond the boundary of suasion and have foreclosed on the discussion at the outset.

Here is Allen in summation. He’s convinced he is right but he is also convinced that he might be wrong. On the other hand, he condemns those who say they are right and are convinced of it and so say others are wrong. Duplicitously, Allen says that one should not make statements that rule out the other’s position peremptorily, and then makes statements that peremptorily rule out the other’s position. Further, he agrees with the White Paper that his position is the Scriptural position then condemns those who would assign their position to the Scriptural meaning. Allen would say he doesn’t identify his meanings with Scripture, but just what does it mean, then, to say that one holds a Scriptural meaning?

Allen is either absolutely blind to his prejudice blinding him to his hypocrisy, or, the man is utterly incompetent. He hates the fact that Calvinists claim that Calvinism is the Gospel. But, we must ask, what does Allen think of what he believes? That it is not the Gospel? Of course not, he believes it is. Just read the White Paper. As one of its co-authors, he said that what he believes, being convinced by Scripture, that it is what Scripture teaches as touching the Gospel. To say that he doesn’t believe his non-labeled theology is the Gospel, is a lie. To condemn others for doing what he is doing is hypocrisy.

The entire premise of those who want no labels attached to them is that their beliefs are what Scripture teaches. More than that, they believe that no other teaching should be taught for the very reason that they believe it to be destructive to the Gospel commission. In short, it is anti-Gospel to be a Calvinist. To the end, and to a man, they desire to destroy anything that contradicts them. The only alternative to such a conclusion is that Allen and his ilk are ignorant of the fact that they are wasting their time if their non-labelism is not the Gospel. If these matters are not of the utmost importance, (they think they are), if these matters are not the Gospel, but matters in dispute for which there is no doctrinal, final resolution, they are engaged in vain babble, violating the very Scripture that they claim to represent.

They do claim to represent Scripture’s Gospel, don’t they?

Or do they?

When speaking out of both sides of the mouth the obvious is not obliterated as Allen has attempted to do. Rather, it is spot-lighted. Allen paints those who disagree with him as false teachers, preaching a false Gospel, as arrogant in claiming their’s is the Gospel. Yet, he takes umbrage that others do the same. He claims that what he believes is the very teaching of Scripture as the Gospel, or he wouldn’t be in this fight. At the same time he is appalled at those who do what he does.

With people like Allen there is no real way forward. Their appeal for peace, irenicism, and unity is pretense to gain an audience. His intentional derogation of his is enemies is clear. He fools only his own.

What good is the pursuit of teaching or opposing teaching when the matters at hand cannot be proven true or false, anyway? It is a waste of time which engenders disputes and causes divisions needlessly. However, if the respective sides in the debate truly are convicted that theirs is the truth, as Allen asserts his is, they need to openly denounce the other and quit hiding behind the coy defense of feigned humility as Allen does. What Allen wants is the destruction of the Doctrines of Grace, not their acceptance as equals to his own non-labelism, no matter how much he says he is not. He wants his beliefs to dominate, no accommodate, to rule the SBC without challenge.

The other side likewise must advance their cause, not in the pursuit of unity, for that can never be where there is no doctrinal agreement, but with the affirmed conviction that error must be rooted out and truth secured for the preservation of the faith once and for all delivered to the saints.

Otherwise both sides are fools who plow and plant, wet and weed, never intending to harvest.

Biblical Doctrine Of Reprobation | SBC Today’s Traditionalist Ron Hale Overthrows Scripture

Ron Hale is another anti-Calvinist whose doctrine runs into its own contradictions.

Reprobation is the clear and unequivocal teaching of Scripture.

