Newsflash.  The Presbyterian Church USA which is the liberal wing of the Presbyterian Church has voted this weekend to allow homosexuals to be ordained as members of the clergy.  To accomplish this goal the group had to rewrite a part of its historic confession so as to eliminate from it clear biblical references to the perversion of homosexuality.  The end result is a confession of faith that moves away from the Bible as the standard of judgment and moves toward the affirmation of Jesus as the Christ as the standard of judgment.  This is classic liberal move:  affirm the Bible as the witness to Jesus Christ, then make sure that the Jesus of history is separated from the Christ of faith so that the Jesus of the New Testament testifies to who Christ is, but not totally.  The Christ of faith is that one whom we meet in faith experientially and when that step is taken, Christ becomes whoever we create Him to be.  Thus the move of the PCUSA.  Mark this move.  It is simply the lead step in a dance that will bring along other liberal entities to follow suit.  The liberal Baptist group, CBF; will not be far behind as even now there is a struggle in this group to find a way to be all-inclusive while being “true” to Scripture.  The people of the PCUSA have paved the way for the CBF so don’t be surprised when you read that Baptists bodies out of love for Christ and His people have come to condemn those who condemn homosexality and  have taken a stand that will provide for practicing homosexuals a place of love and grace in the caring context of CBF and her member churches.  You can read more about the recent decision of the PCUSA at albertmohler.com.

Now to the topic for this look at TULIP:  Unconditional Election.  This tenet of Calvinism builds off the first.  This tenet makes no sense to us if we believe that humans are basically good or if we believe that humans are only partially sinful.  It is only when we affirm the thoroughness of human sinfulness that this tenet makes any sense at all.  If we are thoroughly sinful then even our “choosing” mechanism is tainted by sin.  This reality would suggest that the choices we make from birth are choices that are sinful.  Now be careful here that the essence of sin as biblically shown is understood.  Sin is not defined by what we do but by who we are and who every person is from birth is a self-centered, self-oriented, self-consumed individual.  Life is about us from the beginning.  So that when we come to the place of making choices, we make choices based on what would benefit us.  Watch any group of young boys choosing teams for a baseball game and you will see human sinfulness at work.  Every boy wants to “bat first,” and no boy wants to play right field.  The boy wants to be on the mound or around the infield ground and either play left or center field in the outfield.  Sin is simply life directed toward the gratification of our own desires.

Now let me pause here briefly and make sure that we understand the difference between free will and free choice.  It is not freedom of choice that a Calvinist would deny, but freedom of the will.  The will represents the center of life for the human being.  It is the main component in our hard drive from which choices emerge.  However we are wired from the beginning will give direction to the choices we make.  If we are wired toward God, we will make choices in that direction. If we are wired toward ourselves, we will make choices in that direction.  It seems to me that the witness of Scripture and human experience is that all of us from the start are wired to make choices that are best for us.  We are born in sin.

Now if that component is in place then we must decide whether we make the choice on our own to turn to God in repentance and faith or whether it is God who makes the choice to come to us and to call us to Himself.  One of the finest interpreters of Calvin ever to live and write was B.B. Warfield and he would write that Calvin and true Calvinists want more than anything else for God to receive all the glory.  This means that every component of the Calvinist system is there to render glory to God and not to man.  A true Calvinist would rather do anything than to rob God of the glory that is due Him.  Conversely, a true Arminian would rather do anything than to suggest that man is not free in his choices.  One seeks to exalt God in His glory while the other seeks to exonerate man in his freedom.

Unconditional election simply means that God’s choice of us and call to us is not conditioned by anything in us, not even our commitment to trusting God.  God chooses us and calls us exclusively as an act of His sovereign grace.  You may need to know that Arminians in election or that God chooses and calls.  It is impossible to read the New Testament and not believe in the electing grace of God; the word itself is found twenty-three times in the New Testaments from the Gospels to the Book of Revelation.  The difference is that the Calvinist sees God’ s choice of and call to us as due exclusively to God.  The Arminian sees that God chooses and calls either based on foreknowledge of who will believe or based on foreknowlege of some merit in us that merits or belonging to Him.  So there it is.  Election is inescapable as a basic biblical reality.  What you and I must decide is whether God elects us as a result of who He is or on the basis of who we are.  And remember that the ultimate issue in all of these tenets is the issue of initiative—does this glorious salvation begin with me and my movement toward God or does it begin with God and His movement toward me?  The latter is the core of Calvinism; the former is the foundation of Arminianism.

