How to Avoid Separating the Sheep from the Sheep

INTRODUCTION (Read 1 Cor. 1:1-31)

We are going to continue our journey in studying the ancient church that could be likened to the Las Vegas of the ancient world. Being a culturally diverse city, Corinth was full of different ethnic, social, and religious groups that provided plenty of opportunities for sin. Just as many churches today embrace and feed off of the sinful aspects of the culture they are in, so the church of Corinth mirrored the sinful culture of Corinth. In our previous teachings in chapter one we have already seen that the disease of sin had infected this young church to such an extent that they questioned Paul’s apostolic authority and had begun to become boastful (cf. 1 Cor. 14:37 and all of 2^nd Corinthians). By way of review, the virulent mixture of secular and pagan influences that infected the Church of Corinth promoted lone-ranger individualism and boasting about spiritual gifts, it led to an arrogance that questioned Paul’s apostolic authority, it created a sinful cultural accommodation and compromise of the gospel to their society, and many other things that are but mirrors of what occurs in many evangelical churches today. Paul contradicted this from the beginning of his letter by reinforcing the idea that he is an apostle of Jesus (1:1) and that the grace both he and they experienced comes from God and is dispensed by God (1:3). In verses 4-9, we have seen that our focus should be the same as Paul’s, namely, that God’s powerful calling of us to salvation, our spiritual gifts, and our fellowship with Jesus and His people is all of God, through God, and to God and none of it comes from us. Therefore, it is impossible to boast in anything because it’s all a gift of God anyways. We are the undeserving and eternally grateful recipients of His mercy, grace, and good pleasure and it is our joy to spread this grace everywhere for the supremacy of God and for the joy of all peoples.

Paul was no stranger to controversy, schism, and factiousness. He was a hateful, controversial, and murderous man before his conversion and he rebuked Peter for his factiousness after his conversion (Acts 26:9ff; Gal. 2:11-14). The lack of unity that has often plagued the church is nothing new. We see it rearing its ugly head in the ancient church of Corinth, right in the middle of the first century with the 12 apostles still present. This is because where you have sinful people; you’ll have areas of disagreement that will make for potential division, especially when the “law of love” does not reign supreme in the lives of professing believers (Rom. 13:10; Gal. 6:2). When selfishness, envy, boasting, and strife have gone to seed, there can be no room for a “meeting of the minds” (Phil. 2:4-5). John MacArthur rightly states,

. . . believers are continually tempted to fall back into lives of self-will, self-interest, and general self-centeredness. At the heart of sin is the ego, the self-will, self-interest, and general self-centeredness. At the heart of sin is the ego, the “I”. Self-centeredness is the root of man’s depravity, the depravity into which every person since Adam and Eve, except Jesus Christ, has been born. Even Christians are still sinners – justified, but still sinful in themselves. And when that sin is allowed to have its way in our flesh, conflict is inevitable. When two or more people are bent on having their own ways, they will soon be quarreling and arguing, because their interests, concerns, and priorities, sooner or later will conflict. There cannot possibly be harmony in a group, even a group of believers, whose desires, goals, purposes, and ideals are generated by their egos.[1]

With Dr. MacArthur’s thoughts in mind, let us turn our attention to verses 10-17 under the following points:

I. An Apostolic Plea for Unity (v. 10).

II. A Problem with Quarrels (vv. 11-12).

III. An Overlooked Principle (v. 13).

IV. A Powerful Message (vv. 14-17).

TEACHING/APPLICATION

I. An Apostolic Plea for Unity (v. 10).

Verse 10, Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. – Paul appeals to them as “brethren”, thus showing that he is interested in softening his rebuke without reducing the seriousness thereof. And so, for the sake of maintaining the intimate unity and fellowship around the gospel, a unity that only the Spirit can produce in the heart of a regenerated Godlover, Paul appeals to them as brothers. This type of appeal doesn’t come down to us as an appeal in the form of a bare-naked law, but instead it originates from an attitude of grace because only grace can produce this type of unity. Because they were called into fellowship with God’s Son, they were spiritual brethren, and brethren should and can demonstrate a love that gives yield to quarreling and instead evidences the presence of the new heart by being “made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment” (Ezek. 36:25-27 cf. Heb. 8:10).

When Paul says that he wants them to be “. . . made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment” he doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone should think and operate the same way in the church. Quite the contrary, as Fee notes, “Although the words ‘mind’ and ‘opinion’ . . . imply that at least they must agree on the fundamental nature of the gospel . . . they do not thereby imply that in the Christian faith unity demands uniformity; the argument for the need of diversity in chap. 12, not to mention Paul’s argument in Gal. 2:10, rules that out.”[2] So what does Paul mean when he wants them to have the same mind and the same judgment? He provides his own answer when he says, “that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you.” The word “division” is schismata, from whence we get our English word “schism”. This word describes a tearing, or a rending[3] in the church caused by people who have divided opinions over different church leaders. Their quarrelling created divisions in the church, and Paul’s solution is that this “torn-apart” church be “knit-together” by focusing on their unity around the gospel message (cf. v. 17).

Questions for reflection: (1) Professing evangelical Christians are known for surrounding themselves with particular Bible teachers and preachers that tell them what they want to hear. Is this a bad thing? If so why, if not why? (2) What is the difference between a Biblical unity and a legalistic uniformity? What are the pros/cons of either one? (3) What should be the unifying theme for all Christian ministry according to Paul in verse 17?