Proof from Scripture

This is admittedly an unpleasant doctrine. It is not taught to gain favor with men, but only because it is the plain teaching of the Scriptures and the logical counterpart of the doctrine of Election. We shall find that some Scripture passages do teach the doctrine with unmistakable clearness. These should be sufficient for any one who accepts the Bible as the word of God. “Jehovah hath made everything for its own end; Yea, even the wicked for the day of evil,” Prov. 16:4. Christ is said to be to the wicked, “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence; for they stumble at the word, being disobedient; whereunto also they were appointed,” I Peter 2:8. “For there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old written of beforehand to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ,” Jude 4. “But these, as creatures without reason, born mere animals to be taken and destroyed, railing in matters whereof they are ignorant, shall in their destroying surely be destroyed,” II Peter 2:12. “For God did put in their heart to do His mind, and to come to one mind, and to give their kingdom unto the beast, until the word of God should be accomplished,” Rev. 17:17. Concerning the beast of St. John’s vision it is said, “All that dwell on the earth shall worship him, every one whose name hath not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the lamb that hath been slain,” Rev. 13:8; and we may contrast these with the disciples whom Jesus told to rejoice because their names were written in heaven (Luke 10:20), and with Paul’s fellow-workers, “whose names are in the book of life,” Phil. 4:3.

Paul declares that the “vessels of wrath” which by the Lord were “fitted unto destruction,” were “endured with much long suffering” in order that He might “show His wrath, and make His power known”; and with these are contrasted the “vessels of mercy, which He afore prepared unto glory” in order “that He might make known the riches of His glory” upon them (Rom. 9:22, 23). Concerning the heathen it is said that “God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting,” Rom. 1:28; and the wicked, “after his hardness and impenitent heart treasures up for himself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,” Rom. 2:5.

In regard to those who perish Paul says, “God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie,” II Thess. 2:11. They are called upon to behold these things in an external way, to wonder at them, and to go on perishing in their sins. Hear the words of Paul in the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia: “Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish; For I work a work in your days, A work which ye shall in no wise believe, if one declare it unto you,” Acts 13:41.

The apostle John, after narrating that the people still disbelieved although Jesus had done so many signs before them, adds, “For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and He hardened their heart; Lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, And should turn, And I should heal them,” John 12:39, 40.
Christ’s command to the wicked in the final judgment, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the Devil and his angels,” Matt. 25:41, is the strongest possible decree of reprobation; and it is the same in principle whether issued in time or eternity. What is right for God to do in time it is not wrong for Him to include in His eternal plan.

On one occasion Jesus Himself declared: “For judgment came I into this world, that they that see not may see; and that they that see may become blind,” John 9:39. On another occasion He said, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes,” Matt. 11:25. It is hard for us to realize that the adorable Redeemer and only Savior of men is, to some, a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence; yet that is what the Scriptures declare Him to be. Even before His birth it was said that He was set (that is, appointed) for the falling, as well as for the rising, of many in Israel (Luke 2:84). And when, in His intercessory prayer in the garden of Gethsemane, He said, “I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me,” the non-elect were repudiated in so many words.

Jesus Himself declared that one of the reasons why He spoke in parables was that the truth might be concealed from those for whom it was not intended. We shall let the sacred history speak for itself: “And the disciples came, and said unto Him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? And He answered and said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but unto them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath. Therefore speak I unto them in parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And unto them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith,

“By hearing ye shall hear, and shall in no wise understand; And seeing ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive; For this people’s heart is waxed gross. And their ears are dull of hearing. And their eyes they have closed; Lest haply they should perceive with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And should turn again, And I should heal them.” Matt. 13:10-15; Is. 6:9, 10.

In these words we have an application of Jesus’ words, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine,” Matt. 7:6. He who affirms that Christ designed to give His saving truth to every one flatly contradicts Christ Himself. To the non-elect, the Bible is a sealed book; and only to the true Christian is it “given” to see and understand these things. So important is this truth that the Holy Spirit has been pleased to repeat six times over in the New Testament this passage from Isaiah (Matt. 13:14, 15; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10; John 12:40; Acts 28:27: Rom. 11:9, 10). Paul tells us that through grace the “election” received salvation, and that the rest were hardened; then he adds, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear.” And further, he quotes the words of David to the same effect:

“Let their table be made a snare and a trap, And a stumbling block, and a recompense unto them; Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, And bow down their backs always,” Rom. 11:8-10.

Hence as regards some, the evangelical proclamations were designed to harden, and not to heal.