I want to begin our journey through TULIP with three caveats.  First, this acrostic represents a theological system which like other theological systems is an attempt to understand and put in perspective what is revealed in the Bible.  And like any other system, it has those who understand and articulate its tenets well and those whose understanding of the system is simply for the purpose of attacking and dismantling the system.  My goal is simply to be as fair to John Calvin as I can be in presenting the five points.  I am not at all concerned here with the exaggeration of their meaning by hyper-calvinists.  Second, what is done here will be a somewhat cursory glance at each of the points.  I want to encourage you to dig deeper by reading works by R. C. Sproul, John MacArthur, John Piper, Albert Mohler, Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, Philip Graham Ryken, Jerry Bridgess to name of a few of the authors that can help us all understand better these five points.  Let me recommend that you get a recent book by Richard Philips that is just over one hundred pages, What is so Great about the Doctrines of Grace, as a very helpful assesment of these five points.   Third, let’s avoid what will be the temptation to separate these five points from each other.  They belong together and must be heard and studied together.  Some of this may be new and different for some of us because it sounds so “un-baptistic.”  I told my Sunday School Class this morning that I am often amazed at how many Baptists really think that Baptist Theology and Biblical Theology are the same.  They are not.  In fact, if you trace our history you will find that most of our founders were full-fledged five point Calvinsits and how we changed from that is a whole different series of blogs.

So, let’s begin with TOTAL DEPRAVITY.  John Macarthur prefers the term, “radical depravity,” which I like as well.  Too many are taking total depravity to mean what it does not mean.  It does not mean than any one of us is as bad as we could be.  Isn’t that encouraging?  Although we are born into sin and are totally sinful, we are not as depraved as we could be.  Total depravity simply means that nothing in us is unaffected by sin.  If you want to look at us as “tripartite” beings made up of body, soul, and spirit then total depravity means that sin has broken our spirit that there is separation from God from birth, sin has broken our soul so that there is no desire for God but rather its opposite which is desiring to gratify our selves and sin has broken our bodies so that as we age, we do not get stronger but weaker.  Total depravity simply states that sin has poisoned us to the point that when we are born we are not well; we are not even sick, we are dead!

Now whenever this issue is addressed someone wants to raise and rightly so the question of the imago Dei or the image of God.  If we are born into sin and every dimension of who we are is poisoned by sin, then what about our being made in the image of God?  Some want to suggest that since what separates us from the animal world is our ability to think and reason logically that this component of our being is not corrupted by sin.  But even if we go with this understanding of what the image of God in us is, it is still true that sin at best has marred this image in man and some would go beyond that.  Some would say that the image of God in humans is not effaced but it is erased.  Either way, it is seriously stamped by sin.  Listen to David in Psalm 51 [+/-]Psalm 51 [51:1]Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions. [2]Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! [3]For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. [4]Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. [5]Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. [6]Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being, and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart. [7]Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. [8]Let me hear joy and gladness; let the bones that you have broken rejoice. [9]Hide your face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. [10]Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. [11]Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me. [12]Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and uphold me with a willing spirit. [13]Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will return to you. [14]Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, O God of my salvation, and my tongue will sing aloud of your righteousness. [15]O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise. [16]For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. [17]The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. [18]Do good to Zion in your good pleasure; build up the walls of Jerusalem; [19]then will you delight in right sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; then bulls will be offered on your altar.
or read Paul’s perspective on our plight in Romans 3 [+/-]Romans 3 [3:1]Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? [2]Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. [3]What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? [4]By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged." [5]But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) [6]By no means! For then how could God judge the world? [7]But if through my lie God's truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? [8]And why not do evil that good may come?--as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just. [9]What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, [10]as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; [11]no one understands; no one seeks for God. [12]All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." [13]"Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." [14]"Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." [15]"Their feet are swift to shed blood; [16]in their paths are ruin and misery, [17]and the way of peace they have not known." [18]"There is no fear of God before their eyes." [19]Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. [20]For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. [21]But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-- [22]the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: [23]for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, [24]and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [25]whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. [26]It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. [27]Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. [28]For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. [29]Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, [30]since God is one--who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. [31]Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. (ESV)
.

James Boice says that when we look at the basic nature of humans we have three choices:  we are either basically good and need knowledge to know how to be better, we are partially sinful and need education to help us grow from darkness toward the light or we are evil and need the tranforming work of the grace of God.  And then he says that if the last is true, we must decide whether we are sick or whether we are dead.  If we are sick, then we need medicine; if we are dead, then we need resurrection.  Now right here is where the doctrines of grace have their beginning and their impetus.  Everyone of us must answer biblically the question, “are we sinners by nature and if we are sinners by nature, what is the extent of our sinfulness?”  John Calvin along with so many others argued that the Bible teaches that we are thorougly sinful from birth and that apart from a work of grace in our lives that is the result of the work of God in our lives, we would never be saved.  If I am bascially ok by nature then I can figure out what I need to make my life better, but if I am sinful to the core then someone or something has to come from outside me to change the very core of my life.  How we see our sinfulness shapes how we see everything else.

One other thing:  seeing our sinfulness must happen not in the context of other sinners but in the ineffable light of God’s holiness.  It is that light that must be pondered when we are contemplating how sinful we really are.

