Over the last few weeks, the internet has seen several discussions on infant salvation. Some of those discussions were started, oddly enough, as ways of launching assaults against Reformed Baptists. I’ve been reading from Loraine Boettner recently and came across the following and thought some might find it helpful. It addresses, among other things, charges that the Westminster Confession of Faith and/or Calvin himself taught that some children who die will not be saved, and whether or not there is room in Reformed theology to believe that infants who die will be saved. Boettner argues that not only is there room in Calvinism for this view, only Calvinism can consistently teach that children who die will be saved.

The following comes from Presbyterian theologian Loraine Boettner, from his book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, and deals with the question of infant salvation: Read the rest of this entry »

It is amazing what children come up with, particularly children who have faced extraordinary struggle.

For a few months now I have been following the cancer struggle of three little girls. It started with Kate McRae, who was mentioned several times by Matt Chandler (who continues his own journey with brain cancer). Then I learned about Susana Whitaker, a little girl whose parents went to Haiti as missionaries only to rush back to the US with a suddenly sick child who was diagnosed with serious cancer. The most recent is Daisy, a little girl with a recurrence of Wilm’s Tumor.

We live in a broken, fallen world and sin makes its presence known everywhere, even in the bodies of little children. Pray for these children. Keep up with them and others like them. It is hard for us to see what they have to go through, but we must see it and we must pray. Make the choice to lift up those who had no choice.

But this post is about something Kate has recently said. Her progress has been encouraging though there is still danger ahead. Kate knows what she has been through, and she knows that others have faced the same battle and lost. The following comes from a recent journal from Kate’s mom.

Kate draws pictures of her friends that have passed away. And I never fail to notice the large smile she draws on their faces. The simple yet profound understanding of a child. She knows their pain is done, and they are free to enjoy an eternity with Jesus. She always adds to me though, “I know they aren’t sad, but I bet their mommies are crying a lot because they miss them.” She realizes the heartache is left to those who must live without the ones they love. Continue to keep these families in your prayers. They walk a very difficult road.

Pray for the love of Christ to fill these dear children with eternal hope. And pray for healing mercies, that God would remove every trace of cancer from their bodies.

Kate McRae

Daisy Love

Susana Whitaker

I’m hoping to have time to write a review of Logos 4 for Mac but in the meantime, enjoy this shameless attempt to win Mac gear from Logos.

Logos Bible Software is giving away thousands of dollars of prizes to celebrate the launch of Logos Bible Software 4 Mac on October 1. Prizes include an iMac, a MacBook Pro, an iPad, an iPod Touch, and more than 100 other prizes!

They’re also having a special limited-time sale on their Mac and PC base packages and upgrades. Check it out!

It is not unusual for me to get agitated at something I read on blogs. It happens just about every day. But it is unusual for me to respond. Nonetheless, I decided to respond to an article by Steve Lemke, reposted by Tim Rogers and reported at SBC Today.

Take a moment to go read Lemke’s article on Age of Accountability then come back for my responses. Be warned: mine is a fairly long response to a fairly short article. Feel free to just jump around.

On the whole, I am perplexed by this article. Lemke claims to be presenting the argument for an age of accountability but what he actually does is to argue against other doctrinal claims, particularly original sin and infant baptism. Nowhere does he lay out the case for age of accountability (I will present my tentative arguments for it at the end of this entry). Instead, he presents bad arguments and distorted facts to rail against certain Reformed beliefs.

In this entry I will not deal much with arguments for or against original sin and infant baptism. I do believe in original sin, but I do not believe infant baptism is biblical. But my greater issue with Lemke’s article is not with what he believes but in how he argues for what he believes.

The problems

Foundational?

Lemke starts by saying that the belief in the age of accountability is “one of the most foundational Baptist beliefs.” This in itself is peculiar – foundational to what? Certainly many if not most Southern Baptists believe in some sort of age of accountability, but the belief is not central to our identity as Baptists, nor is the belief foundational to any other doctrine. Some of Lemke’s later arguments do touch on foundational issues, but an age of accountability is not one of them.