This same doctrine finds expression in numerous other parts of Scripture. Moses said to the children of Israel, “But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let you pass by him; for Jehovah thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that He might deliver him into thy hand, as at this day,” Deut. 2:30. In regard to the Canaanitish tribes who came against Joshua it is written, “For it was of Jehovah to harden their hearts, to come against Israel in battle, that He might utterly destroy them, as Jehovah commanded Moses.” Joshua 11:20. Hophni and Phinehas, the sons of Eli, when reproved for their wickedness, “hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because Jehovah was minded to slay them,” I Sam. 2:25. Though Pharaoh acted very arrogantly and wickedly toward the Israelites, Paul assigns no other reason than that he was one of the reprobate whose evil actions were to be overruled for good: “For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth,” Rom. 9:17 (see also Ex. 9:16). In all the reprobate there is a blindness and an obstinate hardness of heart; and when any, like Pharaoh, are said to have been hardened of God we may be sure that they were already in themselves worthy of being delivered over to Satan. The hearts of the wicked are, of course, never hardened by the direct influence of God, — He simply permits some men to follow out the evil impulses which are already in their hearts, so that, as a result of their own choices, they become more and more calloused and obstinate. And while it is said, for instance, that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, it is also said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex. 8:15; 8:32; 9:34). One description is given from the divine viewpoint, the other is given from the human viewpoint. God is ultimately responsible for the hardening of the heart in that He permits it to occur, and the inspired writer in graphic language simply says that God does it; but never are we to understand that God is the immediate and efficient cause.

Although this doctrine is harsh, it is, nevertheless, Scriptural. And since it is so plainly taught in Scripture, we can assign no reason for the opposition which it has met other than the pure ignorance and unreasoned prejudice with which men’s minds have been filled when they come to study it. How applicable here are the words of Rice: —

Happily would it be for the Church of Christ and for the world, if Christian ministers and Christian people could be contented to be disciples, — LEARNERS; if, conscious of their limited faculties, their ignorance of divine things, and their proneness to err through depravity and prejudice, they could be induced to sit at the feet of Jesus and learn of Him. The Church has been corrupted and cursed in almost every age by the undue confidence of men in their reasoning powers. They have undertaken to pronounce upon the reasonableness or unreasonableness of doctrines infinitely above their reason, which are necessarily matters of pure revelation. In their presumption they have sought to comprehend ‘the deep things of God,’ and have interpreted the Scriptures, not according to their obvious meaning, but according to the decisions of the finite reason.

And again he says,

No one ever studied the works of Nature or the Book of Revelation without finding himself encompassed on every side by difficulties he could not solve. The philosopher is obliged to be satisfied with facts; and the theologian must content himself with God’s declarations.⁷

Strange to say many of those who insist that when people come to study the doctrine of the Trinity they should put aside all preconceived notions and should not rely simply upon the unaided human reason to decide what can or cannot be true of God, and who insist that the Scriptures should be accepted here as the unquestioned and authoritative guide, are not willing to follow those rules in the study of the doctrine of Predestination.

Another article you should read concerns the result of taking positions that eviscerate God’s knowledge of futurity. Without election and its complimentary doctrine of reprobation one is left with a unknowing God.

The Scripture proofs above leave no doubt that God not only knows all future events, he predestined them. Short of that, the SBC Traditionalists substitute human reason and tradition in the place of Scripture.

A Critique of Calvinism Is Just Another Attack On Calvinism | SBC Today

A Biblical Critique of Calvinism Part 2a: Old Testament Scriptures Teaching the Optional Nature of the Gospel Invitation | SBC Today.

There is so much wrong with Dr. Michael A. Cox’s piece I could go on for ten thousand words, so I will only touch upon a couple of the egregious errors.

In Lam 3:33 Jeremiah says:

For the Lord will not cast off forever, but, though he cause grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love; for he does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men. To crush underfoot all the prisoners of the earth, to deny a man justice in the presence of the Most High, to subvert a man in his lawsuit, the Lord does not approve.

Cox failed to notice the parameter by which God does not afflict willingly… so as to crush, deny justice, subvert… these are things of which… the Lord does not approve.

But God does willingly afflict to discipline and bring a man to repentance. So Elihu says:

Behold, in this you are not right. I will answer you, for God is greater than man. Why do you contend against him, saying, ‘He will answer none of man’s words’? For God speaks in one way, and in two, though man does not perceive it.