 

 Ten Words for Parents [32:12m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Ephesians 6:1-4 [+/-]Ephesians 6:1-4 [6:1]Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. [2]"Honor your father and mother" (this is the first commandment with a promise), [3]"that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land." [4]Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (ESV)

The girl just wanted to go to her school camp.  What twelve year old girl wouldn’t want to do be at camp with her friends.  But this girl disobeyed her father in violating his terms for her use of the internet and this girl was also disobeying directives given by her stepmother.  So the father said “no” to her going to camp.  The girl consulted an attorney who took her case to court and won.  The girl went to camp.  The country of Canada in which this ruling was very recently issued is an uproar, the father is stunned and I suppose the girl had a good time at camp.  Now you and I should be rightfully astounded at such a ruling.  We should be rightly concerned about the prospect of that happening in our culture, but are we equally concerned about the parallel problem.  An established authority in the society or the school makes a decision regarding a child and the parents rebel against and rebuke that authority in order to set the child free from the consequences of his or her actions as administered by the governmental or educational authority.  I have some trouble seeing the difference between the two scenarios.  Both are failures to understand the rightful role of children in relationship to parents and parents in relationship to children, and both clearly represent the core of one of our real crises where those in authority in our culture no longer have any real authority.  Now this failure to submit to those in authority should not surprise us among pagan people; it is part and parcel of the practice of paganism.  But its presence among the “people of God” should shock us.  Because the key to life in the church that glorifies God and advances the Kingdom is our living in relationship to one another in accordance with the order that God has established in His Word and at its center is submission to those in authority.  What is true in the church is true in the family and where it is not happening in His House it is not happening in your house either.
Learn more about this message by downloading the sermon notes here!

I am going to try over the next few blogs to give an accurate biblical and theological description of the theological themes found in the acrositc, TULIP.  Rememering that these themes emerge out of the writings of John Calvin and that they are rightly and wrongly understood by many Calvinists and often pushed to extremes Calvin never would have dreamed by hyper-Calvinists, my goal is rather modest.  I have no intention of showing how each has been understood and misunderstood; I simply want to show what each means a biblical context as Calvin understood these themes through his own reading and studying of Scripture.  All of this effort, however, needs an introduction which I intend to give in this blog and perhaps one more. 

Several introductory issues need to be addressed.  First, what is TULIP?  Second, do these words form a sentence so that one cannot be assessed apart from the rest (the answer is “yes” and thus a major flaw in those who would isolate any one point and address it separate from the rest).  Third, what is the opposite of TULIP and fourth what are the keys to understanding the acrostic?  TULIP stands for what is known as the five points of Calvinism:  Total depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited atonement, and Perseverance of the Saints.  There are five point Calvinists, some who call themselves four and four and one-half point Calvinstis etc.  But the truth is that the five points form the focal emphases of one theological system.  And it is so important to recongize right here and right now yet again that no theological system is inerrant and infallible; it is what it is and no more–a way of seeing theologically the absolute truth of God as He reveals it to us in His Word.  It is not perfect as a system as is no other; it is one way of looking at what the Bible teaches.  And is so often the case when humans get their hands on systems, we tend to exalt one element of the system to the exclusion of the rest. 

This has often happened with hyper-Calvinists who so exalt the sovereignty of God that humans become puppets in a play and God becomes the great puppet master.  Remember that Solomon speaks of man making his plan but his steps are ordered by God.  This is just one simple reference among many that make plain that God’s sovereignty must be balanced by human responsibility.  Human responsibility without God’s sovereignty turns man into “god.”  Divine sovereignty without human responsibility turns man into a machine.  Neither is biblical.

Now the opposite of TULIP is not PILUT (wich is simply the southern pronunciation of Pontius Pilot).  The opposite is what is known as Arminianism or Pelagianism the heart of which is that the commitment to God is a choice made by humans at any time and in any place out of the desire of the human to engage in a relationship with God.  The first part of the above sentence would be fully affirmed by many Calvinists:  humans respond to the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives that Spirit being the Spirit of God who brings conviction of sin and awakens in us repentance and faith so that we give our lives to Jesus.  It is the second part of this sentence that is the sticking point because it assumes that there is within us that which longs for God and desires Him in something of the same way though not to the extent or with the same intensity that He desires us.  The classic Pelagian would argue that the choice for salvation is with us so that the grace of God can be resisted and the Gospel can be refused, and this is so important for understanding the differences:  BECAUSE THE COMMITMENT OF OUR LIVES TO JESUS IS A COMMITMENT WE MAKE BY OUR CHOICE THAT REQUIRES THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TO WHICH WE CAN SAY NO.  Now keep reading because the true Pelagian or Armininian is then compelled to argue that since getting saved is our choice, staying saved is our choice too.  Here is the rub among many modern American evangelicals.  We want salvation exclusively our choice but then we want God to keep what we have chosen.  Calvin believed as do I that a person can resist the Holy Spirit and refuse the Gospel but if that person is truly called and chosen by God known to the Father from before the foundation of the world, that person in God’s own time and God’s own way to God’s own glory will be saved from hell by God’s own grace and that which grace saves, grace keeps.  That which we do out of our own initiative is ours to start and ours to finish.  The beautiful balance that is at the heart of genuine Calvinism is proclaimed by Paul in Philippians, “work out your own salvation because it is God who is at work within you,” so that “the One who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the Day of Jesus Christ.”

