Good questions. I know we probably don’t want this to go on forever but I’ve thought some about the things you asked. I’m actually not really sure whether co-existence should happen or not. The SBC is unique in that the local church has the most authority regarding matters of faith and practice. The most recent BF&M seems broad enough to allow people on both sides to agree with it, which I think is a flaw and yet it does seem to allow this co-existence to occur. Maybe that’s a good thing (wait, it obviously is ultimately because God works all things together for good ). There is the cooperative program, but honestly I’m very hesitant to donate money there. I do think a false gospel has been in the SBC for some time and a lot of cooperative money is actually spent propagating a false gospel. That might seem harsh but it shows that I do think these issues are one of primary or necessary importance. I like the idea of local associations (perhaps even non-geographical) of SBC churches that are like-minded in doctrine working together.

Also, I’ve been in a church where people were opposed to “Calvinism” because of what they’ve been told about it and yet they seemed receptive to God-centered preaching so long as certain “buzz-words” weren’t used. So I’m not really sure how accurate that 80-90% statistic really is. Perhaps there will be a division and perhaps there really should be one. But perhaps God will bring true revival and people will be humbled. We could “Calvinize” the whole SBC and it be nothing but an intellectual doctrine devoid of God. In that case the SBC might be worse off than it is now… interesting and important things to consider.

I would be happy to continue discussing this in some way if there are other avenues to explore. It has been very fruitful for me and I have learned a lot. I think that we both agree on the works based nature of sanctification as it is preached on both sides of this debate throughout the SBC. While not trying to minimize this debate, practically speaking, I believe that our understanding of sanctification has even greater consequences because whether we have a monergistic or synergistic view of salvation, there is no doubt that God does it and He alone gets the glory. Of course, I am not talking about making peace with any type of full blown Arminianism. You might see any compromise on that issue as out of bounds and I would understand that, but I think that there is room for some disagreement there based on how one interprets Scripture.

The biggest question for the Calvinist in the SBC is this: How are you going to co-exist with a denomination that has between 80-90% of its members holding a different view than you on this (according to recent polls)? You can say that the SBC was historically Calvinistic all day long and it does not change the reality of where we stand today. How do you interact with people who disagree? How do you pastor churches that have a different perspective? If you go so far as to say that non-Calvinists do not believe the true gospel, then it is clear that you are headed for schism. If you can co-exist while continuing to promote your views, that seems to be the best approach.

It will be interesting to see how things shake out. I am not a prophet, but I am willing to forecast that division will happen at some point if co-existence is not possible. As for me, I can definitely get along with Calvinists and I appreciate them. Whether or not they will tolerate my presence in the SBC is up to them, I guess.

Thanks for a great discussion. I hope to continue it again sometime.

Thank you also for this discussion. It seems to be coming to a close for now but I think things have been learned on both sides. I’m glad to hear your comments about sanctification being the work of God as well as salvation. I also think that reformed people and perhaps the SBC in general seem to approach sanctification from a works/man-centered perspective rather than it being the life of God at work in the soul.

As far as this whole topic goes, I still think it is of primary / essential importance and not just some secondary issue that brothers can agree to disagree on. When responding to Chapman’s comments, I’m not really trying to attack him personally but just the theology being put forth. I think we can strongly react against a theology without it having to be a personal attack or attack of a person’s motives.

While I don’t think we should ever be intentionally hurtful or mean in our dialog, I think we should be more concerned about offending God than offending man. Besides, if we were truly humble the only thing that could ever offend us is that which goes against God . Take care,

-Aaron

Thank you both for the excellent discussion. I have learned a great deal and this has caused me to reflect more deeply on our great salvation. While I believe that a faith response is necessary, I recoil against anyone claiming that that response was due to their own merit. Again, I fully affirm that it is God working on man that enables him to believe, therefore God receives the glory. Apart from God’s drawing, salvation is impossible.

So, I find myself in no-man’s land on this issue. I lean Calvinistic and benefit greatly from their writings and teaching. I know where I disagree with Calvinists, so I don’t let that bother me. I greatly appreciate the God-focus that often exists among the Reformed. I was raised Arminian and see it as a very damaging theology and cannot go back to it. So, I’m in the middle somewhere.

But, I think that I am in the place that the vast majority of Southern Baptists reside on this issue. Where I differ, perhaps, is that I am quite reformed when it comes to our sanctification – far more than most Calvinists that I know. Just as we are saved by the work of Christ and we are just to respond by faith, so are we sanctified the same way. While the salvation discussion is very important, it deeply troubles me to see Calvinists who seem to forget about grace and the work of the Spirit after salvation. That makes no sense. It is all Christ.

I think that this is a complicated issue and it is clear that there are differing views. I do think, in light of these discussions, that Dr. Chapman could stand to be given some grace as a brother trying to work from his convictions on this issue. Disagreeing with him is fine (as I see here), but I don’t think that he is the enemy he is being painted to be.

I have found Calvin to be even better than Luther on this issue… Regardless if you are a Calvinist or a Non-Calvinist and you have not read Calvin’s (The Bondage and Liberation of the Will), and you are serious about understanding this important issue, you will find it of great value. When Non-Calvinist actually read Calvin on this issue for the first time, most are very surprised by what they find… and many come away finding it hard to disagree with what he says.

You can fid a copy of Calvin’s (The Bondage and Liberation of the Will) at: http://www.monergismbooks.com/The-Bondage-and-Liberation-of-the-Will-p-16201.html

Truly one of the most important books I have ever read!