In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falls on men, while they slumber on their beds, then he opens the ears of men and terrifies them with warnings, that he may turn man aside from his deed and conceal pride from a man;
he keeps back his soul from the pit, his life from perishing by the sword.

Man is also rebuked with pain on his bed and with continual strife in his bones, so that his life loathes bread, and his appetite the choicest food. His flesh is so wasted away that it cannot be seen, and his bones that were not seen stick out. His soul draws near the pit, and his life to those who bring death.

If there be for him an angel, a mediator, one of the thousand, to declare to man what is right for him, and he is merciful to him, and says, ‘Deliver him from going down into the pit; I have found a ransom; let his flesh become fresh with youth; let him return to the days of his youthful vigor’; then man prays to God, and he accepts him; he sees his face with a shout of joy, and he restores to man his righteousness.

He sings before men and says: ‘I sinned and perverted what was right, and it was not repaid to me. He has redeemed my soul from going down into the pit, and my life shall look upon the light.’

Behold, God does all these things, twice, three times, with a man, to bring back his soul from the pit, that he may be lighted with the light of life.

Pay attention, O Job, listen to me; be silent, and I will speak. If you have any words, answer me; speak, for I desire to justify you. If not, listen to me; be silent, and I will teach you wisdom.”(Job 33:12-33 ESV)

And notice, it is after mercy has been shown that man prays the prayer of repentance. God in mercy had rebuked Job’s sin, revealed himself to Job, and only then does he make the confession of faith that he had only heard of God but now saw him as he was. We all know this. We all have experienced the opening of our eyes to the Holiness of God displayed and our sin exposed before we pray, so that we know of his mercy granted before we do anything. It is precisely in his mercy in which he shows himself to some, for when he does, they always repent. Beside, we have the testimony of Hebrews 12 that we are scourged by our Father for our good. If we are not disciplined, we are not sons. We have the testimony of Thomas and of all the apostles. Especially in the salvation of Paul do we see that Paul doesn’t know who it is that speaks until Christ reveals himself. Only then, and in every case it is the same, do men repent when given the salvific knowledge of the God who saves. And they always do.

No, God does not willy-nilly abuse, or for some arbitrary sensual pleasure afflict man. He does so out of justice and mercy, willingly. For the saints, it because he is unwilling that any should perish but that all would come to repentance. We see this in Jeremiah. In fact the whole of the OT’s design it is God’s kindness that through judgement there is mercy which leads to repentance. In Jeremiah only those who pass through judgement are spared. And it is a mercy granted from Eternity as is testified to as Paul’s testimony about the Gospel reserved for those who would believe. Indeed, judgement must precede mercy. Mercy must precede the contrite heart of thankful repentance. As is demonstrated in the Ezekiel quote below, one must be condemned before mercy is bestowed. So what of the little children? Without judgement and condemnation and then mercy, there is no eternal life for them. For the saint it means that God has purposed from Eternity past that through many trials, yes even death of the flesh, we will enter into eternal life. And this is his mercy.

The words of Jeremiah, the son of Hilkiah, one of the priests who were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin, to whom the word of the LORD came in the days of Josiah the son of Amon, king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign. It came also in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, and until the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah, the son of Josiah, king of Judah, until the captivity of Jerusalem in the fifth month.

Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying,

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Then I said, “Ah, Lord GOD! Behold, I do not know how to speak, for I am only a youth.” But the LORD said to me,

“Do not say, ‘I am only a youth’;
for to all to whom I send you, you shall go,
and whatever I command you, you shall speak.
Do not be afraid of them,
for I am with you to deliver you,
declares the LORD.”

Then the LORD put out his hand and touched my mouth. And the LORD said to me,

“Behold, I have put my words in your mouth.
See, I have set you this day over nations and over kingdoms,
to pluck up and to break down,
to destroy and to overthrow,
to build and to plant.”