Here is the primary “rub” between Calvin and Arminius:  how sinful are we really?  Are we so sinful that there is within us nothing that cries out for God?  Are we dead in sin or are we just sick?  Calvin argued that we are totally sinful.  Arminius argued that we are not.  Second, is the initiative for salvation from God to us so that we are saved by Grace Alone through Faith Alone or  is the initiative for salvation from us to God so that we are saved by Grace through our choice.  Calvin argued that God comes to us to save us; Arminius argues that God comes to us but that it is up to us to come to God.  Thirdly, does God keep us by His grace so that He gives us what we need to persevere or are we kept by our own works the presence of which show that we are saved, the absence of which show that we aren’t and need to be saved again?  I may be wrong but I think that we are so caught up in our culture of self-directed and self-determined individualism that we want salvation to be our choice in our own time and in our own way, but then we want God to keep us after we have made the choice.  Do you know what that says?  It says that we see ourselves as wise enough to make decisions but not wise enough to keep them; or maybe it says that we are depraved even in the way we see our relationship with God because we want Him to do for us after we have done for us.  At the end of the day and at the end of the blog, it is simple:  It is either from Him and for Him or it is either from us and for us. Either He calls and converts or we call out to Him with the validity of our commitment being up to us. 

 

“You are a Calvinist,” the man said.  He was talking to me.  I have tried the last two days to remember who said that to me, but I can’t.  It is the good gift of God’s grace of forgetting.  If you do not yet have this spiritual gift, then keep getting older and God will give it to you.  What I do remember is that it was five to seven years ago and that I had no idea what he meant.  I did not know whether to receive it as a compliment or a criticism.  And was too full of myself to admit that to him, so I just changed the subject until I could get away and try to figure out what he meant.  I knew that what he was saying had to do with John Calvin so I secured a copy of his massive work, Institutes of the Christian Religion; and began to read it.  By the way, if you want to know the difference between Calvin, Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists; read these two volumes.  I would recommend that you get the edition edited by John T. McNeil in Library of Christian Classics.  Working you way through these two volumes will be a blessing and a blast.  What I discovered was that much of what he was teaching was very much who I was and what I believed, not all of it; but much of it.  But I also discovered that he was addressing issues in a different time and place than the one in which I live.  Most of all what I discovered was that someone was assigning a theological label to me when all I was doing was seeking to preach as faithfully as I could the whole counsel of Scripture as God’s inerrant, infallible and fully sufficient word.  Dr. Daniel Akin who serves ably as president of Southeastern Seminary wrote recently about the theological debates in our SBC and made the case for us to get beyond theological quibbling and focus instead on the preaching and teaching of the Word of God.  He argued that no system of theology should shape our reading, studying, and teaching of the Bible; the obverse should be true so that any system of theology emerges out of what we preach and teach as the Word of God.  That is all I was doing;  That is all I desire to do.  I was called a Calvinist.

I took my Bible in 1995 and laid it open before God and made a promise that is the foundation of my life until this very moment.  I pray that if it ever ceases to be the foundation of my life that God will just take me on home.  I promised that as long as he gave me life and breath, I would study hard and seek Him in prayer through His Word so that I could proclaim the inerrant and infallible truth of His Word to those sheep to whom he assigned me the responsibility of being shepherd.  I had known what it was to let a theological system shape my understanding of Scripture (in my case it was theologically liberal existentialism) and I knew that from that moment the call and claim of God upon my life was to preach the word in season and out of season.  I do believe, however, until this day that the means of grace that God used to save be from the slippery slope of liberalism was my commitment to the original languages of the Bible which I have read  almost every day since the fall of 1976.  What this produced in me was the preaching of the Word of God because my soul was saturated with it from studying it every day.  This reality dawned on me several years ago when I recalled what a friend of mine in another church said about me; this guy who at the time was near 80 was a classic liberal and he walked into my office one day and said, “preacher, you frustrate me.  I know you are a liberal and that makes me glad but when you preach, you preach like a fundamentalist and that makes me sad.”  Maybe I was just schizoid, but what I believe is that the Spirit of God at least during those liberal days kept me anchored in my preaching because of my daily reading and study of the Bible in its original languages.