II. A Problem with Quarrels (vv. 11-12).

Verses 11-12, For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ.” – Various people in the Corinthian church aligned themselves with their own well-respected leaders and it created divisions and was destroying unity. They were separating the sheep from the sheep. Jesus spoke about separating the sheep from the goats (Matt. 25:33) or separating the wheat from the tares (Matt. 13:30) at the end of the age. These passages are images of believers being separated from non-believers at the final judgment. Sadly, many followers of Jesus seem to be more interested in separating the sheep from other sheep. This desire to separate the “true” sheep from other sheep didn't start recently, and we can look at other parts of the New Testament to see that professing believers were practicing sheep separation:

^NAU Galatians 2:12-13 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, [Peter] used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. ¹³ The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

^NAU 3 John 9-10 I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. ¹⁰ For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.

In each case above, these examples of “sheep separation” were corrected by the writers of Scripture. These negative examples are balanced by the many positive encouragements that we find in Scripture to walk in unity, to fellowship with one another, to build one another up instead of attempting to destroy one another so that we can follow our own lusts. Nevertheless, in spite of the many warnings and exhortations from Scripture, we continue to think that it is our duty to separate ourselves from other “sheep” who are not exactly like us in every particular way and to make it worse, we think that we have the right to choose which things are important and which things are not. Now, as a disclaimer, I must clearly state that in order for us to have fellowship with other professing believers, they (and we) must hold to the biblical gospel, lest we be eternally condemned (Gal. 1:6-9). To make it even simpler, there can be no Christian fellowship if there are no gospel-believing Christians to have fellowship with. This means what we can’t share Christian fellowship with Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, or any other unbeliever, but only born-again believers. According to God’s word, that is where the line for fellowship should be drawn (cf. 2 Corinthians. 6:14-18).

However, many Christians often shun fellowship with gospel-loving and gospel-defending Baptist, Paedobaptist, charismatic (gasp!), and other born-again, blood-washed brethren because they want to determine for themselves who they should and should not listen to and learn from. This type of thinking displays a similar arrogance that the Corinthians possessed, especially when modern believers wrongly think that since others have differences with them on certain peripheral “doctrines” that this somehow means that they have the right to determine who they can and cannot have fellowship with. Friends, when we unnecessarily separate ourselves from our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and cut off any opportunity of learning from them, we are doing what Paul condemned in 1 Corinthians 12:21. When comparing the different yet necessary members of the church with the different yet necessary parts of the human body, Paul said, “And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you.” Paul is saying that this is so wrongheaded. Sadly, many professing Christian preachers encourage this type of behavior by telling Christians to avoid many gospel-loving people because of relatively minor doctrinal differences between them. And so, being like Diotrephes, they love to be reckoned first among their followers instead of doing what Paul did by gently rebuking the idea that there were people attaching themselves to him! This type of thinking breeds what I call the “True-Church Syndrome”, a nasty situation that occurs when a group of people become so disillusioned by the minor doctrinal disagreements amongst Christians that they end up convincing themselves that they are the only ones on earth who are the true church.[4]

Questions for reflection: (1) Since Paul sought unity in the Corinthian church, according to 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 where should we be willing to draw the line doctrinally when it comes to withholding Christian fellowship? (2) How do we avoid unnecessarily separating ourselves from other Christians with whom we may not quite see eye to eye on everything? (3) According to 1 Tim. 4:13, what can be done within the Christian church at large to avoid disunity and keep “the same mind and the same judgment”? (4) What should gospel-loving Christians do to avoid the “True-Church syndrome?

III. An Overlooked Principle (v. 13).

Verse 13, Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? - Paul reduces their argument to absurdity by asking “was I crucified for you?” or “were you baptized in my name”? This type of question is rhetorical, and is designed to stop the mouth of anyone who would try to create a “Paul-party”. Since they were not baptized into the name of Paul, they could not therefore be “of Paul”. A believer should never allow anything or anybody to destroy the unity of the church. Paul wanted to preach the gospel without compromise, but he didn’t want anyone boasting that they were his disciples. He wanted to bring men to Christ, not to himself.[5] A divided church is not a characteristic of what a Christian church should be. Paul knew this and it is why he said the following throughout his letters:

^NAU 1 Corinthians 6:17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

^NAU 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. ¹³ For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

^NAU Romans 12:5 so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

^NAU Ephesians 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; ⁵ one Lord, one faith, one baptism, ⁶ one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

Today, just like in the first century, when God’s people develop a party-spirit and fight and quarrel against one-another, they bring reproach upon the name of Christ because they are separating the sheep from the sheep and swearing allegiance to men. Christ died to make them one, and instead of creating unnecessary divisions, they should all seek unity around the revealed will of God found in Scripture and learn how to discuss their minor differences in theology like incurable God-Lovers.

IV. A Powerful Message (vv. 14-17).

^NAU 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, ¹⁵ so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. ¹⁶ Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. ¹⁷ For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. – Paul thanks God that he baptized so few so that no one could rightly say that they could be identified so closely with him that they could try to justify creating a sect after his name.[6] Paul was repulsed by the idea of having a sect within the church that claimed allegiance to him or any other church leader. This idea was so repulsive to him because that type of allegiance should be reserved only for Jesus.

Paul’s makes it clear that his purpose was not to go around baptizing people, but to preach the powerful, life-changing message of the gospel. As much as he emphasizes baptism in his writings[7], Paul makes a sharp distinction between baptism and the gospel in verse 17. In this verse it is clear that Paul does not believe that water baptism effects salvation, but only God does that by the power of His Spirit working in the preaching of the gospel. So Paul wants to go out of his way to make a clear distinction between the two things, lest the Corinthians (and us) think that baptism, in and of itself, in an ex opere operato fashion somehow automatically puts us in a right relationship with God. Baptism is the necessary faith-response to the preaching of the gospel, but it itself, is not the gospel.