From there Lemke presents four arguments in favor of an age of accountability (or state of being accountable, to use his suggested term). But as mentioned before, his arguments really do nothing to make the case for an age of accountability but are rather Lemke’s arguments against beliefs regarding original sin and infant baptism. These arguments are absolutely rife with error.

Age of Accountability in Scripture

Of Lemke’s arguments, this one has the fewest issues. Lemke claims that “perhaps the best biblical support for the “age of accountability” is in Jeremiah 31:29-30 and the parallel passage in Ezekiel 18:14-21, which makes clear that we are only accountable under the new covenant for our own sins, not those of our parents…” If he thinks those passages present the strongest support for age of accountability, fine. He’s permitted to believe that. But this strikes me as a very weak argument since I think those passages have zero bearing on an argument for age of accountability. I can see how one might (incorrectly, I think) use those passages in an argument about original sin, but an argument against original sin is not an argument for age of accountability.

Description of baptism

Lemke’s second argument is a bit strange and in some ways relates to his fourth argument. Lemke says that since the New Testament nowhere calls for infants to be baptized but always shows baptism being given to adults, it is evident that “moral accountability and salvation by faith are applicable only for those who are capable of moral discernment.” There are a few things I could say here, but I’ll keep it short and focus on one. In his argument, Lemke draws too much from what is not stated in Scripture. There is a gap between saying, “No babies are baptized in the Bible,” and, “therefore, those under the age of accountability are not morally responsible.” By the lack of one thing he assumes the existence of another thing.

By this point, Lemke’s article had me feeling perplexed, but when I got to his next argument agitation began moving in.

Because Baptists believe it

My heading isn’t entirely accurate, but it’s close. For Lemke’s third argument, he turns to Baptist beliefs, stating “we know it is true because of other core doctrinal beliefs.” In other words, because we know those things are true, we know this also has to be true. As it is worded, Lemke (unintentionally, I’m sure) comes very close to elevating Baptist doctrine on a level with Scripture. He would probably argue that because our beliefs are formed from Scripture, he is ultimately relying on Scripture and not Baptist doctrine. But this does not show up in his argument. His appeal here is made to what Baptists believe, and because of what Baptists believe, he defends the age of accountability.

But even then he once again fails for assuming too much. Essentially he is saying that Baptists believe in a regenerate church membership, to which we say a hearty Amen! But he goes on to argue from this that believers must be morally competent which, we are led to assume, somehow implies an age of accountability.

He even seems to contradict himself when he says, “The Baptist belief in personal soul competency before God presupposes morally competent believers, not infants.” But what is the Baptist belief in soul competency? It is the belief that every individual is able to stand before God without a human intercessor – this is the priesthood of believers. We do not need Pope and priests to stand between us and God. We have Christ as our intercessor, and because of Christ we are given access to the Father. If anything, this belief would imply the moral accountability of all people since all people are competent to stand before God.

Original sin and infant baptism

Here we get to the heart of Lemke’s argument and the biggest string of Lemke’s errors. I don’t mean places where I disagree with him, I mean places where Lemke completely misrepresents or misquotes those in the other camp. He does this several times when he addresses various confessions. I want to look at each mistake.

First, and perhaps the worst mistake, Lemke says, “The Westminster Confession had asserted that children were guilty of sin upon birth, and therefore the children of believers should be baptized as infants to remove original sin.” He then notes the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapters 6 and 28.

It is possible that the Westminster Confession of Faith has undergone revision (I doubt it, I read the 1646 WCF), but the WCF as it stands today does not say what Lemke claims. Go read the chapters for yourself, they are short. You will find clear statements about original sin, that because of Adam’s sin we all inherit both the corruption and the guilt of sin. To this point Lemke was essentially correct. From conception on, children inherit Adam’s guilt and are under the same penalty of death. Be sure to note the Scriptural support offered by the WCF.

