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.

Serving Up Servetus Rick Patrick Is In Good Company

(Follow up to comments posted here)

Why lie?

And don’t forget to listen to this: James White’s more full comment on the Barker, ahem, error.

Patrick wondered how anyone could with a clear conscience follow the teachings of Calvin after what he had done:

How does a Calvinist today so easily absolve his conscience while taking his theological cues on the nature of God’s love from a heart and mind so blind to the immorality of governmental or ecclesiastical homicide?

Patrick thinks himself such a genius, his mind capable of recognizing sin and able to condemn others, even those (Calvinists) not involved in any historical sense. Conversely, since he evidently does not view this as sin, can we not infer that perhaps there are a great many other things his brilliant mind fails to grasp as well… (these are Patrick’s own words turned on him).

Beside the caricature which is lie, Patrick perniciously  poisons the well and paints with a broad brush doubt of Christian conscience in both Calvin and all Calvinists all the while claiming to harbor no ill will towards and even friendship with Calvinists. We’ve seen him question their conscience and then this:

How Calvinists can take their cue regarding God’s love for sinners from a Sixteenth Century born non-Southern Baptist theologian who approved treating his theological opponents in such a manner is an absolute mystery to me. If a theologian can get murder wrong, it is certainly fair to question his understanding of other truths as well.

Calvin did not murder anyone. That is historically, factually a lie. Calvinists do not take their cue from Calvin, either. I am a Calvinist, I don’t. I study Calvin for insight not for infallibility. It is the old canard that Calvinists follow Calvin, a common vitriol used by frauds like Ergun Caner. I was a non-Calvinist Southern Baptist for fifteen years before I ever understood the significance of the name of Calvin. The doctrines of grace and much of the history of the reformation had been conveniently hidden from our church, which was constitutionally, and in adherence to the BFM, bound to teach the whole history of the Christian faith. Instead of practicing truth in love it chose obscurantism. It is lying caricature to say Calvinists take their cues from Calvin and does thereby impugn the character of Calvinists, and the scope of their  inquiry, as narrow and sycophantic. As I’ve personally experienced, it is anti-Calvinists who follow lock-step and like to hide the truth for fear of being exposed.

One might wonder how anyone could take their cue from those who were part of the SBC’s bigoted racist years. Think of those who sat in seats of “glory” in the SBC during those years, who, though filled with the Holy Spirit (ostensibly), continued to hate their neighbors because of the color of their skin and yet taught “biblical truth” from the pulpits. Just how many million consciences were raped by the not so subtle racist indoctrination of the SBC? Blacks weren’t even theological opponents. They were innocent people, not blasphemers and heretics. Their only crime was being considered not quite people. It is certainly fair to question, then, anyone who would take a Traditionalist’s position heralding their long and proud control of SBC politics including not just the segregationist years, but the anti-inerrancy years, is it not?

Every historic era of the SBC champions some good and some bad theology and people. Some really bad, some really good. Should fault condemn everything good? The sad thing in Patrick’s anachronistic elitism, as with all self-exalting pride, is there is no mirror, just an ivory throne from which to condemn those with whom he disagrees. Dare we say hypocrite. Does he dare call Calvin such, does he dare call Calvinists such? Then should we not be as daring as he?

He has a political agenda as can be seen in his non-Southern Baptist rift. It is as if Patrick thinks his own Traditionalist religion sprung crisp and clean from its own immaculate conception. They call themselves Traditionalists to distinguish their clan from mongrels. Their political tact is unmistakable. Poison labels, caricatures, defamation and misinformation, suppressing knowledge, anti-intellectualism, knee-jerk reaction, all very familiar territory in cultic (F)undamentalism. It is one of the bad things in the history of the SBC, not one of the good.

Why, then, would anyone listen to Patrick, a Christian, when he does what Barker the apostate/atheist did? Barker’s claim is no different than Patrick’s- it is wholesale condemnation by association. But, if hypocrisy is the reason for discounting the whole, then there is no reason to trust anything Christianity has to offer… if Patrick represents it.

Nefarious intent or ignorant ranting of a fool- Calvin can be accused of neither, Patrick, both. Calvin’s actions can be reckoned, and at the same time his wrongs recognized and not justified as acts of righteousness as White, a Baptist and former SBC’er,  expresses. How do we reckon what Patrick has done? Should we not also recognize back-door insult and character assassination as unrighteousness? Or, should we just give him a pass as he falsely claims Calvinists do with Calvin? Hundreds of years from now will some things Patrick has said that are good be rejected because so much was wrong with him? Should it be said of him that nothing he said about God’s love was to be trusted because of his halting ability to show it? Hardly.