Grace Always,

“God has surely promised His grace to the humbled: that is, to those who mourn over and despair of themselves. But a man cannot be thoroughly humbled till he realizes that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsels, efforts, will and works, and depends absolutely on the will, counsel pleasure and work of another – God alone. As long as he is persuaded that he can make even the smallest contribution to his salvation, he remains self-confident and does not utterly despair of himself, and so is not humbled before God; but plans out for himself (or at least hopes and longs for) a position, an occasion, a work, which shall bring him final salvation. But he who is out of doubt that his destiny depends entirely on the will of God despairs entirely of himself, chooses nothing for himself, but waits for God to work in him; and such a man is very near to grace for his salvatio” (pg. 100)

(apologies if there are typos)

I do want to thank you again for your thoughtful responses and desire to discuss these things. It may seem we are going in circles, but I think we are getting at some of what has been fought over since the reformation. I am basically saying that the “faith response” has nothing to do with effecting salvation but it is simply a necessary outflow of the new birth. Perhaps I am saying what Morris Chapman is arguing against in some way. I would just note, however, that there is a faith response, but it is after or in conjunction with the new birth and it is the work of God not the work of man’s supposed free-will. In essence I would say the response is God’s response to Himself worked out in the soul.

This discussion reminded me of “The Bondage of the Will” by Martin Luther. The belief that salvation does not come until there is some response on our part seemed to be the argument of Erasmus that Luther was strongly objecting against. The issue is extremely important. Here’s what Luther wrote regarding this topic centuries ago:

“So it is not irreligious, idle, or superfluous, but in the highest degree wholesome and necessary, for a Christian to know whether or not his will has anything to do in matters pertaining to salvation. Indeed, let me tell you, this is the hinge on which our discussion turns, the crucial issue between us; our aim is simply, to investigate what ability “free will” has, in what respect it is the subject of Divine action and how it stands related to the grace of God. If we know nothing of these things, we shall know nothing whatsoever of Christianity, and shall be in worse case than any people on earth!” (The Bondage of the Will, pg. 78, 1957 Packer/Johnston translation)

Luther’s position was that the will is in bondage to sin and has nothing to do in effecting salvation (matters pertaining to salvation). He also said: “For if it is not we, but God alone, who works salvation in us, it follows that, willy-nilly, nothing we do has any saving significance prior to His working in us.” (pg. 102)

The reason I bring Luther up is because this is the historic “reformed” position, which has been strongly opposed to any act of the human will as part of salvation, which in my mind includes a faith response IF that is the will or work of man. When any decision or response on the part of man is brought up as a “necessary element in the salvation experience,” as Chapman has noted, I cannot get around understanding that as salvation dependent in some way on the will of man and so is not a salvation totally of grace.

I’m sorry if my responses are starting to frustrate you. I know I’m not the most clear writer. I would agree with Luther’s main points in Bondage of the Will – things he thought essential to the gospel. I do not think Morris Chapman could agree with him and write the things Timmy brought out. If the will or work of man has anything to do in salvation, then it is not 100% of grace. It is the work of God conditioned on a reception or response.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions in such detail and with such honesty, grace, and clarity. I have a great deal of respect for you and the very mature way you engage in these often passionate discussions about our common faith. I too do not wish to get bogged down in any tit-for-tat argument over the many verses that both sides can bring to this discussion.

I am of the opinion that it is the Holy Spirit, through the careful study of the Scriptures, that convicts each of us of us of truth or error, and that a healthy dose of another historically cherished Baptist doctrine would be very good for the Southern Baptist Convention at this time.

XVII. Religious Liberty – “God alone is Lord of the conscience…”

Grace Always

Like I said before, I fully believe that repentance is only possible once God works on a person’s heart and calls them through the work of the Spirit and the preaching of the gospel. Some might call that regeneration. I wouldn’t say that it is necessarily because I think that once regeneration begins it continues on to completion. Is it possible to reject the Lord when you are called? The Parable of the Wedding Banquet (Matt. 22:1-14) seems to indicate so, as do many other Scriptures. So, I would say that God must bid a person come before he is able to repent (my prior argument), but that regeneration happens when faith and repentance occur in that that is the point when someone is born again. Jesus said, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent” (John 6:29), and “For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:40), and “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:44), and “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:53-54), and “‘The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.’ For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him” (John 6:63-65), and “If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own” (John 7:17), and “If anyone is thirsty let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him” (John 7:37-38).

I could keep going and going, obviously. But, my point in pointing to all of that is that we gain from Jesus’ own words an understanding that I believe is vital. Here is what I take from these Scriptures:

1. Jesus knows all who will believe.
2. We can only come to Jesus if the Father enables us or draws us.
3. We are told to look to Jesus and believe in Him. This is called a “work” that God requires.
4. We can choose to do God’s will and when we do, we will find out if Jesus is from God.
5. We are told to eat and drink of Jesus to have eternal life and so that the Spirit will flow from within us and Jesus will raise us up at the last day.

All of this, at least to me, shows that God is the One who draws us and that we must respond to the drawing of the Lord by believing in Him and partaking of His life. Then His life will flow from us, producing fruit (John 15:16). I believe that it is possible to reject the Lord’s drawing based on what I see happening in Jesus’ ministry.

Now, I did not want to really get into a tit-for-tat with verses because I have far too much respect for you guys to think that you have never read these verses before and just needed me to point them out to you. I know very well that you have verses to defend your position and they are very convincing. Some of this is just looking at the same thing from different angles. I feel that my perspective is biblical, however, because I do not think that man is at the focus or that it is man’s effort or work that saves us – it is God’s calling and drawing through the gospel that does so. Our “work” so to speak, is to believe, which is what Jesus told us to do. That is not a “work” in the sense of self-righteousness, but rather, it is trusting in Christ alone to save.