The second part of Lemke’s argument contains the real problem: “…and therefore the children of believers should be baptized as infants to remove original sin.” This sounds very much like the Catholic view of baptism, but you will not find it in the WCF. Read Chapter 28 of the WCF. It affirms that baptism is a sign and seal of God’s covenant of grace. It further affirms that baptism itself does not save and may not even do anything when it is administered (“The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered”). Furthermore, the WCF states that baptism is not essential for salvation.

I think Baptists and Presbyterians agree on most issues regarding baptism, except for the (large and important) issue of when baptism is to be administered. I do not agree with the WCF and I do not agree with Presbyterians on this issue, but let’s make sure we present them fairly. They do not claim that infant baptism is able to remove original sin.

Second, Lemke mentions changes made to two Baptist confessions, the Second London Confession and the Philadelphia Confession, seeming to argue that these confessions, while drawing from the WCF, remove language that would teach original sin. Lemke is correct that the specific words he quotes are removed, but the Second London Confession (and Philadelphia, being identical to the SLC) still contains strong language about original sin (I’m looking at the 1689 version of the SLC): “Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them…”, “They being the root, and by God’s appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity…” (Second London Confession, Chapter 6, sections 2 and 3). Clearly, this confession voices strong affirmation to the belief in original sin. Lemke cannot argue that these early Baptists did not believe in original sin.

Third, Lemke states that “Baptists have never believed that one could be saved by physical birth or by the faith of their parents.” Who does believe this? The WCF does not teach this view. Who is Lemke arguing against? By making the statement he seems to imply that the WCF, and those who hold to it (Presbyterians and other Reformed types), believe individuals can be saved by merit of their birth or their parents. Later we will see a statement by R. C. Sproul, Jr that “children of at least one believing parent are viewed differently by God,” but he is making pointed reference to 1 Corinthians 7:14 which supports his claim. Saying there is some sort of different treatment is not the same as saying they are saved by their parents’ faith.

Fourth, Lemke mentions two early Baptist confessions that explicitly deny original sin. I’m not going to challenge him on that, but I’m wondering which ones? Considering he has thus far misrepresented every confession he referenced, I’m not willing to take him at his word. I want to read them for myself, consider their context and writers, etc. Plus, what does it matter? We claim to be a people of the book. Will we base our beliefs on confessions or on the Bible?

Getting closer to the truth, Lemke addresses the Baptist Faith and Message. The language of Chapter 3 is much more ambiguous than the other confessions. One could easily make the case that the 2000 BF&M argues against original sin, and the writers probably meant for it to. Nonetheless, the ambiguity at least leaves room for those who hold to original sin.

Fifth, jumping right back into error, Lemke says, “It is the belief in inherited guilt that leads those in the Reformed tradition toward the necessity for infant baptism.” I assume he says this based on his earlier claim about the WCF arguing that infant baptism removes original sin. But since the WCF says no such thing, and Presbyterians and other Reformed types believe no such thing, his statement is ridiculous.

One of the earliest Reformed writers was John Calvin. Calvin is clear that baptism does not remove original sin: “It is now clear how false the doctrine is which some long ago taught, and others still persist in, that by baptism we are exempted and set free from original sin, and from the corruption which was propagated by Adam to all his posterity, and that we are restored to the same righteousness and purity of nature which Adam would have had if he had maintained the integrity in which he was created.” (Institutes, book 4, chapter 15, section 10) He goes on to explain that baptism is a sign assuring us that the guilt and stain of original sin, along with the guilt of our own sins, is taken away in Christ. In other words, baptism is a sign of God’s forgiveness through Christ.

Sixth, Lemke ends with a rant against R. C. Sproul, Jr. You can read Sproul’s words for yourself and see if Lemke gave him a fair shake. Lemke claims that Sproul argued, “since we are born guilty of original sin, unless the infants were elect and responded in faith, they had no hope of salvation.” Despite Lemke’s emotional argument (why do non-Calvinists love to make emotional appeals regarding children as an attack against Calvinism or Reformed positions?), what Sproul essentially said is that Graham went too far in offering absolute assurance to parents that their deceased children went to Heaven.