So, if I am a Calvinist; what does that mean?  I can tell you what it does not mean:  when I hear people making straw men to stack up and then burn down it makes me sad.  And I am watching this happen ino ur day with attacks on Calvinism.  For example, Calvin believed in the absolute sovereignty of God and the straw men builders take that and say that Calvinism makes us puppets which just proves to me how little of Calvin they have read.  Calvin believed in the absolute sovereignty of God which included all the “omnis” of God but essentially means that “God reigns through His Spirit for the glory of His Name and the exaltation of the name of Jesus(Sov) over the entirety of His universe as He moves it toward the fulfillment for His glory alone of His purpose(reign).  What Calvin also believed with equal force was that humans are fully responsible before God in the way that we make our choices and live our lives (there is another one that I will address later because I listen these straw men builders say that Calvin did not believe in freedom of choice which is not true; he did not believe in freedom of the will which is a different matter biblically and theologically than freedom of choice, but more on that later).  Calvin believed that God rules over His world knowing the end from the beginning but as He moves in this world by His Spirit humans are responsible before God to respond to the radically, life-changing work of God in our lives.   And here is where we fail and thus find ourselves fighting:  CALVIN NEVER SOUGHT TO RESOLVE THE TENSION BETWEEN DIVINE AND ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY AND FULL FLEDGED HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY.  Most of what I read and hear where people are in conflict is that they are seeking to resolve this tension to one side or the other.  And the end result is the creation of a theological system whose defense become more important than the declaration of the truth of Scripture.  And this battle has been going on since at least the second century A.D.  But that is another blog entirely.

Dr. Johnny Hunt who is the most excellent and highly esteemed pastor of the First Baptist Church of Woodstock, Georgia was recently elected president of the Southern Baptist Convention.  I was elated, refreshed, and relieved.  You would have do know what his election really meant in order to know why I was feeling the way I was feeling.  Let me explain.

The explanation requires that you journey with me back to 1985 and the meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention in Dallas Texas.  It was the beginning of the conservative resurgence.  The issue over which the battle among the Baptists was being fought was the issue of the inerrancy of the Bible.  Make no mistake about it:  the issue was real but the battle was fully politicized.  Two camps were at war with each other with so much to lose and so much to gain.  On the one side were the “moderates” or “liberals” most of whom were white-collar, highly educated, culturally elite, Baptists who desired a belief system and a congregation where belief in God and love for Jesus was expressed in an intellectually and socially acceptable context.  It meant, for example, that the Bible was read from the pulpit on Sunday morning but the texts were treated as truth so long as the truth squared with what was intellectually acceptable.  On the other side were the “conservatives” or “fundamentalists,” who believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible as the inerrant, infallible Word of God.  These people came from mostly blue-collar industrial worker and agricultural backgrounds who simply and succinctly believed what the Bible said.  If the Bible says that an axe head floated, it floated; and no person intervening with a stick had to make it happen.  The issues were serious and sacred to both sides.  The battle was engaged and from the beginning the conservatives were winning.

Now you need to know what “winning” means.  What was at stake in this battle was the direction of the SBC in terms primarily of its seminaries.  In order to change the course of the convention, its schools and agencies had to be changed.  This required a change in the trustee numbers on the boards of the seminaries and agencies.  The President of the SBC has appointive powers for the committee that then appoints the trustees for the seminaries and agencies.  If the conservatives could win five straight elections or for ten years, they would as long as they were in power be able to reshape the entire structure of the SBC.  They succeeded.  But their success came with some systemic concerns. Let me show the concerns through an exchange that I had during those years.

Many of you know that during that battle I was not only a liberal but for several years was the leader of the liberals in Georgia.  We were known as “Concerned Georgia Baptists,” the state version of the SBC version of “Concerned Southern Baptists.”  This latter group held strategy meetings throughout the year, most of them on the campus of Mercer University, then and now one of the most liberal universities in the southeast from which one of the most liberal seminaries has been established, the McAfee School of Theology.  But I digress.  At one of those strategy meetings I sat beside Grady Cothen.  He was a long time leader in Baptist life serving very effectively as the president and CEO of the Sunday School Board (now known as Lifeway).  It was at a break during one of those meetings that he said something to me that I have never forgotten and is the reason that I am glad that Johnny Hunt is the president of the SBC.

Cothen said to me, “young man, I want you to know why I am here. It has nothing to do with theology and everything to do with polity.  I am no liberal. I am an inerrantist, but I am not a fundamentalist.  Fundamentalists are the kind of folk who love to fight and are always fighting.  If there is not an enemy, they will invent one.  If they win this battle for the Bible and the Convention and it looks as if they will, the fight will not be finished; they will begin to fight among themselves.  I am a conservative, but I am no fundamentalist because fundamentalists of every ilk are very narrow in their orientation opposed to anybody and everybody who disagrees with whatever their view might be.  And for true fundamentalists, their views will become increasingly more and more narrow so as to exclude even those who believe basically what they believe but do not see it or do it in the way they see it or do it.”  We have gotten there as a Convention.

The alternative to Hunt was deeply disconcerting because it represented a view of the convention that would even exclude inerrantists and exclusivists (those who believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation) whose theological orientation was not exactly the same as theirs.  Let me just give you one example.  This crowd has gotten so narrow that they are wanting to condemn wonderful men of God who for right reasons do not always give and inviation at the end of a worship service because they believe (although they would argue against me on this one) that coming to the front is the way to be saved.  And any church that does it any other way is apostate.  Listen to them preach and this is what you will hear.  I have heard it.  I even heard one of them blast Baptist churches who removed “Baptist” from their name calling it a falling away.  This is fundamentalism. It begins with the Bible as inerrant to be sure but develops a system of both being and doing church that becomes for them as inerrant as the Bible they call inerrant.  This is not good.  This is bordering on heresy.