Paul says that Christ sent him to preach the gospel “not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.” I take him to mean that he wants to preach the gospel without appealing to what the Corinthians had so highly-prized as a mark of divine wisdom, namely the Hellenistic concept of wisdom, which highly valued smooth speeches, golden-tongued rhetoric, and eloquent displays of oratorical skill. Paul wanted the content of his preaching to be God’s wisdom instead of man’s wisdom (i.e., “the word of the cross” in v. 18) and he wanted the form or manner of delivery to be free of eloquent, enticing, and ear-tickling displays of oratorical fancy when he says in 2:1-5, “And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. ² For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. ³ I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, ⁴ and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, ⁵ so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.”[8]

Questions for reflection: (1) Why was Paul thankful that he only baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas? (2) Why was it important that Paul ask them whether or not they could be baptized into his name? (3) Why does Paul make such a sharp distinction between baptism and the gospel? Why is this important for us now? (4) What are some of the potential problems with having a pastor with great oratorical skill and command of the language?

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, there is no question that the contemporary church is fragmented and divided in a way similar to that of the first-century church of Corinth. If a party-spirit abounds, with those who are born-again being unwilling and unable to listen to and learn from one another, then unity will be impossible. Just as the Corinthians needed to be focused on the word of the cross as found in the word of God so as to minimize the fleshly displays of dissension, confusion, and disputation that plagued the church in their day, we need to follow Paul’s advice as well. Prayer, humility, and a willingness to listen carefully to a fellow brother or sister is the order or the day so that the mind that is in Christ Jesus can also be in us (Phil. 2:5). It may be a tall order, but it is a biblical order, an order that we are reminded of by brother Paul elsewhere in his writings, “Therefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God” (Rom. 15:7).

---

[1] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: 1 Corinthians, (Chicago, ILL: Moody Press, 1984). 24.

[2] Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1987), 53.

[3] For good illustrations of the type of usage of schismata as contained in 1 Cor. 1:10, see John 7:40-43; 9:16; 10:19-21 where various groups are said to be divided over the identity and significance of Jesus.

[4] For a specific example of this type of thing, see here: http://www.atruechurch.info/

[5] MacArthur, 32.

[6] Crispus was the synagogue leader in Corinth who was converted under Paul’s ministry (Acts 18:8) and Gaius was most probably the Corinthian “host” to whom Paul refers in Romans 16:23.

[7] See for example, Rom. 6:3-7; Col. 2:11-15.

[8] Fee, 64-65.

Gossip-mongering

Michael Spencer is defending his laudatory review of Frank Schaeffer’s hatchet-job on his own parents. Both men make a virtue of betrayal.

“If we want to honor our parents, we will be truthful about them, applying all the categories of the Biblical story to them: honor, love, mercy and sinfulness.”

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/humiliation-humanity-and-the-fourth-commandment-can-we-tell-the-truth-about-those-whose-sin-affects-us

Notice how Spencer sets up a false dichotomy: we either have to tell the truth about someone else or lie about him.

This disregards the obvious alternative: we’re under no standing obligation to volunteer everything we know about someone else. There’s no duty, in general, to talk about other people—especially in ways harmful to their reputation.

Indeed, the Bible has a category for that behavior: gossip. And it’s a sin.

There are, of course, exceptions. But Spencer isn’t dwelling on the exceptions.

“These are some of the stories I’ve heard in counseling over the years. All true, and many of them in multiple editions. Because of the particular population I minister to, these kinds of life-stories are common. They are the wall-paper of the rooms I inhabit. There is not a moment of the day I’m not surrounded by these stories and the people they belong to.”

I have just one question: given Spencer’s defense of Frank Schaeffer’s hit piece, how could Spencer ever be a trustworthy confidant?

What if Spencer penned his memoirs tomorrow, and went public with the sins which numerous named individuals had confessed to him in private, after they sought him out for pastoral counseling?

Would you confide in Spencer? Is that what you’d want in a pastor? Is that what you’d want in a friend? Or would you suspect that he’s taking notes for his tell-all exposé?

Years ago, the late Truman Capote wrote a dishy, fictionalized novel (Answered Prayers) about his friends and benefactors.

When a “post-evangelical” pastor mutates into Truman Capote, that tells you everything you need to know about the destination of post-evangelical theology.

The marsupial playground

“The gentlemen at Triablogue are apparently hurting for material. For someone as dumb as I apparently am, who is defending an obviously indefensible sorteriological position, they sure seem to give me a lot of attention. Why do they feel like they need to addrsss my arguments if they are not a threat to their position? Do they really believe that someone might be taken in by my foolishness? They have even lifted comments written by commenters in my comboxes and dedicated entire posts to ‘refuting’ those threatening comments. Just what has gotten these gentlemen so freaked out and rattled?”

http://arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/03/leaving-play-ground-for-now.html

Would Ben say the same thing about Christ when he defended himself against false allegations? Would Ben say the same thing abut St. Paul when he defended the gospel, or defends his apostolic credentials?

Does Ben say the same thing about Christians who defend the divinity of Christ against Jehovah’s Witnesses? Does Ben say the same thing about Christians who defend the Bible against the aspersions of Bart Ehrman or the Jesus Seminar or Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens?

For that matter, isn’t Ben’s own tone pretty defensive? Doesn’t he (and his sidekick—Thibodaux) spend a lot of time defending Arminian theology?

Yes, it’s possible that someone might be taken in by his “foolishness.” Right off the bat, I can think of at two least people who’ve been taken in by his foolishness—Ben and Thibodaux.

“For some reason they have targeted me for the purpose of throwing their theological eggs at.”

How does my post on the analogy between prayer and time travel amount to throwing eggs at Ben?

“Instead, Paul became more insulting and put pictures up all over his post of things like dead kangaroos.”

