Guest blog by Andrew Lindsey
Congregational singing: “Love Lifted Me”
Intro. by Jerry Vines.
Opening prayer by Dr. Chuck Kelley.
Before Dr. Land spoke, Dr. Vines made some comments regarding the messages. One major point that Dr. Vines sought to articulate was that to disagree is not to attack, and that he hope that points are clearly articulated without animosity.
Dr. Vines also made the following additional points concerning Total depravity:
“God, in his sovereignty has given Man the capacity to choose”… this capacity “has been effaced, but it has not been erased.” In Scripture, God commands Man to believe. The Philippian jailer said, “What must I do to be saved?” and Paul replied “believe.” God does not command us to do what we are unable to do.
Dr. Richard Land:
PowerPoint title:
Congruent Election: Understanding Salvation from an Eternal Now Perspective
“We must get our doctrine and theology from Scripture”… an inerrant Word does not contradict itself. We must seek to come to an understanding of Scripture and Christian doctrine that enables us to preach from all of God’s Word. I want to have a theology that’s as congruent with the totality of Scripture as I can possibly make it.
“I believe in all of ‘P,’ I believe in none of ‘L,’ but I believe in part of all the others.”
Southern Baptists have more similar than dissimilar in their understanding of Scripture. The exclusivity of Christ is one major example of agreement among Southern Baptists.
“I don’t want to offend my Calvinistic brethren, I just think they’re wrong.” Why would this offend? Calvinists have no problem saying I’m wrong.
Some Calvinists have tried to abscond our history, which is broader than they have presented.
John Leland, 18th century Baptist, “the preaching that has been most profitable to men” has been the doctrine of the sovereingty of God mixed with a little of what has been called Arminianism. [Source cited on PowerPoint.]
Dr. Sydney Anistrom, a Lutheran scholar, has described 18th century Baptist life as “a modified version of Westminster.” The modifications to Calvinism becoming evident in the New Hampshire Confession.
“They were giving altar calls in the 1750s… you may have read differently, but I have the records to prove it… they were giving altar calls in the 1750s.”
Quote from Baptist historian Robert A. Baker that there seems to have been a providential mingling of General (Arminian) and Regular (Calvinist) Baptists in the South. “The General Baptists provided emphasis on the necessity for human agency in reaching men with the gospel; the Regular Baptists added doctrinal stability and a consciousness of the divine initiative.”
There was a distinctive Southern Baptist soteriology, best articulated by John Leland, at least 70 years before there was a Southern Baptist Convention.
Yes, we have a Charleston tradition, but this tradition has always been the harmony to the melody of the Separate (revivalistic) Baptist tradition.
“I believe that election is consistent with the free agency of Man.” Calvinists, who were Presbyterians, got their doctrine of election off kilter because they were wrong in their ecclesiology wrong, identifying Israel with the Church.
Therefore, Calvinists fail to understand that there are two different types of election in the Bible:
1. Abrahamic election- God’s electing purpose in dealing with His chosen people, the Israelites.
2. Salvific election- God’s electing purpose to save individuals.
People have always been saved through salvific election, even those under Abrahamic election.
Three differences in these two types of election:
a. Corporate in Abrahamic, individual in salvific
b. Abrahamic to “special people” status, salvific to salvation
c. Abrahamic not connected to anything, salvific connected with foreknowledge (though not based upon foreknowledge) Romans 8:28-30 cited.
Disagreement noted with Norm Geisler, as Man’s faith is not a condition for God giving salvation. ‘God gave me saving faith and He has promised to keep me.’
1 Timothy 2:3-6a. cited. Calvinists say that “all” means some of all kinds, but that is not what the text says.
Cited C.S. Lewis’ “eternal now” understanding of God’s view of time as formative in his understanding of election. God views all of history as part of His present experience. God never learns anything; God is often disappointed, but He is never surprised. God knows the future perfectly, He knows our future decisions, He knows us better than we know ourselves. “Time does not have cognitive content for God.”
Quote from Herschel Hobbs, “The foreknowledge of God is based upon His omniscience.” God’s foreknowledge and Man’s free will are both asserted in Scripture.
Quote from Baptist Faith and Message (2000) “He is fatherly in His attitude toward all men.” This means that the Baptist attitude is that God would not create people for the purpose of sending them to Hell.