And the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Jeremiah, what do you see?” And I said, “I see an almond branch.” Then the LORD said to me, “You have seen well, for I am watching over my word to perform it.”
The word of the LORD came to me a second time, saying, “What do you see?” And I said, “I see a boiling pot, facing away from the north.” Then the LORD said to me, “Out of the north disaster shall be let loose upon all the inhabitants of the land. For behold, I am calling all the tribes of the kingdoms of the north, declares the LORD, and they shall come, and every one shall set his throne at the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem, against all its walls all around and against all the cities of Judah. And I will declare my judgments against them, for all their evil in forsaking me. They have made offerings to other gods and worshiped the works of their own hands. But you, dress yourself for work; arise, and say to them everything that I command you. Do not be dismayed by them, lest I dismay you before them. And I, behold, I make you this day a fortified city, an iron pillar, and bronze walls, against the whole land, against the kings of Judah, its officials, its priests, and the people of the land. They will fight against you, but they shall not prevail against you, for I am with you, declares the LORD, to deliver you.”(Jeremiah 1 ESV)

One of the things that cannot be said about Jeremiah is that his life was a choice he made. Neither was his ministry, nor were any other events he would experience, nor were any of the events which had and were about to happen to Israel a matter of their choice.

First we must recognize something of this decline into captivity and subsequent deliverance. It was prophesied by through Moses it would happen, just as Moses’ captivity was foreordained by God through Abraham. Second, we must recognize the similarity between Moses and Jeremiah. They were both called from the womb to be deliverers as Prophets of God. Jeremiah begins with the his own words voicing the word of God to him about his origins. Exodus tells the story of God’s call on Moses from birth. In both cases the afflictions the people of God suffer were according to the decree of his will prophetically spoken.

God’s knowledge of Jeremiah was before he was formed in the womb (we can have confidence that God’s knowledge of each of us is the same). It is a declaration of God’s decreedal purposes which cannot fail, vs 12. The Eternal Word, that is the decree, knows Jeremiah intimately before he is formed, before he curses the day of his birth, before he prophesies, before he ever makes any choices, every day of his life and therefore every word is written in God’s book, as was the case with David who made the same claim about himself being the product of God’s foreordination. Jeremiah’s ministry cannot fail because the prophecies which were spoken before him and those he would speak were the decreedal will of God, the Eternal Word in the heavens which goes forth from the mouth of God and cannot return to him void.

Cox denies this fundamental of the faith, namely that God is omniscient. His omniscience, necessarily derived from his decree, is clearly portrayed in Jeremiah who God had appointed before he was formed to carry out the will of God. God knows because he has foreordained all that will pass including the evil which he will bring upon Israel with all its carnage, rape, pillaging, murder and infanticide.

It is right here in the first chapter. So why did Cox resort to obscurantist tactics by going to Jeremiah 18? There is no doubt that choices will be made. The point of Chapter 1, however, is that it is God who has determined those choices or the prophecies would fail. It is God who is watching over his word to perform it, not man.

Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.(Proverbs 19:21 ESV)

Both plans and purpose are from the same Hebrew root which means to set ones mind to do, to plan or purpose. That is, freewill choice in man always is the result of what God has chosen. It must be that way or the prophetic value of Scripture falls to ashes.

Jonah is another of the clearest examples of how man’s will is never done except that it is God’s will that it is so. Jonah is again, a prophet. And if we have learned anything about prophets it is that their calling came before they were born. Such was the case with Paul by his own testimony. So also John the Baptist, and David, and Jesus himself. The thrones in heaven, as Jesus reminded his disciples, are established by the Father’s own determination, not by any choice a man might make, not even the Son of Man. So he also tells Peter that when he is old he would go where Peter would not will to go. Peter often was that way, saying he would do one thing and being unable to. Only when made to do does Peter do. That sounds familiar, for it is exactly what happened to Jonah.

Jonah is a type of Christ. Yet, he could not have been if it were the case that he might not rise in three days. Try that take on Jesus claim. “As Jonah was three days in the belly of the great fish and might not have raised again, I might not raise again, either.” The types and shadows of the old testament cannot hold any prophetic value if they are not true to the prophecies that they hold. From the first word to Eve that the Seed would crush the serpent’s head, each progressive prophecy unfolds a Word which cannot be broken. Each prophecy building on the prior leads to the final fulfillment. If the chain is broken, so is God’s Word.