Since Ben has plastered his own blog with pictures of kangaroos, why does he get so irate when Manata does the same thing in a post responding to Ben?

“I am amazed that I have somehow managed to get them so riled up.”

Reading through Ben’s post, which is pure ad hominem invective from start to finish, it sounds to me like Ben is the one who’s “riled up.”

“The games continue as Steve Hays chimed in with his own post correlating Calvinistic prayer with theoretical issues relating to time travel (which only demonstrates how difficult it is for Calvinists to ‘make sense’ of simple things like intercessory prayer).”

How is my post a “game,” exactly?

“I might even explore the mysteries of time travel with Steve Hays, but these things are not my priority right now.”

Which was not the point of my post. As I explained in my post, I was using time travel to illustrate the distinction between *changing* an outcome and *affecting* an outcome.

The libertarian objection to the Reformed doctrine of prayer is that, since God has already decreed the outcome, our prayers are ineffective.

I simply drew on Dainton’s distinction to show that this objection is intellectually confused. It’s possible to contribute to an unalterable outcome.

Our prayers don’t change the outcome precisely because, in case of answered prayer, our prayers already figured in the outcome. They were built into the outcome.

God has decreed the future, and God has decreed our prayers. God has decreed our prayers to function as a factor in the outcome. Our prayers *affect* the outcome without *changing* the outcome. And I quoted Dainton’s discussion of time travel to illustrate that distinction.

(Notice, I didn’t say that our prayers have an affect on God.)

What is Ben’s alternative? Is Ben an open theist? Does he deny that God knows the future?

For the moment, let’s bracket foreordination and simply play along with foreknowledge. What does a classic Arminian think that prayer does? Does he think that prayer is a way of changing God’s mind?

But according to classic Arminianism, God foreknows our prayer. So if God answers our prayer, then he’s already factored the answer into the outcome before we, as timebound creatures, ever prayed to God.

Or does Ben believe, not that God changes his mind in answer to prayer, but that he hasn’t made up his mind before we pray?

But how is that consistent with divine foreknowledge? If God knows the future, then God foreknows our prayer, and foreknows how or whether he will answer our prayer. God doesn’t have to wait until we pray to hear our prayer.

Notice that I’m arguing on Arminian assumptions.

kangaroodort said...

“As far as sticking to exegesis you have apparently not read much from Triablogue as they are often all about philosophy.”

Apparently Ben hasn’t read much of Triablogue. We respond to philosophical objections on philosophical grounds, ethical objections on ethical grounds, and exegetical objections on exegetical grounds.

“I personally think that the Bible is quite clear that our prayers have a genuine affect on God.”

What affect? To change his mind? How can a God who changes his mind all the time answer prayer?

There’s a drought. Joe is a farmer. He prays for rain to save his crops. God was planning to have another sunny day tomorrow, but in answer to Joe, he changes his mind and decides to make it rain. On TV, Joe hears the weatherman say it’s going to rain tomorrow.

But Mary has a wedding tomorrow. She prays for sunshine since rain would spoil the outdoor reception. God hears her prayer. So God scraps plan B to make it rain and reverts to plan A—in answer to her prayer.

When Joe switches on the TV, later in the day, he hears the weatherman now say it’s going to be sunny and dry.

So he prays for rain again. God hears his prayer and changes his mind again.

Ted is a banker. He prays for drought so that he can foreclose the mortgage on Joe’s farm in order to pay for his daughter’s tuition. God hears his prayer and…

“The burden rests on those whose theology (or philosophy, if you will) would undermine what the Bible seems to plainly pre-suppose.”

Okay, so, by his own admission, Ben doesn’t have exegetical argument for his position. Rather, it’s a question of what presuppositions he brings to the Bible.

Guess, what, Ben, that’s a *philosophical* question.

“The Bible seems to plainly pre-suppose that man has the feedom to choose in the sense that people have always understood ‘free will’, etc.”

“Plainly presuppose”? What’s that suppose to be, exactly?

If something is plainly stated, then it isn’t presupposed. Rather, it’s explicit.

For Ben to claim that his interpretation turns on a “presupposition” is actually a backdoor admission that his interpretation doesn’t derive from what is plainly stated in the text. Rather, this is something he brings to the text.

Something can’t be plainly presupposed. It’s either one or the other.

“The burden of proof rests with those who wish to calim otherwise.”

No, the onus is not on a Calvinist to disprove Ben’s philosophical presuppositions. On the one hand, Ben isn’t even attempting to do exegesis since, by his own admission, this is not about something asserted in the text of Scripture—but an extrascriptural presupposition which he imports into the sacred text “to make sense of” Scripture.

On the other hand, Ben is not attempting to defend his extrascriptural presupposition, either. So he hasn’t presented any argument for his position. Not from Scripture. And not from philosophy.

It’s not up to the Calvinist to offer a counterargument to Ben’s nonexistent argument. Unless and until Ben can muster a supporting argument for his claim, there’s nothing for us to disprove.

“Calvinists affirm monergism and determinism. They should therefore explain how intercessory prayer makes sense within such philosophical assumptions.”

Been there, done that.

“Arminianism doesn't need to engage in 'philosophy' to make sense of intercessory prayer because intercessory paryer fits perfectly within an Arminian framework.”

Actually, it doesn’t even fit within an Arminian framework, for reasons I just gave.

But assuming that it did, that begs the question in favor of the Arminian framework.

Murdering your political opponents fits perfectly within a Marxist framework. Does that make it true?

“Arminianism is rather simple and takes the Bible at face value.”

No, Mormonism takes the Bible at “face value.”

At one end of the spectrum, Calvinism has a consistent hermeneutic, with its doctrine of divine accommodation. That’s why we treat certain descriptions of God as anthropomorphic rather than literal.