Johnny Hunt is as conservative as they come.  God’s anointing is on this man.  When I hear him preach, I am stirred in my spirit.  He is used of God to feed me.  But he knows that humans are fallible and flawed.  He knows that no one theological system can be reduced to the level of inerrancy or infallibility.  And most of all he knows that what we need in our churches is not a battle over theological systems but a bountiful outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the men behind the sacred desks (or stool) so that we take the inerrant Bible and preach it with power line by line and precept upon precept and watch our great God do His great Work in the saving of souls and the sanctifying of lives to the glory of His Name to the spreading of His Kingdom across the globe.

Does it make sense to you that if you want to know what Jesus said, you read what He said rather than reading some modern interpreter trying to tell us what Jesus said.  Or if I want to know what Paul proclaimed, then I had best spend time and invest energy in struggling to understand his words without giving uncritical attention to some modern scholar who wants to tell me what Paul proclaimed.  If I want to know the mind of George Whitfield or John Wesley, wouldn’t it be far better to read their sermons rather than some assesment of them from a modern writer regardless of the writers’ depth of understanding of these men.  Who could not agree with this kind of approach as the best approach to understanding any person?  Even in our relationships with one another it is important that our interpretation of each other be gained from listening to each other and not through some third party who wants to tell us what another said.

Herein is my problem with what I am hearing and reading today about those crazy Calvnists.  Most of what I read and hear is so far removed from genuine Calvinism that emerges out of John Calvin that it is unworthy of any response at all.  It seems to me that there are three different groups as it relates to Calvin and Calvinists and it is the third that has become the straw man for those who want to criticize and castigate Calvinists.  Let me introduce you to the three groups by using just one component of Calvinism as an illustration:  limited atonement.

John Calvin taught limited atonement.  Let an Arminian hear that and he goes crazy.  What he dos not do is what he ought to do and that is read Calvin in terms of what he means by limited atonement.  Calvin means first that the only way to be saved is by the grace of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.  No sinner will be saved apart from Jesus Christ.  This limits salvation.  Second, Calvin makes it clear that God is absolutely omniscient so that He knows who are His from before the foundation of the world.  Every person who deals with limited atonement has to deal with the omniscience of God.  The obverse of limited atonement is either that all will be saved (universalism) or some will be saved but God does not know who those are (open theism).  The former is the heart of liberalism and the latter is at the heart of modern American evangelicalism where the idea of the absolute sovereignty of God is distasteful to people who like to be in control.  As soon as a person acknowledges God’s omniscience then that person has limited the atonement.  Third, Calvin taught that whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved but only those whom God has chosen and called will do that, those whom He knows from before the foundation of the world.  This too limits the atonement in terms of its efficacy.  This is what Paul is proclaiming when he speaks in Ephesians of the church as the bride of Christ that is purchased by His blood. 

Classic Calvinists concur with these views on limited atonement but often emphasize so much the efficacy of salvation for the elect of God that they tend to eliminate the need for evangelism.  The truth is that knowing what the Bible teaches about what God knows about us and knowing that God works in and through the witness to the Gospel to bring salvation ought to excite enthusiastic witness in every believer.  It is a vital and vibrant reminder that we are saved by grace through faith and it is not of ourselves(the Greek text is clear that it is not from us).  John 1 [+/-]John 1 [1:1]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2]He was in the beginning with God. [3]All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. [4]In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [5]The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. [6]There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. [7]He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. [8]He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. [9]The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. [10]He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. [11]He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. [12]But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, [13]who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. [14]And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. [15](John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'") [16]And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. [17]For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. [18]No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. [19]And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" [20]He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ." [21]And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" And he answered, "No." [22]So they said to him, "Who are you? We need to give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?" [23]He said, "I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way of the Lord,' as the prophet Isaiah said." [24](Now they had been sent from the Pharisees.) [25]They asked him, "Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?" [26]John answered them, "I baptize with water, but among you stands one you do not know, [27]even he who comes after me, the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie." [28]These things took place in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing. [29]The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! [30]This is he of whom I said, 'After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.' [31]I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel." [32]And John bore witness: "I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. [33]I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' [34]And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God." [35]The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples, [36]and he looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!" [37]The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. [38]Jesus turned and saw them following and said to them, "What are you seeking?" And they said to him, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "where are you staying?" [39]He said to them, "Come and you will see." So they came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour. [40]One of the two who heard John speak and followed Jesus was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. [41]He first found his own brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which means Christ). [42]He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter). [43]The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, "Follow me." [44]Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. [45]Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." [46]Nathanael said to him, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see." [47]Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!" [48]Nathanael said to him, "How do you know me?" Jesus answered him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you." [49]Nathanael answered him, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!" [50]Jesus answered him, "Because I said to you, 'I saw you under the fig tree,' do you believe? You will see greater things than these." [51]And he said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man." (ESV)
makes this concept even more clear.

