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 »

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

Clark Pinnock died on August 15, 2010. Upon his death, many blogs and media sources reflected on the life and times of this great evangelical scholar. Wait – evangelical scholar? Despite his influential conservatism in his early years, Pinnock shifted quickly and fully into liberal brands of theology, eventually becoming one of the great defenders of open theism. Was he really evangelical? The short answer is no, Pinnock was not an evangelical. But the term evangelical has been twisted and expanded to embrace a wide range of people who were once simply called liberal. The term evangelical has been distorted almost beyond usefulness.

While it is a necessary truth that language will change and evolve over time, it is not true that the evolution of language means we can take a casual approach to the meaning of words. With all due respect to Alanis Morrisett, the word ironic does not mean the same thing as the word coincidence. And with all due respect to a surprising number of Southern Baptists, the word Calvinist does not mean the same thing as non-Calvinist.

It is possible to have variations of belief within a single label. Most labels are not monolithic in that you must take the whole thing or you can’t claim any of it. Calvinism is no exception. Limiting our focus to soteriology, not all Calvinists believe the same thing about every aspect of salvation. Nonetheless, there comes a point when variation becomes so great that a person’s beliefs are better described by a different label.

In my last post, I differentiated the Baptist usage of Reformed versus Calvinist and said that the term Calvinist has come to mean a view of salvation similar to that of John Calvin or, more specifically, to the later canons of Dordt which established the five points of Calvinism. To be a Calvinist is to believe that God sovereignly chooses whom he will save from among human beings, all of whom are completely sinful. God’s choice is made without regard to anything in that person – no merit of work or belief causes God to choose him. Because he is chosen, he receives the atoning work of Christ at the cross, is irresistibly drawn to Christ through the regeneration of his will, and is kept eternally secure. There is a little room for variation, but not much.

Some variation is possible for those four-point Calvinists who reject Limited Atonement. Personally, I am surprised that this point catches so much controversy. I suspect that much of the disagreement is based on a misunderstanding of what limited atonement really means. I consider the doctrine to be essential for both Calvinists and non-Calvinists (I’ll say more on this in a few posts). But a person might reject this point yet hold to the rest of the Calvinistic view of salvation and still be a Calvinist.

On the other hand, the person who claims to be a three point Calvinist has usually deviated from any meaningful use of the term Calvinist. Three pointers (who sometimes refer to themselves as moderate Calvinists and call the five pointers extreme Calvinists) usually reject Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace and the other three points are redefined. Total depravity is given a large footnote. Unconditional election becomes conditional foreknowledge. Perseverance of the saints is generally maintained in a Calvinistic form. The result is a system of theology which resembles neither the canons of Dordt nor the teachings of Calvin.

A person cannot reject the view that God chooses whom he will save, regenerates them, gives them faith, and does all this despite their ongoing rejection and rebellion, while claiming to be a Calvinist. There is no meaningful way to claim Calvinism while believing that election is God choosing those who choose him. This view of salvation contradicts the views of Calvin and Dordt.

I don’t know why some people wish to refer to themselves as moderate or three-point Calvinists. It would be helpful for these beliefs to be given a different label, one which articulates their views while showing the distinction from Calvinism. In my next post, I will talk about some possible labels and why one label – Baptist – should not be seen as the preferred alternative to either Calvinism or Arminianism.

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

One disclaimer as I move into this discussion. While I love church history and have a basic knowledge of many events, I do not have a comprehensive knowledge of all the events described below. From my study and the resources I’ve consulted I believe all the historical information below is correct. I don’t feel qualified to argue over many points of Baptist origins, so I will skirt around issues such as our connection to the Radical Reformation. But I will jump into hot water on the matter of the history of Reformed theology in the SBC.

Read the rest of this entry »

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

The Bard once wrote, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet.” His point was that labels are less important than reality. A rose is a rose whether you call it a rose or a turtle or the moon. Nonetheless, labels have their uses. When used right, labels neither determine nor distort reality but depict reality in abbreviated form. There is a word called ‘rose’ which corresponds to the idea of an actual rose, so when I want you to think of a rose, I don’t have to describe all the characteristics of a rose. I can say the word ‘rose’ and the proper object comes to mind.

Read the rest of this entry »

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

In many ways, this is probably the least worthwhile of the posts in this series. It is little more than an excuse for me to talk about myself. But my history with Calvinism differs in a number of ways from most Calvinist Southern Baptists. I was born a Presbyterian, convinced of Calvinism for many years, eventually joined the SBC and later turned from and grew quite hostile to Calvinism, only to turn again and embrace Calvinism. If the summary is all you want, you’re done. For the juicy details, keep reading!