At the other end of the spectrum is Mormonisn, which takes every description literally. This is the basic continuum:

Calvinism>Arminianism>neotheism>Mormonism.

Arminian hermeneutics is an ad hoc compromise—to the left of Calvinism, but to the right of neotheism and Mormonism.

“But you then either make sanctification unneccessary for salvation, or you admit that ‘salvation’ is not monergistic.”

Calvinism never said that ‘”salvation” is monergistic. Elements of salvation are monergistic, like election and regeneration.

“And by your own definitions you make sanctification a ‘work’ of man because you also claim that unless God unconditionally and irresistibly regenerates the sinner, then faith as a condition would really be a ‘work’. Why not say the same with respect to sanctification?”

i) We don’t say the same thing with respect to sanctification between the regenerate are no longer dead in sin. The unregenerate are passive in regeneration because they are dead in sin. Once regenerated, their spiritual condition is different.

ii) Calvinism doesn’t deny that Christians perform good works. But these are gracious works.

“If God alone keeps you, then how is sanctification synergistic as you say? According to you, if you are at all responsible for your spiritual progress, then you will fail, so how can you say that sanctification is co-operative as you did above?”

“Synergism” is a term of art. A technical term.

In traditional usage, it means more than it’s etymological compound (“work with”).

Consider, for example, what it means in Catholic theology, a la supererogatory merit or congruent merit. Or consider what “works of the law” mean in Pauline usage.

LFW Gone Wild, Or, Hank Hanegraaf-The Wrong Answer Man

At about 6:30 pm ET Monday night, as I was headed out to eat, I tuned into the Bible Answer Man with Hank Hanegraaf. Many readers of this blog may be familiar with Brother Hank’s conversation with James White and George Bryson a few years ago, in which the topic was Calvinism. I’ll refer those unfamiliar with that conversation to A&O Ministries so that they can hear exactly how inept both Brother Hank and Brother George are at handling the pertinent issues.

Oh how I wish I had my cell phone with me last night! A dear sister called into the program professing to be a new Christian and “ignorant” about theology. Now, there’s certainly nothing wrong with either proposition. I rejoice at the news of the New Birth, and I applaud any Christian who wishes to learn more and thereby alleviate his or her ignorance. However, Brother Hank did little more than perpetuate her ignorance.

Our sister was deeply concerned about the futility of the life of unbelievers, people who would obviously perish in their sins if they ever converted to Christ. What are we to make of a God who creates people knowing they will eternally perish? What was Brother Hank’s response?

1. People are created with the freedom to accept or reject Christ.

A. Really? Where, pray tell, does the Bible, Bible Answer Man, teach this? It’s worth noting that Hank never, not one time, substantiated this assertion with Scripture. I thought the title of this show was The Bible Answer Man.

B. The Bible says:

No man can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him...

But there are some of you who do not believe " For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.

And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

And that’s just a small sample...

C. Not even Arminians, who profess to believe in Universal Prevenient Grace teach this, Hank, for they draw a distinction between common grace and UPG. UPG is a benefit of the cross itself and it alleviates the inability of men’s wills to accept or reject Christ.

So, Hank has put himself firmly in the semi-Pelagian camp. Men are, according to him, born with this ability. He's confused over the difference between UPG and common grace.

2. God did not create men to be sinners, He merely created the possibility for sin/evil.

A. Where does the Bible teach this? Again, no Scripture was cited.

B. This seems to be invoked to get God “off the hook” with respect to the Fall. It’s true, God did not create Adam and Eve as sinners, but nowhere does the Bible teach that He created “the possibility of evil/sin.”

C. As Grudem notes (ST: 349), this reply is unsatisfactory because it implies God will have to allow for the possibility of sinful choices in heaven eternally, because this defense is invoked (and Hank used this rationale) in order to guarantee our choices, our love for God would be meaningful. If that’s true, then God must do this in heaven too or our choices aren’t meaningful. More on this later.

D. What about the “eternal covenant” (Hebrews 13). Is this eternal covenant Plan B? What about Proverbs 16:4? Jude 4? Again, that’s just a small sample.

3. If God hasn’t done this, our love for Him would be meaningless.

A. This begs the question.

B. Where does Scripture teach such a thing? Again, the BAM didn’t support his answer with Scripture – and whenever he gives this answer, he never does so.

Our dear sister wisely replied. "If that was true, why can’t people fall away in heaven?" That’s a good question. Hank’s answer; “Because in heaven we are actualized in our choices.”

A. Huh? What Scriptures teach this? Once again, the BAM did not support his answer from, you know the Bible. I thought this program is called The Bible Answer Man.

B. We agree, grace in the intermediate and final states constrains our choices, but not because “we have been actualized in our (free will) choices," but because our nature has been fully conformed to the image of Christ.

C. So, Hank’s response is nothing more than an ad hoc restriction on libertarian freedom.

Our sister’s question was most insightful, for Hank tipped his hand such that we learned that, according to Hank men have LFW due to creation, not UPG. However to appeal to us being “actualized in our choices,” presumably due to some sort of constraining grace logically pulls in the opposite direction of the foundational statement that men must have LFW in order for their choices to be meaningful at all.

Here is the right answer:

Dear sister, Scripture teaches that God gives mercy to whomever He pleases. Scripture also teaches Jude 4, Proverbs 16:4, and Romans 11:32. This is also for His glory. Yes, it is cause to make us cry out with wonder on the one hand and distress on the other. Paul, in Romans 9, says he was greatly distressed over this truth, for the sake of his fellow Jews. Let this move you to be sure that God has a people, as yet uncalled, and that you are to share the Gospel with all persons. All those God mercies will come to Christ, and some may well do so through your efforts. What a glorious thing for us to be given the joy of participating with Him in this! Weep over the lost in this life, and yet know that Scripture also teaches that, in the end, we will look back and rejoice in what God has done, when we see His plan has unfolded completely. To God alone, through Christ alone be the glory, Amen, and Amen!

