The ministry of John the Baptist was one of preparation. He was the voice of one calling out in the wilderness, saying, “Prepare the way of the Lord!” (Isaiah 40:3; Matthew 3:3). He was not the main show, he was the opening act. He did not want people to fixate on his ministry but to be ready for the coming of the Messiah.

Because of this, there are a few times when we find John downplaying his ministry while proclaiming the ministry of the One to come. One such instance is recorded in both Matthew 3:11 and Luke 3:15:

Matthew 3:11

11 “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. (ESV)

Luke 3:16

16 John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. (ESV)

Luke records that John said this in response to people who wondered if John was the Messiah. John’s response is that no matter how impressed people might be with him, he is not even worthy to serve the one who was yet to come.

John’s statement also provides a brief summary of the ministry of Jesus: “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” John baptizes with water, which holds some significance, but it is nothing compared to the baptism which will come from the true Christ.

Many who read this passage conclude that Christian baptism carries with it two aspects: the Holy Spirit and fire, that when we are baptized with the Holy Spirit, we are also baptized with fire. That in itself has led to quite a bit of discussion – what does it mean to be baptized with fire? – and many people point to Acts 2:1-4 when the Holy Spirit descends on the day of Pentecost, appearing as wind and tongues of fire.

Despite the connection between the Spirit and fire in Acts 2, I don’t think John the Baptist had one baptism in mind when he mentioned baptism by the Spirit and fire. Instead, he is talking about two distinct kinds of baptism: some of you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit, others of you will be baptized with fire. Consider the very next thing he says:

Luke 3:16-17

16 John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 17 His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” (ESV)

In verse 17, John makes a clear distinction between two kinds of people: those who will be gathered into barn, and those who will be burned with unquenchable fire. His meaning is, “The Messiah to come will baptize some of you with the Holy Spirit and others with fire; he will secure some of you and judge the rest of you.” In other words, the ministry of Christ would be a ministry which would ultimately result in the salvation of some and the judgment of others. Jesus did not come into the world to judge the world (John 12:47), yet his very coming reveals the sinfulness of men and the justice of judgment (John 3:18-19).

There is a kind of baptism by fire that believers undergo, but it is not what John has in mind and is never explicitly called baptism. The biblical word for what believers undergo is ‘refining’:

Isaiah 48:9-11

9 “For my name’s sake I defer my anger,
for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you,
that I may not cut you off.
10 Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver;
I have tried you in the furnace of affliction.
11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it,
for how should my name be profaned?
My glory I will not give to another. (ESV)

This kind of refining with fire is not a mystical process, a charismatic experience of the power of God, but is the work of the Holy Spirit to sanctify believers throughout the course of life, transforming the Christian to be holy as God is holy, to live the life of Christ.

Looking back at the words of John the Baptist in Matthew 3:11 and Luke 3:15, we do not want the baptism by fire that he mentions for that is the fire of judgment, the unquenchable flame where the worm does not die (Isaiah 66:24, Mark 9:48). Next time you hear someone say, “We have been baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire!” feel free to respond, “Thanks be to God, only the first is true of me!”

In a post on Chesterton and Elfland, John Piper makes a few observation about the common accusation that Calvinists rely on logic more than Scripture. He says:

It is a great irony to me that Calvinists are stereotyped as logic-driven. For forty years my experience has been the opposite. The Calvinists I have known (English Puritans, Edwards, Newton, Spurgeon, Packer, Sproul) are not logic driven, but Bible-driven. It’s the challengers who bring their logic to the Bible and nullify text after text. Branches are lopped off by “logic,” not exegesis.

Who are the great enjoyers of paradox today? Who are the pastors and theologians who grab both horns of every biblical dilemma and swear to the God-Man: I will never let go of either.

Not the Calvinism-critics that I meet. They read of divine love, and say that predestination cannot be. They read of human choice and say the divine rule of all our steps cannot be. They read of human resistance, and say that irresistible grace cannot be. Who is logic-driven?

For forty years Calvinism has been, for me, a vision of life that embraces mystery more than any vision I know. It is not logic-driven. It is driven by a vision of the ineffable, galactic vastness of God’s Word.

Let’s be clear: It does not embrace contradiction. Chesterton and I both agree that true logic is the law of “Elfland.” “If the Ugly Sisters are older than Cinderella, it is (in an iron and awful sense) necessary that Cinderella is younger than the Ugly Sisters.” Neither God nor his word is self-contradictory. But paradoxes? Yes.

We happy Calvinists don’t claim to get the heavens into our heads. We try to get our heads into the heavens. We don’t claim comprehensive answers to revealed paradoxes. We believe. We try to understand. And we break out into song and poetry again and again.