Throughout his article Sproul is gracious to Graham, never taking the harsh tone implied by Lemke. He acknowledges the difficulty of Graham’s position, having to address many parents whose anguish was still quite fresh. Sproul’s ultimate position is, “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. But Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:14 that the children of at least one believing parent are viewed differently by God…” He goes on to say that Graham “would have served the mourners well had he stuck to the simple life-changing truths that he has spoken so clearly so often in so many places…”

Seventh, one of Lemke’s closing remarks is that “Baptists have always believed that since infants are not yet capable of actual sin, they go to heaven.” But Lemke never demonstrates that Baptists have always believed this. And as we noted earlier, early Baptist confessions clearly affirm original sin, that even infants receive imputed guilt from Adam. This does not mean they did not believe in an age of accountability, but it at least does not provide Lemke room to claim what Baptists have always believed.

Wrapping up

Lemke closes on a personal note: “As a person who has lost a stillborn child, I can tell you that this issue of the “age of accountability” really does matter. Baptists need to be more conscious of this crucial doctrine.” I agree with Lemke that it matters. I believe all doctrine matters. I do wish, however, Lemke had presented a better case. So humor me for one more brief moment and see my case for age of accountability.

Age of Accountability

First, I do not believe we have enough biblical evidence to be dogmatic. Ultimately, we must just trust in God. We know he will do what is best.

That said, I believe children who die go to be with the Lord in Heaven. I believe this because of what I think I know about the character of God. In terms of Scripture, finding biblical evidence can be a difficult matter, but there is at least one passage which I think makes a strong case for age of accountability: Deuteronomy 1:34-40. The key point is in verse 39:

And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

Moses has assembled the people of Israel and is reminding them of the judgment upon them due to their lack of faith when they refused to enter the promised land. None of those who were present at that time would be allowed to enter the promised land. None, that is, except the children, those little ones “who today have no knowledge of good or evil.” They are not held accountable for the guilt of the people (note: “not held accountable” is not the same as “do not share”). It is at least implied that the children were allowed to enter the promised land because of their lack of knowledge of good or evil. They were not able to understand sin, so they were not held accountable for sin. They may have been guilty of sin, just as children are guilty of their sins, but the little ones of Israel were not held accountable for that guilt incurred while they had no knowledge of good or evil. In the same way, I believe children who die are not held accountable for sin – theirs, or that sin inherited from Adam.

A parable.

There once was a world of glass houses and tidy roads. The houses were kept neat and clean, the glass was never smudged or spotted with dirt. The roads were kept organized and clear of obstacles, arranged in such a way that travelers could easily get from house to house.

In this world, bulldozers were used to tend the roads. They carefully plowed obstacles out of the way or dug out new roads when new houses went up. They were designed for this work, and they did their work well.

One day, something happened. The bulldozers started doing their own thing. They dug roads all over the place – circular roads, zigzag roads, roads crossing other roads without warning, some roads were even dug through the middle of the glass houses. The bulldozers made a mess of things.

Now, none of the bulldozers had broken down, per se. They were able to do the work they were created for: digging roads and moving obstacles. They continued to be very good at digging roads, but not the roads they were supposed to dig. Some observers might say the bulldozers were very good bulldozers, look at those roads! Other observers might say the bulldozers were quite capable, though flawed. But the people living in the glass houses increasingly held one opinion about the bulldozers: they are totally deranged. It did not matter that the bulldozers were able to dig roads. If they could not dig the right roads, all their work was folly. The bulldozers totally failed to fulfill the purpose for which they were created.