Jesus’ love was often of this kind of kindness and gentleness: on the road to Emmaus he stealthily confronted two of his disciples and called them spiritual dullards and slow minded fools despite the fact that they were in an emotional crisis trying to reconcile the week’s events and three years of “wasted” devotion to someone they never really knew. Jesus’ self-revelation  to them through the Scripture which they had read and never understood, was a slap to the face, or as they described it, the fiery purification of their hearts. I hope Patrick wakes up to the fact that Christianity isn’t a quaint religion for the weak and thin-skinned, nor a child’s folly. If he doesn’t like the forest ablaze he should quit playing with matches.

A concise paper.

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?

Hobbs Hokum | SBC Today’s Anti-Calvinist Crusader And Self-selecting Michael Cox

A Biblical Critique of Calvinism: Election | SBC Today.

The late Herschel Hobbs, longtime Southern Baptist pastor, writer, and denominational activist, in his commentary on The Baptist Faith and Message reminds that the freewill of man and his power of choice must not be overlooked when exploring election.²⁴ He argues that election should not be regarded as God’s purpose to save as few as possible, but that the tenor of the Bible echoes the fact that God loves all and wishes to save as many as possible.²⁵ Hobbs maintains that election should never be viewed as the saving of some and the neglect of others, arguing that if some are saved and others are lost regardless of what they do or do not do, what incentive is there to seek the Lord and preach the gospel?²⁶ Like the vast majority of evangelicals, Hobbs asserts that man is not a puppet on a string and argues that election never appears in the Bible as mechanical or as blind destiny, eloquently stating that to “draw” is God’s initiative and to “come” is man’s response.²⁷ I believe that the word “call” necessarily implies “answer.” Like the divine and human natures of Christ being paradoxically combined without confusion, God’s sovereignty and man’s freewill must both be recognized in salvation and in life. In other words, the incarnation of Jesus Christ provides a sound hermeneutical paradigm for accurately handling and correctly understanding a number of theological mysteries, namely Christology (the doctrine of the nature of Christ) and soteriology.

Hobbs was trustworthy?

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.

Prayer and the Power of Contrary Choice – Sam Storms: The Problem With SBC Traditionalists

There is no such thing as a non-Calvinist prayer.

A SBC Traditionalist Cannot Offer A Response to James Rissler

Does God Risk, Fail, or Hope? A Response to James Rissler. | SBC Voices.

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.

God So Loved The World That God Does Not Love All Men

GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD….

In the first place, let us notice that the text speaks emphatically of the love of God. This certainly implies that the love of God is almighty as He is almighty, sovereign as he is sovereign, unchangeable as He is the Unchangeable One, and that therefore the love of God is divinely able to seek and to find and to save its object. If God, therefore, so greatly loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son for the salvation for that world, could it possibly be that the world, or any part of that world, goes lost? Yet the Scriptures themselves teach us plainly that not all men are saved. There will be thousands and millions of men who will never see eternal life, who have never been touched by this love of God. The choice therefore is obvious. Either you must maintain that God loves all men, and then accept the consequence that this love of God is powerless to reach and to save its object and to attain its purpose — the very thought of which is blasphemous; or you must acknowledge that the almighty, sovereign, efficacious love of God is not for all men.

Or, in the second place, consider that love of God from the viewpoint of its revelation, namely, the gift of God’s only begotten Son. That love of God is redemptive. God gave His Son in the fullness of time, in order that He might die the death of the cross, and that He might offer Himself on the altar of the righteous love of God as a perfect sacrifice for sin, for the sin of those whom God loved. Could it possibly be that the gift of God’s Son was either wholly or partially in vain? To put it concretely, could it be that even one drop of His precious blood was shed for a man, and that then that man goes lost forever? Yet that must needs be the conclusion if we would maintain that God loved and gave His only begotten Son for all men.

Or again, consider that love of God, in the third place, from the point of view of its proclamation. Millions upon millions of men, from both the old and the new dispensation, have never heard of the love of God. That is, it was never preached to them. But could it possibly be that God would love any man, love him so greatly that He gave His only begotten Son for him, and then would never tell that man of His love? What a strange love of God that would be! You say, perhaps, that that is the fault of the church for failing to preach the gospel to all men? But is not the sovereign and almighty God powerful to cause the gospel to be preached to whomsoever He wills? And is not the very scope of the preaching of the gospel a matter of His own sovereign determination and sending? How shall they preach, except they be sent – sent by God in Christ?

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.