Amen and amen.

Classical Arminians agree with Calvinists about total depravity and man’s natural inability to respond to the gospel. We are born depraved, fallen in sin, with a natural hatred for the things of God. No man will be saved (because no one would want the grace of God) unless God first does something to undo man’s natural inability.

The Calvinist response is irresistible grace, by which God regenerates sinners, taking away their dead hearts and giving them hearts of faith. The Arminian response is prevenient grace, by which God lifts all people out of their totally depraved state, bringing the conviction of sin and desire for holiness that makes it possible for individuals to respond to the gospel.

A recent post at the Evangelical Arminians (originally posted at The Arminian) blog explains the Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace. While the post does a good job of explaining the what and why of prevenient grace, it is weak in one area. After saying that “the Calvinistic claim is contrary to Scripture”, the writer nonetheless fails to show that prevenient grace is a biblical doctrine. It has been my contention that prevenient grace, while a useful theory that would reconcile the problem of total depravity, is not found in Scripture and as such is not an option available to us.

In fact, throughout the entry, the only verse cited to demonstrate prevenient grace is John 16:8:

John 16:8

8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: (ESV)

This verse is used to show that prevenient grace “is performed by the ministry and work of the Holy Spirit, who was sent by the Father and the Son to ‘prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment’.”

The main problem with using this verse to show the Spirit’s work in prevenient grace is a question of timing. In the above quote, a rather important part of John 16:8 is left out: “…when he comes, he will…” Jesus was telling the believers about an event yet to take place. The Spirit had not yet come, his special convincing work had not yet begun.

Human depravity did not begin after the time of Christ. Men were totally depraved from the time of Adam onward. Despite this depravity, we find people from the time of Adam onward, through Jesus, and on to our day, who have had faith in God and sought to walk in obedience. If John 16:8 demonstrates the Spirit’s work in prevenient grace, how did anyone follow God prior to the coming of the Spirit in Acts 2?

The Old Testament does not tell us what God did to change the hearts of the saints, but this is not altogether unusual. Many details are missing from the Old Testament which are later given in the New. One demonstration is with the Old Testament practice of sacrifice. The OT faithful were not told that the sacrificial system was not salvific in itself, that it pointed instead to a coming Messiah. Hebrews 8:5 says these practices were a “copy and shadow of the heavenly things.” Later in the Old Testament we receive a clearer revelation about the coming Messiah, but even with the prophecies of Isaiah 53 and some other passages, there is still a mystery which is only revealed after the revelation of Christ.

The problem with prevenient grace is not that it cannot be found in the Old Testament, but that it also cannot be found in the New Testament, and the only verse used as an example of the Spirit’s work in prevenient grace points clearly to the work the Spirit does only after Jesus has returned to Heaven. It does not and cannot be used to explain something that happens prior to the Spirit’s coming in Acts 2.

I continue to wait for a clear demonstration of prevenient grace from the pages of Scripture.

This post is part of my series Life as a Calvinist in the SBC.

There once lived a man who held firmly to Calvinist theology. He believed the five points were fully biblical and took advantage of every possible opportunity to share Calvinism with the people at his church. He also had a growing conviction that evangelism was not a responsibility of believers. Since salvation is in the hands of God and God is guaranteed to save all those whom he has chosen, that leaves no room for human involvement through evangelism. He thought that evangelism did a disservice to God since in evangelism, the one witnessing claims some of the credit for saving people. Because of his view of evangelism, he always refused to participate in any evangelistic work and he encouraged other church members to adopt the same position. He never went on a mission trip, never gave to missions, never shared the gospel.

I wonder if you have ever met a person like this? Me either. While I know such people have existed and do exist, they are the exception, not the norm. The belief that evangelism is not part of the Christian life is not Calvinism, it is hyper-Calvinism.

Read the rest of this entry »

In a recent post at SBC Today, Steve Lemke has once again repeated the claim that R. C. Sproul rejects the possibility of infant salvation or an age of accountability. (I have previously responded to Lemke on the age of accountability) Here is what Lemke says about Sproul:

Some contemporary Presbyterians such as R. C. Sproul, Jr. reject the notion that children below the age of accountability who die go to heaven.

The major problem with this claim is that Sproul didn’t say that, or anything like it, and yet people keep referencing Sproul’s article as proof that he rejects the possibility of infant salvation. But here is what Sproul actually said:

Compassion tells us not to sugarcoat, but not to supply a poison pill either. We cannot say for sure what happens to small children who die.