Jonah was the reluctant prophet. So was Jeremiah, and Isaiah, and Moses. Jeremiah’s words about his speech are almost an exact match to Moses. Even Isaiah was a man of unclean lips. All three were given by the Spirit’s power the means to speak. And speak they did as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit and not under their own power or will. Their words were not words that they made up, or that they chose to speak, but the testimony is that they could not speak anything other than what God had spoken. God had put his words in Jeremiah’s mouth. Jonah fights his assignment all the way. Again, that is a familiar theme in the testaments to those chosen to be prophets. Jonah, just as Moses ran, runs but cannot do anything other than what God has set before him to do. His story is necessary. It exalts God’s sovereign control over man’s moral responsibility. He has to be tossed overboard for the prophecy to come from the story’s example out of Christ’s mouth. Jesus spoke only as he heard from the Father. Jonah is dragged, eaten and stinking so as to speak, and forced against his will to do the will of God. God caused the storm and prepared the fish, not Jonah. Jonah would rather die drowned in the ocean than fulfill his task. His repentance is forced by the circumstances which swallow him up. Though he would rather die, God ensures his life just as he did with Jeremiah so that the mission of God is fulfilled.

Once humbled into repentance through God’s kindness, broken by God, he reluctantly completes the task. Reluctance is a familiar theme with the prophets it appears, even to the end. For we see Jonah even at last stubbornly not liking what God had done. He was bitter, even. The finale captures one of the themes of the book, God’s sovereign election to salvation of people from the nations, including gentiles. Notice what God says. They are a people who cannot tell their right hand from their left. In other words good from evil. They are, the text says, as much as cattle, not knowing what to choose. God provides the plant and the worm, the comfort and the pain, for Jonah just as he does for all. Jonah can have compassion for such little signs of God’s providence, but is angry that God controls the future state of everyman, even those Jonah loathes.

For some unknown reason these unreasoning people repent. What can be said? A foreigner shows up and preaches repentance and they just acquiesce? They’re pagans who worship their idols, and all the sudden a revelation of their personal condemnation and they see the salvation of God? Somewhere in what is not said is that secret power of the Holy Spirit working upon the hearts of the Ninevites, we must presume. What changes their hearts and minds? Mere words?

This sovereign display of God’s electing love Cox calls God raping people’s wills. And he doesn’t mean in the sense of the term helkuo, the NT word for draw, that it to say, to drag away, to take as ones own possession, which is another definition of rape. He means it in the most disgusting of nuances so as to paint the darkest picture he can of Calvinism. The fact is though, as demonstrated above, Cox is not blaspheming Calvinists, he is blaspheming God. He is also saying that the promises of God can fail making the Holy Spirit a liar.

God’s sovereign election is the story of the OT. How, then, does Cox come up with the idea that it is not? Even in the story of Jonah, we not only have the revelation of the Jews but the understanding that God is electing a people from all nations. We must recall the words of Isaiah to know that even the disobedience of his people is the sovereign work of God:

O LORD, why do you make us wander from your ways
and harden our heart, so that we fear you not?
Return for the sake of your servants,
the tribes of your heritage. (Isaiah 63:17 ESV)

If their disobedience is his work, then what of their obedience:

“Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. And I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you. I will make the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field abundant, that you may never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations. Then you will remember your evil ways, and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves for your iniquities and your abominations. It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord GOD; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel. (Ezekiel 36:22-32 ESV)

Michael A. Cox ‘s Inclusivity Of Scripture Taken Out Of Context | SBC Today

A Biblical Critique of CalvinismPart 1c: The Inclusivity of the Gospel Invitation | SBC Today.

One of the respondents Mike Davis says:

Proof-texts, proof texts. Both sides can proof-text.

And it is plainly possible to reject God’s grace. We must allow no root of bitterness to spring up, cause trouble, and defile because bitterness rots the bones. Bitterness, like sin itself, is contagious. We are herein told to uproot bitterness in our life. When the weed of bitterness rears its ugly head it poisons everyone around it. We must prevent this. Does this verse not demonstrate that God’s grace is both resistible and accessible to all? I believe that it does.

So are you exhorting the unregenerate sinner to overcome their sin nature and root out their own bitterness in order to be able to not resist the gospel? Hmmm…

Moreover, propitiation, in my estimation, is not appeasing an angry God, it is removing the cause for alienation.