Finally, I hate to sound like one of those “aggressive Calvinists” that Frank Cox dislikes, but, honestly, this is, perhaps, why so many Calvinists are “aggressive.” These sorts of unbiblical, unsupportable, and frankly horrible answers come too often from the lips of Brother Hank and many an actual anti-Calvinist. They frustrate us, even anger us.

On the one hand, this makes doing apologetics with atheists easier for us Calvinists, as the comment stream here has shown. Atheistic apologetics seems catered to Arminianism, probably because (a) Arminianism/Libertarianism is the majority position right now theologically and (b) it’s just such an easy target.

On the other hand, we have the old adage that the Gospel with which you win them is the one that will keep them. No wonder the drop-out rate in SBC churches alone is appalling. Yet, the Libertarians plow on. When we have Open Theists conceding the problem of evil too boot, well, what more needs to be said?

So, here’s a challenge.

1. For the Arminians/Libertarians: Where, pray tell, does the Bible invoke the Free Will Defense? As I’ve asked more than once, where does the Bible teach LFW? Shouldn’t we employ theodicean answers the Bible actually employs?

2. We on T-blog often deal with more, how shall we say, academically minded opponents, but, in my mind, the hearts of the people are captured by popularizers, men like Brother Hank. At the risk of sounding “aggressive,” I’d like to encourage our faithful readers to, when you get the opportunity, contact Hank, indeed, call his show, and ask the questions I posed in (1) above. Indeed, ask him to substantiate his answer to the problem of evil with Scripture. When he tries to give an answer, be ready to remind him that Arminians/Libertarians like Walls and Dongell admit to LFW being a philosophical position, not an exegetical one.

When Hank tries to run to the “Well, it can be deduced from Scripture” defense, respectfully ask him which Scriptures he has in mind. No doubt he will refer to some command. Remind him that’s a classic case of begging the question. Nothing can be deduced about ability from a command. This, incidentally, is why I always ask the proponents of LFW that question. Our rule of faith is Sola Scriptura. If Scripture doesn't teach it, we shouldn't believe it. LFW is a wholly philosophical position. It can't be deduced from Scripture at all, and Scripture, every time it ascribes our choices to our desires in such a way that what we desire is a sufficient cause (for example James 1:14 - 15), it explicitly contradicts Libertarian Action Theory. We've been over that many times here.

The FWD is unbiblical, since the Bible does not support a libertarian definition of “free will.” It should be jettisoned – period.

Amateur atheists: Why the new atheism isn't serious

Amateur atheists: Why the new atheism isn't serious by John F. Haught

My Dad Is Better Than Your Dad

In this day when there are so many non-family friendly shows on TV, it's hard to find anything worth watching. It's become increasingly more difficult to find men who are portrayed as functional, good fathers. Therefore, we should give credit where credit is due. I'd like to draw your attention to a game show on NBC called My Dad Is Better Than Your Dad. I watched it for the first time tonight. These fathers are modeling sportsmanship and they are taking time out of their schedules to compete with their sons and daughters while the rest of their families watch.

I don't know about you, but it does my heart good to see their wives on the sidelines leading a cheering section with the rest of their families. It does my heart good to see two wives hug each other when one their team loses. It does my heart good to see two fathers shake hands. It does my heart good to see the competing children hug. It does my heart good when a daughter says,when her team loses, "I'm just glad my Dad took time to do this with me." We need more shows like this, folks. Take the time to write NBC - snail mail, not email - to tell them you appreciate this program and the message it's sending. Encourage them to create some family oriented dramas that do the same.

Help With Atheists and Arians

HT: Justin Taylor

Help! The Arians are making their rounds. Seriously, I've had two visits at my house in the past three weeks. Boy, don't they get a surprise.

Anyhoo, I highly recommend you click the above link and listen to these lectures. These will give you so help
with the Arians whens they come knocking on your door.

Also, the first three are foundational for Gathercole's book The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

That should also be of help with stock atheistic objections to the divinity of Christ which they derive from the Synoptics.

On Gentleman Theologians and the Race For SBC President

I’ve been asked to comment on the following reply to a question posed to Dr. Frank Cox by Dr. Peter Lumpkins. I don’t have a dog in this hunt, but this was brought to my attention by an SBC blogger, whose identity will remain undisclosed at his request.

Question: "There's been significant discussion among Southern Baptists concerning the Calvinist resurgence within the Southern Baptist Convention. I'm sure that you're aware of that only recently there was a conference on Calvinism, which by the way was co-sponsored by one of our seminaries and Founders Ministries. As we listen to the research from Lifeway, it suggests that we have in the Southern Baptist Convention five to ten percent of Southern Baptists who perceive themselves as Calvinists. Also, a whopping thirty percent, around thirty percent of our young seminarians who self-identify as Calvinists. By the way you need to know that when your name was first mentioned that you would be nominated as President, there were some who even labeled you as the quote-unquote anti-Calvinist candidate. What's your take on this phenomenon, Dr. Cox?"