Sections from BF&M 2000 on salvation and election were read.
Harry Ironside notes that Romans 9-11 is a parenthesis in which Paul responds to anticipated objections from the Jews; Abrahamic, not salvific, election is in view in these chapters.
3 charts were shown on PowerPoint to demonstrate Congruent Election: Understanding Salvation from an Eternal Now Perspective. These charts were very complicated and beyond my ability to explain them here. The major points of these charts are:
1. That God experiences the rejection of the non-elect as eternally present with Him.
2. God has always dealt differently with the non-elect than with the elect.
3. That people won’t be saved from God’s perspective is different than the idea that they can’t be saved.
Comments (16) »
1. Scott D. Andersen
November 7, 2008
11:05 AM
Dr. Jerry Vines said: “God does not command us to do what we are unable to do.”
Let every unregenerate keep the 10 commandments perfectly at all times and to the fullest degree, for God would not command him to do what he is unable to do.
sda
2. Han Sola
November 7, 2008
11:06 AM
Regarding Pastor Vines’ comments in the introduction…
“God does not command us to do what we are unable to do”
Isn’t that what Pelagius himself argued? Does he really want to go there? It seems like a counter-productive strategy to me. It certainly doesn’t bolster his arguments.
3. John Meche
November 7, 2008
11:29 AM
If God is Fatherly toward all men, then why do we need adoption as sons. The BFM2000 is wrong there
4. John Heuglin
November 7, 2008
11:36 AM
Andrew,
Keep up the good work on the blog! Based on the comments, it looks like the Calvinists are already in an uproar! This is one “battle” that has been raging since the beginning and it doesn’t look like it’s going to end anytime soon. I enjoyed reading the blog, however.
Take Care,
John
5. Jeff Brown
November 7, 2008
12:04 PM
Andrew,
Thank you for reporting - I googled the conference title looking for someone who was there and came across this blog.
To me, this seems to be a “Burning Bridges” conference in response to last years “Building Bridges” conference, where there was real dialog and was open and broadcast.
Being closed and not broadcast sends the same old message of “we don’t want to be questioned - just believe us we are the real guys and we are going to get those c-guys.”
I heard Dr. Land speak here in Oklahoma and he said: “I am a three point calvinist at best or 2 3/4 point which ever way you explain the points” and after reading what he has spoken on today it looks like he wants to muddy up the waters on election even more rather than provide a clear Biblical argument against God’s sovereignty in election (of which there is not one).
Once again, thanks for reporting…
Soli Deo Gloria
Jeff
6. Brian @ VoiceoftheSheep
November 7, 2008
12:58 PM
This is pure Pelagianism. Pelagius took issue with Augustine for his prayer, “God, command whatever you will, and grant whatever you command.” Pelagius posited that if God commands it, then man is capable, in and of himself, to do it. Vines said the same thing at the conference.
7. Tom Hardy
November 7, 2008
12:58 PM
Interesting read.
However I question the validity of saying that Edwards and the others mentioned did not hold to Limited Atonement.
I am going to have to do a bit of research about that point, if others have already done so please post it.
Tom
8. Les Prouty
November 7, 2008
1:01 PM
This conference is, or should be, quite an embarrassment to the SBC.
9. Brian @ VoiceoftheSheep
November 7, 2008
1:33 PM
Amen, Les.
10. Caleb Turner
November 7, 2008
2:00 PM
I am a reforming student in an interesting atmosphere (I actually go to Liberty BTS). Having recently read Bondage of the Will, I wonder if Luther’s assertion that God commands that which we cannot achieve precisely to reveal our own need/depravity is still licit in this discussion. Aside from differences between Lutheran and Calvinist theology, is this how you guys read these “Arminian pillar” passages?
11. Justin Keller
November 7, 2008
2:21 PM
“God, in his sovereignty has given Man the capacity to choose”… this capacity “has been effaced, but it has not been erased.”
Technically that isn’t Classical Arminianism (both Arminius and Wesley taught the same version of total depravity that Calvinists hold) or Pelagianism (in which grace is in nature rather than a divine gift). It’s semi-Pelagianism. Most “Arminian” evangelicals today are actually semi-Pelagian.