Propitiation is a turning aside of God’s holy wrath, a satisfaction of His just anger. It demonstrates that His justice will be satisfied (Romans 3: 25). This is not a Calvinist vs Traditionalist issue.

Calvinists seem to be theoreticians who rarely reflect upon the serious theological and anthropological implications their system of thought necessitates.

Calvinists have been accused of a lot of things but this may be the first time I’ve seen them accused of not being thoughtfully serious. I’m not sure how a statement like that benefits the debate.

To which I will respond here: Actually, Mike, Rick Patrick accused Calvinists of being non-thinkers. It is nothing new among the anti-Calvinists. Cox uses ad hominem to discredit his opponents before they respond. You’re wrong before you respond and they have poisoned the well for all who come from their camp or any who are passing by. But you’re right, Cox has taken Scripture out of their context. He most appropriately fits 2 Peter 2:1, which he is back-handing against Calvinists, who in his estimation, though he would deny making any such accusation, are falsely teach predestination leading their hearers to destruction. Peter more appropriately addresses him, as will be shown. He offers no exegetical work and just proof-texts, as you say, and then after offering his polemical theories has the audacity to accuse others of what he himself has done.

One of the glaring examples of Cox’s failure as a teacher is the failure to take into consideration audience, but more, to consider all of what the Scripture is saying to them. For instance, Cox denies that some are destined. After mentioning 2 Peter 2:1 without its context, he leaves behind what 1 Peter 2 says:

So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation—if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good. As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture:

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”

and

“A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense.”

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. (1 Peter 2:1-12 ESV)

Cox’s disdain is for those who believe that God destines. But here we have Peter rejecting Cox as an example of those in 2 Peter 2:1, as a false teacher bringing in destructive heresy denying that Christ has bought a people for himself. The fact is, as Peter has said, that the chosen stone was sent to crush those for whom it was destined and to provide salvation for those chosen to be living stones. There are those who either directly deny that (Cox) or those who teach other contrary doctrine which leads others to behavior which denies it. The entire passage is about the cornerstone and his chosen generation. Believers are a new creation, a new generation, as Peter says, born again, by promise. Peter is warning against any behavior which would deny the Lord. Peter should know! He was once guilty of the very duplicity. As is clear, Jesus’ generation is the new creation, created to give praise and glorify God as opposed to the world which cannot except by their condemnation on the Day. It is a chosen creation. Believers are of a chosen Seed. Peter begins with the announcement of the promise, according to which some are predestined to life, others he are destined to condemnation. Peter does perfectly echo John 3:16, but also:

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:18 ESV)

The fact is, this is why the Father sent the Son into the world, that the believing ones who are part of the new creation would believe, and by that the world would be saved. It also means that, as Peter is reflecting on the very same, Jesus came to pass judgement on the unbelieving, of which Peter says, they were destined to such as condemned already. Election and predestination is all over Peter’s writings and that is why it so closely parallels John, because John likewise is clear about Jesus coming for his own, and not for the world, John 17. There is no doubt that judging between them comes by the word preached. The believers are sanctified by the word while the precious stone crushes its enemies. That is the point. Jesus tells of Judas, one of those who is predestined to the condemnation that Cox rejects. Though he had the same word preached to him it does not penetrate salvifically because there is nothing in him for it to appeal to as his nature and judgement is fixed by Scriptural revelation, Jesus said. In Cox’s estimation, Judas’ free-will determined God’s plan, but it leaves one without an answer as to how God’s fulfilling Judas’ desires meets the criterion of fulfilling Scripture which is God breathed. Did Judas’ desire his own eternal destruction? Did Satan enter into him by Judas’s desire? Did Jesus know Judas’ was going out to betray him, or not? Just how does prophecy work in Cox’s theories? In Cox’s estimation, Judas is an enemy we should love, because Jesus loved him, because he loved the world so much, even knowing that he was a devil from the beginning. Did the Father so love the world that even Judas’ could change prophecy and make God a liar?

Cox’s hates what the Scripture teaches, there is no doubt, so one wonders what he really thinks of God.