In other words, Sproul says that the Bible does not say enough to allow us to be dogmatic, it is an area of mystery. Sproul did not say he believes infants go to Hell. Nor did he say he believes infants go to Heaven. He says Scripture offers a few hints, but leaves the rest unspoken.

His criticism of Graham is warranted. Graham offered dogmatic assurances in an area that the Bible is largely silent. Views about original sin are almost irrelevant: the Bible does not make a case for an age of accountability nor does it guarantee the salvation of people under a certain age or mental condition.

Just a few days ago I listened to Sproul (from a July recording) address the question of infant salvation:

It’s the first question, so listen through the opening ad and you’ll reach it. Sproul says:

I don’t know any way to give an answer to this definitively. There are passages that could give a hint at an answer… but [they do not] specifically answer the question, so… I really don’t know… I leave this question up to the grace of God.

That matches perfectly with what he said in response to Graham. It does not match Lemke’s assertion. Sproul does not reject the possibility of infant salvation.

My take is similar to Sproul’s. The Bible simply does not say enough to be dogmatic. There are tantalizing hints (and I think Sproul missed the best one, Deuteronomy 1:39), but those hints are only hints. Ultimately, we must leave the matter in God’s hands and trust that his way is best.

This post is part of my series Life as a Calvinist in the SBC.

An old joke tells of a man who walked into a barber shop one day for a shave. He went in, got his shave, and went on about his business. A day went by, then two, then three, and the man’s face remained clean shaven. He was astonished and finally returned to the barber shop and asked what had happened. The lady working asked him to describe the person who gave him the shave. “Oh, that was Grace who shaved you,” she responded. “She’s new here, but we’ve found that once you’ve been shaved by Grace, you never need to be shaved again!”

Such is the Calvinist doctrine of the perseverance of the saints: once saved, always saved. Once chosen by God, bought by Christ, and regenerated by the Spirit, we are eternally secure. We cannot give up our own salvation, and nothing can take it from us.

Read the rest of this entry »

This post is part of my series Life as a Calvinist in the SBC.

A few days behind schedule, but here at long last is the fourth point from the T.U.L.I.P. acronym. The post for the final point has already been written and will be posted tomorrow at 6:30 am. After that, just a few more posts to tie up some loose ends, and this series will be history!

I once heard the story of a man who had faced a lifelong addiction to cigarettes. From time to time he would try to quit, but every attempt would result in quick failure. Then one day he changed his approach and began to pray earnestly for God to remove his taste for cigarettes. To his delight, God answered his prayer and what he once found irresistible he now found revolting. Whereas once he could not help but pick up a cigarette, now he could not make himself smoke one.

We hear stories such as these and rejoice at God’s mercy to remove sinners from their sins and temptations. Rarely will anyone say, “What? God changed this man’s desires so that he hates what he once loved and thus compelled him away from cigarettes? What a violation of this man’s free will!” Yet this is precisely the charge often leveled against Calvinists for their doctrine of irresistible grace.

Read the rest of this entry »

A unique way of explaining limited atonement. Perhaps I should do my next post in this format?

This post is part of my series Life as a Calvinist in the SBC.

Well, I fell behind. This has been a busy week, not the least because my wife and I celebrated our eighth anniversary this week (I love you, Sandra!). There is a fair chance that tomorrow’s post will also need to be delayed, so we will see at least one, perhaps two, of the posts on the five points put off until next week.

The most hotly debated point in Calvinism is Limited Atonement. If someone describes himself as a four-point Calvinist, you can bet this is the missing point. The concern is understandable. God’s love for all people is clear from Scripture, as is the universal call of the gospel and God’s desire to save the lost. It can seem difficult to reconcile God’s love and offer of salvation with the Calvinist claim that Jesus’ work on the cross does not extend to every individual in the same way. Nonetheless, it has often surprised me that Limited Atonement has caught so much flack. Before jumping into a longer discussion, let me summarize the view.

Read the rest of this entry »

This post is part of my series Life as a Calvinist in the SBC.

Several thousand years ago, a man in the wilderness city of Haran heard the voice of the Lord. This voice said to him, Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. (Genesis 12:1-2) Thus began God’s eternal relationship with Abraham and his descendants.

God’s election of Israel is one of the clearest biblical demonstrations of sovereign, unconditional election. Abraham was not chosen because he was seeking God. In fact, we are never told why God chooses Abraham. Some time later (Deuteronomy 7:7-8), God would say to Abraham’s descendants, It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. His faithfulness to the later Israelites was due to his faithfulness to Abraham, but we are not told why he chose Abraham.

Read the rest of this entry »