The hypercalvinists have hurt us all and it is this group that is most often attacked when the Calvinists are attacked.  It is this group that teaches limited atonement in terms that Calvin would not recognize.  Their focus is on the death of Jesus for the church to the absolute exclusion of the love of Jesus for the world.  John 3:16 [+/-]John 3:16 [16]"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (ESV)
teaches limited atonement.  General atonement would have John 3:16 [+/-]John 3:16 [16]"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (ESV)
would have the love of God followed by the gift of God in Jesus for the world so that all could be saved.  Particular or limited atonement is that God loved the world enough to give us the gift of His one and only Son so that whosoever believes in Him . . . this is limited atonement.  Not everybody is saved.  Not everybody will be saved. And this knowldege belongs to God.  It does not belong to us. So what do we do?  We go declare the Gospel to everybody and anybody, everywhere and for all time.  God will save through His gospel all who call upon Him and cry out to Him in repentance and faith.  And God knows who those people are.  We don’t.  That is Calvin.  That is classic Calvinism.  That is different from the hyper-Calvinists about whom I have heard and have yet to meet. 

 

 June 25, 2008 Wednesday Evening Message [31:05m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

June 25, 2008 Wednesday Evening Message by Pastor Al

 

 Basic Biblical Beliefs - all about World Views [46:32m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Colossians 2:6 [+/-]Colossians 2:6 [6]Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, (ESV)

Before getting into the Core Beliefs of Scripture, Pastor Al looks at the issue of Philosophical Presuppositions; or our World View first.

He explores some of the prevailing worldviews, particularly present in our culture,

 

 Basic Training for Parents [44:38m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Deuteronomy 6:1-15 [+/-]Deuteronomy 6:1-15 [6:1]"Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the rules that the LORD your God commanded me to teach you, that you may do them in the land to which you are going over, to possess it, [2]that you may fear the LORD your God, you and your son and your son's son, by keeping all his statutes and his commandments, which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be long. [3]Hear therefore, O Israel, and be careful to do them, that it may go well with you, and that you may multiply greatly, as the LORD, the God of your fathers, has promised you, in a land flowing with milk and honey. [4]"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. [5]You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. [6]And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. [7]You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. [8]You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. [9]You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. [10]"And when the LORD your God brings you into the land that he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give you--with great and good cities that you did not build, [11]and houses full of all good things that you did not fill, and cisterns that you did not dig, and vineyards and olive trees that you did not plant--and when you eat and are full, [12]then take care lest you forget the LORD, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. [13]It is the LORD your God you shall fear. Him you shall serve and by his name you shall swear. [14]You shall not go after other gods, the gods of the peoples who are around you-- [15]for the LORD your God in your midst is a jealous God--lest the anger of the LORD your God be kindled against you, and he destroy you from off the face of the earth. (ESV)
; Proverbs 22:6 [+/-]Proverbs 22:6 [6]Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.
and Ephesians 6:1-4 [+/-]Ephesians 6:1-4 [6:1]Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. [2]"Honor your father and mother" (this is the first commandment with a promise), [3]"that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land." [4]Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (ESV)

Richard Land who leads the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission for Southern Baptists may well be along with Albert Mohler  the two who most have their finger on the pulse of how the culture is shaping both the church and families in the church.  Both are deeply concerned.  So concerned that they conclude that if families in our churches do not return to biblical basics so that the biblical order is maintained, the churches that seek to maintain biblical order in the way they operate are on a collision course with families that are out of order and the end game will be out of order families that shape the life of the church or churches that maintain biblical order at the expense of losing families to churches that are as much out of order as the families that are in them.  Richard Land, for example, in a recent article in which he was reflecting on our dilemma reminded his readers of the true reading of the famous passage in Proverbs, “where there is no vision, the people perish, but happy is he that keeps the law” (Proverbs 29:18 [+/-]Proverbs 29:18 [18]Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint, but blessed is he who keeps the law.
).  Land reminds his readers rightly that the word for vision points to the right proclamation of the message of God in His Word and the word for “perish” means to “cast off restraint.”  Put together the wisdom writer is painting a picture of a time when people will no longer listen to the word of God because they are driven in their doing by their desires.  And Land concludes that in our culture and  in most of the families that are in our culture, we are already there.  And it is getting worse. Listen to his words, “we have ignored God’s Word—the owner’s manual for our lives, our marriages, and our families—and we wonder why we are broken down by the side of the road.  We ignore the traffic signs and wonder why the landscape is littered with accidents.  We ignore the maps and wonder why we have lost our way.  Our society has broken down by the side of the road because it has lost a vision for who we are and why we are here.  Life itself has become for us simply a means for achieving our own selfish ends.”
Learn more about this message by downloading the sermon notes here!