Dr. Cox's answer: "Well, Peter, first of all, let me just say this, while others have dubbed me that way, that was never my intent, never in the equation of my willingness to allow my name to be nominated as President of the Southern Baptist Convention. That decision was made a long time ago through prayer. And the best of my knowledge of my own prayer life, God never discussed Calvinism. But let me just kind of tell you where I am on this issue. I'm Southern Baptist through and through. You know, I guess if I had to use a term to describe me, I would say that the best term would be that I'm a biblicist. I believe the Scripture. I teach the Scripture, I try to practice the Scripture to the best of my ability through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. I just believe that the Scripture teaches that man is a sinner. I know that by experience in my own life, I was born in the sin nature. I believe in the sovereignty of God's great love for us His creation that He sent His Son Jesus Christ to die upon the cross for all of our sins. And when the Scripture says He died for all, I believe He died for all. I believe the Scripture tells us that the way that man is saved is through the atoning work of Jesus Christ, that shed blood on Calvary. I praise God He rose again on the third day. I believe that God has given every single one of us a free will. And so, when you talk to me about my belief system, I believe that I had a choice whether I was going to receive the atoning work of Jesus Christ or whether I was going to reject it. I teach my people...I preached last Sunday night here in our church, Romans chaper one, verse sixteen, I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation unto everyone who believes. I believe everyone has the ability to choose to believe in Jesus Christ. As a biblicist, my responsibility is this, is I'm to share that. I'm to go out and to tell a lost and dying world and to engage sinners in witnessing opportunity to put the claims of Christ out there for them to receive or reject Jesus. That's my responsibility. Here again, what I said a moment ago, I believe the gospel is for all men at all times. I'm so glad He included me. I'm so glad that I had the opportunity when my Sunday School teacher told me about Jesus. I am so glad that my parents taught me from an early age that Christ died for me. And I believe that it is God's will that none should perish but everyone should come to repentance. Will everybody come to repentance? No. They have that freedom of choice to reject. So I would say in regards to the Calvinism issue, if you're going to label me anything, label me a biblicist. I believe God's people go out and share and God's Holy Spirit does His work and I believe that any sinner has the opportunity to receive Christ as Lord and Savior. Now, this anti-Calvinism, anybody that knows me know that that does not define me. That's not who I am. Some of my dearest friends in life hold to the Calvinist view. We have great debate at times over lunch. They're not changing me, I guess I'm not changing them, but we love each other. But there is a part of this new strain of Calvinism that I see in Southern Baptist life. Calvinism has always been in Southern Baptist life. There's always been an ebb and flow of Calvinism in our convention life. At times, it would gain a little bit of strength and at times it would kind of die away. But what I see in Southern Baptist life right now is there is a thing that, I don't know for a better word, I would describe it as aggressive hyper-Calvinism or hyper-Calvinism in an aggressive form. And where it causes sometimes a division in churches, I know right after I was announced that I was going to be nominated for President of the Southern Baptist Convention, talking about emails, my emails all of sudden the load picked up greatly. Here's what I began to receive. I began to receive emails from lay people in churches and they began to ask me about my view of salvation. Did Jesus Christ die for everyone? They wanted to know that. That's important to Southern Baptist to know that their President believes that Jesus died upon the cross for everyone. And they said we're having a problem in our church. The problem we're having in our church is we've called a pastor or we've called a staff member and we didn't know they believed what they believed. And they began to share about the problems that was arising in the church, the division that was there. One of the things that I would say to any young pastor or any staff member who would hold to Calvinism, I would say to them when you are being called to a church, somewhere in that process speak up. Tell them what you believe. That church would be greatly served if that flag was raised and they had the opportunity to understand exactly what that meant. And then, if that church said well, that's not where we are, then that church has spoken and that pastor is going to save himself a lot of heartache as well. When you go into a church you need to be honest with them. If the church says that's not who we are, then praise God, the pastor has learned something and the pastor can go and find a church of like belief. The concern that I have today is this new strain of Calvinism which is really aggressive and it's causing some real division in a lot of churches. As for me, as I said, I'm not anti-anything. I'm a biblicist. Like I said, I have friends who are Calvinists and we dialog and love each other. The only concern I have is this aggressive strain that I see today that seems to gaining a little bit of strength in our convention."

The individual who emailed me has the following concerns, which I echo:

1. He makes this statement:

"I believe everyone has the ability to choose to believe in Jesus Christ." For a biblicist, this statement certainly has no biblical support. None. Nowehere in Scripture are we told that we have the ability to choose to believe in Jesus. However, in many places in Scripture, we are told that we are totally depraved by sin and, without the intervention of God, we will not choose Christ (John 1:12-13; John 6:44; Rom. 3:10-12; Eph. 2:1-9). The biblical view is total depravity of man. It is not a biblical view that man has one single shred of goodness in him and can choose Christ apart from first being regenerated by God.

The reason I second this comment, for those who know my writing, should be self-evident. Dr. Cox’s position seems muddled at best:

a. Does he affirm Universal Prevenient Grace (hereafter UPG) or does he affirm that this is an inborn ability of man? If UPG, he’s firmly in what we can call the Arminian, semi-Augustinian camp. If this is an inborn ability, then he’s placed himself firmly in the semi-Pelagian camp, and all overtures of grace are found solely in the external call. I disagree with both, but of the two, I'm far more comfortable with the former.

b. Where, pray tell, does Scripture say

i. Everybody

ii. Has a choice.

With respect to (i) Did the people living in China in the first century A.D have such a choice? If they did, then that would mean that there is another way of salvation, one that does not entail faith in Christ alone. So much for Romans 11.

Please define "choice." With respect to (ii), where does the Bible teach people have Libertarian Freedom? Like so many SBC pastors who have spoken on Calvinism, Dr. Cox says, yet again, that he’s a biblicist. Shouldn’t a biblicist be able to show us where the Bible teaches LFW?

Does Brother Frank even know what LFW is? Like so many who have gone before him, he says he’s talked with Calvinists about these things. Has he listened to them at all?