Human beings were created for the purpose of glorifying God. We were given many abilities and talents to use for the glory of God. But since the fall, the vast majority of mankind has pursued everything except the glory of God. It does not matter that mankind continues to be able to use those abilities and talents we were given; if we do not use them for God’s glory, they are used for folly. We are totally deranged and totally fail if we do not pursue our purpose of glorifying God. Fallen man is totally depraved, even if some observers are tempted to say, “Men are very good, just look at what we can do!” Or, “We are good, but with flaws.” Or even, “We are somewhat sinful but kind of good, just look at the range of our actions!” If our actions do not spring from faith exercised for the glory of God, then our actions are absolutely not good. Apart from the saving and regenerating grace of God, we are totally depraved.

Below is a modified version of an email I sent one of our members who sent us a reminder about July 4th falling on Sunday.

We will be having some remembrance of Independence Day during the service – a couple of patriotic songs and saying the pledge of allegiance with the presentation of the flag.

I do these as concessions rather than desire. I am generally very reluctant to have patriotic elements within a church service. I do not believe they should be mixed – not because I want to keep church out of state, but because I want to keep state out of church. We gather as believers to worship God, glorifying him and growing in our knowledge of him and his Word. But in American churches we have a peculiar brand of nationalism that has become enmeshed with Christianity and I think this has harmed the church. We absolutely need to show our gratitude to God for the freedoms he has allowed us in this country, but we can do that without including patriotic elements in a service. Being a Christian has nothing to do with being a patriot, though I believe true patriots, true lovers of America, must be Christians, since only by following God can America truly be great (my Sunday night sermon will probably address this need for patriots to be followers of God).

I am glad to be part of a church full of people who love their country, honor their military men and women, and want to see America secure, prosperous, and faithful to the Lord. I share that love, honor and desire, but do not think expressions of patriotism belong in church. But this puts me in a very small minority at Immanuel, so we will continue to have various patriotic observances, though perhaps with less prominence than in past years. On Memorial Day we remembered those who had fallen and recognized veterans; on Independence Day we will have the songs and the pledge (though in the coming years I hope we will do this less and less); on Veteran’s Day we will again recognize our veterans. But even as we show sincere and deep thanks to those who have served, are serving, or have sacrificed for our freedoms, they are not the focus of our gathering. Our focus remains on God the Father, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

You should also read Bob Kauflin’s thoughts on the subject, Should July 4th Affect Our Sunday Planning?

Like many people, one of my struggles is trying to come up with ways to “do evangelism” in the 21st century. I loathe gimmicks, and I loathe bait-and-switch events. Relational evangelism is really the way to go, but it still leaves huge gaps: what about all the lost folks we don’t have relationships with, and how do we build those relationships to begin with? I’m still searching for answers to this.

But there is one classic approach that I think still has merit: going door-to-door. Its merit is not through its effectiveness – it is terribly ineffective – but comes from the fact that (1) going door-to-door keeps our people intentional about evangelism; (2) it helps us talk to people we would otherwise never cross paths with; and (3) it helps with the “go and tell” of the great commission – too many of our evangelistic approaches are more along the lines of “come and hear”.

There are many who argue that we should not do door-to-door evangelism because of its ineffectiveness in the 21st century. I am tempted to join them, but thus far have resisted for the reasons mentioned above.

You have probably heard the (apocryphal?) story about D. L. Moody. One day following a service a lady came up to him and told him that she did not like the way he practiced evangelism. “Well, what’s your way?” he asked the lady. “I don’t have a method,” she responded. Moody concluded, “Then I like my way better than yours.” It is fine to dislike various methods of doing evangelism, but make sure you have an alternative to propose.

What are some other ways you do evangelism? How do you build relationships with non-Christians? What non-gimmicky approaches do you use to start conversations? How do you go about fulfilling the great commission?

Having just discussed the difference between monergism and synergism, it is now time to explain what brought these to mind.

While studying Ephesians 6:23-24, I was surprised to note two demonstrations of monergism. Now, biblical evidence of monergism can be found over and over again, I just did not expect to find it here:

Peace be to the brothers, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with love incorruptible.
Ephesians 6:23-24

Take a moment and see if you can spot the two ways this passage presents monergism, the belief that salvation is entirely the work of God. Need a hint? The first way is found in verse 23; the second way starts with verse 24 but reaches back to verse 23.