Read the rest of this entry »

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

When I started this series (one whole post ago) I had the goal of writing a long series of short posts addressing Calvinism in the SBC. One problem with that goal is I don’t know how to do anything short. As such, this is likely to be a long series of long posts, as this first substantive post demonstrates. In these posts, I will try to add headers to help those who may be curious yet not want to read the whole thing.

Unity?

When I was in college, I decided to circumvent my dorm’s anti-pet rules by raising fish. While my time as an ichthyologist was short-lived, I did manage to learn a few things. One of my early lessons was that you don’t mix betta fish with, well, any other kind of fish. There is a reason they are nicknamed Siamese Fighting Fish. Bettas need to be kept to themselves, they don’t get along with others.

There are some who feel the same way about Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC, that we don’t get along and shouldn’t try. Are they right? Should we try to keep our theological fish separated for the sake of peace? Or should we perhaps put costumes on all the fish, erasing distinctions for the sake of unity?

Read the rest of this entry »

From time to time I get a hankerin’ to write a book on Calvinism. I’ve even made two attempts at the book and have incomplete drafts to prove it. But while the spirit is willing, the flesh is weak and this desire has always been left incomplete.

Despite the many volumes that have been and continue to be written on Calvinism, I believe there are a few things left to say, particularly for Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC. Since it appears my book will never be written (not to mention published!), I will instead make use of the one medium that gives a voice to every small-time crackpot with an opinion: the blogosphere. (Disclaimer: I’m still working to elevate my reputation to big-time crackpot with an opinion.)

Over the next few weeks, I will be writing a series of posts on Calvinism in the SBC. I hope these posts will serve as a means of facilitating thinking and discussion about Calvinism. There needs to be robust discussion of these issues and I believe it is possible to discuss passionately, disagree vigorously, yet walk together with unity. Too often these discussions dissolve to little more than hurling accusations at each other. May that not be the case with these posts.

Below is my planned series of posts. This will likely change some as I progress. As each post is written, I will link to it in the list below so this post can serve as a kind of index.

1. Pursuing Unity as a Calvinist in the SBC
2. My Journey with Calvinism and the SBC
3. Calvin vs the Bible: Labels for a Calvinist in the SBC
4. Reformed vs Calvinist: Labels for a Calvinist in the SBC
5. The Three Point Calvinists: Labels for a Calvinist in the SBC
6. Calvinist, Arminian, or Baptist: Labels for a Calvinist in the SBC
7. TULIP: Doing Theology as a Calvinist in the SBC
8. Total Depravity: Doing Theology as a Calvinist in the SBC
9. Unconditional Election: Doing Theology as a Calvinist in the SBC
10. Limited Atonement: Doing Theology as a Calvinist in the SBC
11. Irresistible Grace: Doing Theology as a Calvinist in the SBC
12. Perseverance of the Saints: Doing Theology as a Calvinist in the SBC
13. Reaching the Lost as a Calvinist in the SBC
14. The End of Calvinism in the SBC
15. A Word to Both Sides of Calvinism in the SBC

This post belongs to a brief series sparked by a discussion at SBC Today. The posts in this series are modified snippets of some comments I made in that discussion.

Repeatedly in Scripture we find instances of God commanding people to seek him and do good. Would God really command us to do something if we were not able to obey? Also, in Matthew 23:37, Jesus laments the disobedience of Jerusalem, saying to them, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!” Would he grieve like that over their choice if he knew they could not choose an alternative?

I often wonder why non-Calvinists think Matthew 23:37 is a challenge to Calvinists. My response to this is the same as it is to any other place where God calls for human response, or where God is grieved over human choices. God hates sin. God is grieved by sin. There is no doubt about that. Also, God calls for people to choose him, to pursue him, to seek him, to follow him, to obey him. God is grieved when people reject his universal call. But God’s call does not imply man’s ability to respond – or to desire obedience. In Matthew 6:33 Jesus says to seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, but then in Romans 3:11 we are told no one seeks God. The instruction, the call is there, but the obedience is not.

Some say (and this was a big point in Whosoever Will) that God does not make a fair offer if he instructs mankind to do something he knows we are unable to do. But we see this exact thing spelled out for us when it comes to the law. What does Paul say about the law in Romans 7:7-12? We know it is impossible to be righteous through the law, because the law is not given to make men righteous but to reveal man’s sin. But what is the law except a description of God’s will for his people? In the law, we receive the commands of God and we would assume that God expects us to walk by them and live according to them and be perfect in our obedience. But Paul says that such obedience is impossible. Is the law then unfair? Is it an unjust offer? Is the law sin, when our obedience is not only impossible, but the law itself is given to rouse and reveal our sin? Absolutely not! Paul says (7:12), on the contrary, that the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

So when Jesus laments the disobedience of Jerusalem, he is grieved by the sin and disobedience of a fallen people who, apart from the regenerating grace of the Spirit, will ever only reject the Son of God.