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 »

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

This week, I will be presenting the five points of Calvinism. I hope to do one each day, having the post online by 6:30 AM as usual. But as this is a pretty busy week for me and the posts are usually written the night before, there is a chance that I will fall behind. I will probably not try to double any of these up but will just continue the five points next week, if needed.

In this post, I will look at the Calvinist view of Total Depravity. In this point, Calvinists affirm the biblical teaching that all human beings are born into a state of sinful corruption, a corruption so pervasive that it affects everything we do so that no action of natural, unsaved human beings can ever be called truly good in the eyes of God.

Read the rest of this entry »

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

In 1956, professional golfer Walter Hagen delivered the following advice: “You’re only here for a short visit. Don’t hurry. Don’t worry. And be sure to smell the flowers along the way.” Stop and smell the flowers. It’s finally time for us to smell the flowers. And despite the advice given by Ringo Starr in 1981, it’s not roses that we will smell. Tulips are the flower of choice.

“Of making many books on predestination,” the Preacher almost says, “there is no end.” Many books have been and will be written on the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination. A series of blog posts such as this can only scratch the surface of the doctrine. But scratching the surface is often enough to give a good, general understanding of these beliefs. Because of this, many Calvinists have found it helpful to explain Calvinist beliefs by using the TULIP acronym. But where did TULIP come from?

Read the rest of this entry »

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

Two comments before moving into the body of this post.

First, today is a two-for-one day. I’ve been limiting myself to pushing out one post per weekday, but I’m going to go ahead and do two today. The second post will be a look at the acronym TULIP and its usage within Calvinism. That will set me up for five posts next week on the five points. That way I can cover all the points in a single week (assuming I don’t get behind!).

Second, I debated whether or not to write this post. In this series, I want to clearly state what I believe, which at times means stating what I disagree with and why I disagree with it. But I want to avoid an us-versus-them mentality. I fully believe Calvinists and non-Calvinists can live and minister together in the SBC. But such cooperation and life together will be impossible if all we do is stand on our own sides and hurl accusations at each other. In this post, I will be pointing out some things that have been said that I think are less than helpful. I hope I do not come across in a separatist, accusatory way. Rather, I want to address some attitudes which I think are obstacles to unity.

Read the rest of this entry »