 

 From Head to Toe: Characteristics of a Church [44:15m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

1 Peter 3:8-12 [+/-]1 Peter 3:8-12 [8]Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. [9]Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. [10]For "Whoever desires to love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit; [11]let him turn away from evil and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it. [12]For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil."

The church is a place where right belief is basic.  We must have a basic, biblical mentality but this mentality must be informed by a heart that is on fire for Jesus and in love with one another.  These realities become the substance of our soul or the goal of our gut.  The next word that Peter gives us is very graphic:  it paints a picture of a person who is in such agony in his gut that he groans outwardly.  It is the word that the Bible uses of Jesus when He saw the crowds who were harassed and helpless and He sent out the apostles to declare to them the good news of the gospel.  Peter is dealing here with our EXTERNALITY.  He is turning us now from the inside to the outside, from ourselves in relationship to one another to the world and its need.  But the word he uses forces us to focus first and foremost on the inside so that when we turn outside we do so for the right reasons with the right goal.  The word that he uses means to groan well or to agonize in such a way that it is pleasing.  To whom?  To God?  What is the issue here?

Learn more about this message by downloading the sermon notes here!

 

 Case Studies in Conversation - God So Loves Who? [33:21m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

John 3:16 [+/-]John 3:16 [16]"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (ESV)

Pastor Al continues exploring the text from John 3:16 [+/-]John 3:16 [16]"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (ESV)
, looking at the words within, and context found in this verse and how it is applied elsewhere in scripture.

This lesson continues focusing on the word “World”. When reading John 3:16 [+/-]John 3:16 [16]"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (ESV)
, most may assume that salvation applies to everyone within the entire World. Is this the case? Listen in as Pastor Al explains the meanings of “World” throughout God’s Word!

 

 It's a Big, Big House! [46:25m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

1 Peter 3:8-12 [+/-]1 Peter 3:8-12 [8]Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. [9]Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. [10]For "Whoever desires to love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit; [11]let him turn away from evil and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it. [12]For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil."

Not every marriage is going to be everything that God wills or wants it to be. And I am speaking here to and of believers.  It is basic to what God wills and wants that believers marry believers.  This is fundamental to our being faithful to God and it is foundational in our faithfulness to Him.  But even where believers are married to believers, there are struggles.  Marriage is hard and it requires an enormous investment of time and energy.  And even the best of marriages some of which are found right here in this church go through difficult days and nasty nights and seasons of struggle.  Some who are deeply devoted to God and to one another have thrown around the “d” word from time to time.

Learn more about this message by downloading the sermon notes here!

 

 Mixed Marriage [44:09m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

1 Peter 2:18-3 [+/-]1 Peter 2:18-3:22 [18]Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. [19]For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. [20]For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. [21]For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. [22]He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. [23]When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. [24]He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. [25]For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. [3:1]Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, [2]when they see your respectful and pure conduct. [3]Do not let your adorning be external--the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear-- [4]but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. [5]For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, [6]as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. [7]Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. [8]Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. [9]Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. [10]For "Whoever desires to love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit; [11]let him turn away from evil and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it. [12]For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil." [13]Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? [14]But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, [15]but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, [16]having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. [17]For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil. [18]For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, [19]in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, [20]because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. [21]Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, [22]who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. (ESV)
:7
The culture in which we live as believers is the context in which we engage in the worship of God and express our witness to Jesus.  We must not ignore the culture in which we live nor dismiss it as irrelevant to who we are and what we do. But we cannot allow it to shape our understanding of our worship of God, our witness for Jesus or our way of life in this world.  These realities must be defined by Scripture which is the eternal word of God neither captured nor controlled by the cultures in which it was written.  This means that when we want to understand what marriage is to be and how we are to relate to one another in our households, we do not turn to the secular psychologists and sociologists of our society but we turn to the pages of sacred Scripture.  It is fixed.  It is focused.  It alone provides the foundation and the framework for the living of our lives.  Cultures are not consistent.  Consider the culture of some who live in the Amazon Valley when it comes to the process of pregnancy and delivery.  Philip Yancy describes what he experienced in these cultures:  “. . . it seemed that the mothers who were pregnant and giving birth showed no signs of pain during the delivery.  In fact, in most cases the woman worked in the field, left for a few hours to drop the baby and then returned to work.  It was the husband and father of the child who experienced the pain.”   Men in this culture, according to Yancey, “spend days in bed after the delivery moaning and groaning in pain,” and those who do not do that have their paternity called into question.  And there is more:  these men upon learning of the wife’s pregnancy experience  “weight gain, constipation, headaches and other signs of distress not to mention the great groaning that comes upon them when the baby is being delivered.”  Cultures vary.  They are not consistent.  So whether it is this one in which we live or that one along the Amazon, it is best not to trust as a truthful guide what is taught and believed in the culture.  The believer is bound by the Word of God.

Learn more about this message by downloading the sermon notes here!