I didn’t see anything in regard to Edwards in the post, but his view on Limited Atonement was mentioned in a comment. At the end of Freedom of the Will, Edwards lays out his belief in all five points of TULIP, including limited atonement.
12. M Burke
November 8, 2008
12:15 AM
Caleb,
The Lutheran Law/Gospel distinction is correct to a point, especially in this discussion. What God commands in the Law, man cannot accomplish. Man therefore requires a perfect Savior who has done what he could not.
When it comes to predestination and the like, most conservative Lutherans, while acknowledging that God does in fact elect, they don’t dwell on the ins-and-outs of election and tend to lean toward it being a “mystery”. Thus when it comes to the specifics of Calvinistic doctrine, most Lutherans believe we Calvinists go too far into the secret things of God. As far as Limited atonement goes, Lutherans believe in something called “objective justification” where in Christ “objectively” paid for everyone’s sins yet it is not applicable unless one subjectively has faith in Christ. Lutherans still believe that faith is a gift of God, so ultimately all this is part of the “mystery”. This is, in practice a lot like Arminian universal-atonement and can be dealt with in the same manner. Lutherans, generally, aren’t big on exegesis. I mean no disrespect here, it is simply that there are few thorough Lutheran commentaries.
When it comes to the key Arminian verses, one often finds Arminians generally making more of a passage than the passage entails. John 3:16 is an excellent example. John 3:16~17 does not speak, at all, to the extent of atonement. John 3:16 does, however, state clearly that only those of faith are saved… and the intent of God is inherent in the passage. Likewise, views of passages wherein God is supposedly declaring saving intent toward “all men” both ignore the immediate context ie: “kings and rulers”, “patient toward you”, and the declarative intent of God throughout history.
God states in the OT that his intent is to atone for His people:
Deuteronomy 32:43
” Rejoice, O nations, with His people; For He will avenge the blood of His servants, And will render vengeance on His adversaries, And will atone for His land and His people.”
Of course, since many Arminians have a dispensationalist viewpoint, this passage gets ignored. Yet there are other places wherein God explicit expresses His intent and/or desires. In Isa 46:9-11 God states: “Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things which have not been done, saying ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;”… simply put, God gets whatever He desires, and nothing comes to pass that was not part of His eternal plan.
Lutherans will generally retreat to “mystery” when faced with the Biblical evidence of both election and limited atonement. Arminians will attempt to respond with verses ripped from their context and removed from the greater scheme of Scripture.
The response then is not to argue verse with verse… but rather to strike at the root of their arguments, and show how their understanding of passages fails to take into account context and God’s specifically declared eternal plan, purpose and intent.
13. Brendt Waters
November 8, 2008
1:04 PM
Calvinists have no problem saying I’m wrong.
That’s got to be the FUNNIEST thing that I’ve ever read in my life!
Oh, wait. You’re serious ?!?!?!?!?!
Full disclosure: I am a Calvinist, all but kicked out of the SBC for being one. And yes, there are some humble Calvinists out there. But they’re either mute or in the vast minority.
14. Micah Burke
November 8, 2008
4:57 PM
“…there are some humble Calvinists out there. But they’re either mute or in the vast minority…”
Most are humble, but in the face of stinging attacks from the anti-intellectual-likes of Vines, Patterson and crew any response that uses good reason and Scripture seems arrogant. The fact of the matter is that men like these will not debate, exposing their falsehoods for what they are, but would rather pontificate from their pulpits and seminars like the J. 3:16 conference. One must recognize, however, that lying remains a sin, even more so when it is done behind a pulpit to the people of God.
15. Brendt Waters
November 8, 2008
5:46 PM
Micah: …any response that uses good reason and Scripture seems arrogant.
You make my point perfectly by throwing “good reason” and “Scripture” into the same pot. Last I checked, everyone reading and commenting on this blog was a human being. As such, “good reason” is actually “good HUMAN reason”. We hope and pray that our reason is correct, and do our best to bathe our minds in Scripture, as that’s the best way to help that cause. But in the end, we’re imperfect.
I can think of no two concepts that are more diametrically opposed than the belief in total depravity and a lack of epistemological humility.
16. Greg Alford
November 16, 2008
12:01 AM
This conference was a “coming out” for the Semi-Pelagians of the SBC. Expect more!
Grace Always,