Monergism in the gifts of grace

The first way is fairly straightforward. In blessing the Ephesians, Paul calls for them to receive peace, love, and faith. These would each be given to us by God’s grace – that is, we do not merit them; God gives them to us freely by his own good pleasure. Peace and love would be two-dimensional: peace between man and God, love between man and God, peace between man and man, love between man and man. Faith is one-dimensional: faith in God. Paul describes each of these as gifts coming from God. Neither faith nor love nor peace come as a result of our own free-will decision for Christ, nor as a result of our effort or achievement. Even saving faith comes as a gift from God (see also Ephesians 2:8-9). And love, which demonstrates the work of God in us (see Romans 5:5 and 1 John 4:12), is given to us from God.

So here is monergism. It is as Peter says in 2 Peter 1:3-4: God has given us everything pertaining to life and godliness. Every bit of it comes from him, none of it comes from us. We do not cooperate in any independent sense, for any effort we perform is carried out through the strength he gives us. Paul reinforces this point over in Philippians 2:13: …it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. Salvation belongs to our God, and praise be God that he has given us salvation, making us his children.

Monergism in the qualification for grace

The second example of monergism is harder to spot, so bear with me. In verse 24 Paul says, Grace be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with love incorruptible. In verse 23 Paul already blessed them with gifts of grace, so in a sense Paul goes from being specific in verse 23 to more general in verse 24. “I bless you specifically with these aspects of God’s grace, but more than that I bless you with the full measure of God’s grace.”

In verse 24, this blessing of grace is qualified with the limiting phrase, all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with love incorruptible. While God extends some grace to everyone, the grace Paul has in mind (God’s covenant blessings for his people) is only for those who love God with true, lasting love.

On the surface, this might look like evidence of synergism. “See!” a synergist might note, “Paul says we have to love God in order to receive grace! We cooperate with him!” The problem with this argument is what Paul has just said in verse 23. We already noted that love comes as a gift of God. Romans 5:5 helps illustrate this when Paul says, …God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. This does not just mean God’s love for us, it also means our love for God. The Holy Spirit pours God’s love into our hearts and with that love we love God. 1 John supports this point over and over again, as in 1 John 4:19: We love because he first loved us. His love is the source of our love.

So love itself is a gift from God, but we cannot receive gifts from God (grace) until we love him (Paul’s limiting statement in verse 24), but we cannot love him unless he gives love to us. Is there any way to receive God’s grace? There are two parts to resolving this dilemma.

God extends grace

Simply put, unless God extends grace to us and pours his love into our hearts, we are hopeless. We cannot love him unless he fills us with his love. The monergistic system becomes necessary: it is impossible for us to love God; we cannot cooperate to receive his grace. He must do it, or we are hopeless.

With grace comes love

And in fact, he does do it. God extends grace to those he chooses to save. Among other things, he pours love into the hearts of his elect, giving us his grace. But verse 24 seems to indicate that love must be present in order to receive grace, so I must love God to receive grace from God. What actually happens is that love and grace are born in us simultaneously. Immediately as God extends grace to us, our hearts fill with love for him. It is inevitable: his grace to us creates our love for him. We cannot receive this kind of grace and still refuse to love him.

This is like someone opening his eyes. Assuming you are not blind (a safe assumption, unless someone is reading this blog entry to you), when you open your eyes, you immediately begin to see (yes, you were already seeing the back of your eyelids, but that doesn’t count). You will not see unless you open your eyes, but sight comes immediately as the eyes open. We can say that sight comes because we opened our eyes, but we cannot say that it comes after we opened our eyes. As you open your eyes, you are able to see.

Another illustration is fire. When you strike a match, which happens first, light, or heat? We might say that the light comes from the chemical reaction caused by the heat, but light and heat are simultaneous products of fire. (Both illustrations – fire and eyesight – come from John Piper.)

So it is with this love (and faith and peace) and God’s grace. As he gives us his grace, we are filled with love for him, faith in him, and peace with him. They come immediately with his grace. Now, growing in Christ is a process that will take the rest of our lives, but the process is begun in an instant when God, completely on his own (monergistically), works salvation in us.

There are two types of Christians in the world: monergists and synergists. These terms describe what people believe about the role of God and man in salvation. Most theological labels have limited usefulness because of imprecision. Most non-Calvinists are not Arminian, yet most non-Calvinist are called Arminian. Similarly, many Calvinists do not agree with many of Calvin’s beliefs yet they are still called Calvinists. But monergism and synergism are precise enough to provide a clear distinction among Christians.

Synergism

Synergism is the position of the non-Calvinist and expresses the belief that God and man cooperate in salvation. The classic illustration of synergism is that God extends his hand halfway and waits for us to reach the other half. God may do most of the work for our salvation, but the final act to bring salvation is something we do: we pray a prayer, we exercise faith, we repent and turn from sin to God. Each of these would be considered acts performed without the superimposing work of the Holy Spirit. That is, while the Holy Spirit may woo or draw us, the determining factor in our salvation is our free-will decision to accept Christ.

Monergism

Monergism is the Calvinist position and expresses the belief that salvation is entirely God’s work. We do not cooperate. We do not grasp Jesus’ outstretched hand. We are not the final determining factor. Every step of salvation is God’s work. Thus, those saved have been saved because God elected (chose) them, God drew them, God regenerated them (caused them to be born again), God gave them faith, and God turned that faith toward himself.

John and Jane

Another way of seeing the difference is demonstrated with John and Jane. John has become a Christian, Jane has not. What makes them different? Why has John accepted while Jane rejects? The synergist would answer that John and Jane both made free-will decisions to accept or reject. John is a Christian because he reached out and received the salvation extended to him by Jesus Christ and Jane is a non-Christian because she rejected salvation. Jane could have decided otherwise and could have reached out to receive salvation.

The monergist would answer that neither John nor Jane is capable of independently reaching out to receive salvation. The corruption of sin has blinded the minds of all people so that no one would receive salvation. So John is a Christian only because God intervened in his life to awaken him and create faith within him, while Jane is a non-Christian because God has not awakened her from her sin. Both John and Jane deserve judgment for their sins. God will not be unjust when he condemns Jane to Hell for her sin. Though she was never awakened from her blindness, hers was a blindness caused by her own sin.

I had originally planned to put this online in a series of posts, but I already have a notion of how many people will read through this monster, so I might as well put it all up at once. It can also be downloaded as a PDF:

GCR-Comments.pdf

The Great Commission Resurgence Task Force was organized to examine denominational entities and make recommendations on how we as a denomination can be more effective in missionary work. Formation of the task force was approved during the 2009 Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Louisville, Kentucky and the task force will present its final proposal at the 2010 SBC meeting in Orlando, Florida.

The final proposal was released to the public on May 3rd and is available at http://www.pray4gcr.com/. The document is 27 pages long and consists of four sections:

• Introduction
• Proposal, presented in seven components
• Summary of the recommendation to the SBC
• Concluding challenges to individuals, churches, and entities of the SBC

In my comments on the GCR proposal I’m going to try hard not to nitpick. There were a number of statements that jumped out as really good, and a number of statements that jumped out as really bad. Many of the bad statements point to deeper problems within the SBC. I discuss one of those bad statements in a previous blog post. But for the purpose of this post, I want to remain focused on what the GCR proposal is intended to bring about, what specific recommendations are being proposed, and whether or not I think the recommendations are good.

Several months ago, the GCR Task Force released a rough draft of their proposal. At that time the document had little more than the opening introduction/sermon and the proposal itself. Now, however, the final report includes a section of challenges to Southern Baptists. I think the challenges are the best part of the document and am thrilled to see them in the final report. Read the rest of this entry »