Why do I ask these questions? Simply put, if the Bible does not teach LFW, then there goes everything he has to say about people having a “choice,” for we know that he’s not a Calvinist, so he’s not affirming what Calvinists mean by “choice.” He’s using “choice” as a codeword for LFW.

Also, the very word “choice” is prejudicial. In using it, he’s inferring that we Calvinists don’t believe in “choice.” No, we don’t affirm LFW. We affirm “choice.” “Choice” does not entail LFW.

The second concern the person blogger who emailed me has is:

2. My other area of concern is the litmus test that Dr. Cox is raising. He states that he has received emails (how many?) from people asking one question: Do you believe Jesus died for all? Obviously, this is a litmus test to ferret out the five-point Calvinists. Will this be the new litmus test for missionaries, trustees, etc.? It sure sounds like it may be.

I second this concern as well. I would like to see a follow-up question from asking if this was, in fact, a litmus test.

Also, it seems muddled yet again. Calvinists can affirm that “Jesus died for all.” We simply don’t affirm that He took the guilt and sin of every person upon Himself, for, if He did, they would all be saved. We can affirm that “Jesus died for all,” in the sense that He is the one and only propitatory sacrifice for sin ever offered and that all men, if they wish to be saved, must come to God through Christ on His sole and sufficient merit. Statements like the one in 1 John 2:2 are statements of identity, not statements of intention or design that refer to the actual guilt and sin laid upon our Lord. This really isn’t difficult.

The only thing that makes it difficult is for those who feel a need to use the atonement’s scope as a warrant to believe, as if the scope of the atonement provides the warrant for the sinner’s conversion – but that’s hyper-Calvinist logic. I’ve said this before, in hyper-Calvinism, men are told that they have no warrant to believe unless they can discern how they are “elect,” in some subjective sense, and this is no different in principle from Arminianism's presupposition that ability limits responsibility. Notice that Dr. Cox speaks of his childhood in which he was taught Jesus died for him. Here we have a classic case of a man repudiating hyper-Calvinism but buying into hyper-Calvinist thinking. The only difference is that the warrant is placed not on a subjective sense of election but upon a subjective sense of assurance that “Jesus died for me.”

3. I have a few other concerns. Dr. Cox seems to be using the same script that many others have used. Yet again, we read about the ogre of a dishonest pastoral candidate. Yet on the other hand, he infers that there are “hyper-Calvinists” who want to push their Calvinism on the rest of us. I’m reminded of what Tom Ascol has stated in the past on this. These men can’t have it both ways. We’re told that if we don’t lay all our cards on the table, we are “dishonest,” but when we’re honest we’re told we’re “hyper.”

Perhaps the problem lies not in the candidates but the theological ignorance that we find in SBC churches. Take a look at the Sunday School literature Lifeway produces. It’s next to useless. I’ve had to teach from it myself, and I have to say it doesn't teach anything that would challenge anybody to grow. Note to Lifeway: people have to rewrite your Sunday School material so it is even usable. Where is Richard Furman, he who would question the children on the Shorter Catechism used by FBC Charleston? Where are the days when Baptists actually understood the issues when it came to Calvinism or non-Calvinism? Where are the days when a man could teach on the 3 Offices of Christ in the run-up to Easter and at least part of the class knew what you were discussing?

4. What about all those Calvinist churches that were coopted by non-Calvinists? In a different age, would Brother Frank feel differently? FBC Woodstock’s founding documents are clearly of a Calvinist bent, yet you don’t find anybody criticizing Johnny Hunt or the past leadership of his church for coopting that church.

One of the complaints Pastor Search Committees seem to have is the allegedly uninformative language used by Calvinists when interviewed by these committees. Well, aren't terms like "choice," and "biblicist," just as uninformative? It seems to me that if the problem, or at least part of the problem, is the use of vague, uninformative terminology, then there's just as much guilt on the other side of the aisle, if not more. Words like "choice" and "biblicist" are only "informative" if one begs the question with respect to their definition. Ever notice that the same people who complain about the use of such language to a search committee are the same ones who use it when giving an interview or discussing theology? Isn't being interviewed by SBC bloggers leading up to the election a sort of "pastor search?"

5. The term “biblicist” is “racist” insofar as the inference is that if you self-identify as a “Calvinist” or “Arminian” or “Non-Calvinist,” or “Amyraldian,” you aren’t a “biblicist.” Honestly, this sort of fast and loose use of language needs to stop.

6. The term “hyper-Calvinist” is used, yet again. If Brother Frank knows of any real hyper-Calvinists in the SBC he should name and expose them. This, by the way, brings up another pet-peeve of mine these days. It seems to be becoming popular to not name names, as if this is the gentlemanly thing to do. I’ll simply say this: Honestly, read 2 Timothy.

7. Dr. Cox yet again talks in vague terms about this “aggressive strain” of Calvinism in the SBC. Honestly, he (and the others who talk about it) really need to do more than talk about “an aggressive strain.” What do they mean by this? Are they referring to Tom Ascol and Founders? If not, to whom are they referring? How many times does Tom Ascol, who, you know, speaks for the organization, have to say that, while he would love it if every SBC church embraced the Doctrines of Grace, Founders does not exist, nor does he desire, for that to happen. Rather, he is more concerned that they get the gospel right.

8. Apropos 7, does Dr. Cox feel the same way about Johnny Hunt and the litany of speakers at the Bailey Smith Conferences who preach vehement anti-Calvinist sermons? What about Brother Bobby, the current immediate past president of the SBC who used his own church newsletter to attack Calvinists and Calvinism?

Oh, and for the record, I don’t have a dog in this hunt. I could really care less who is elected SBC president this year, as long as (a) the election isn’t as free as a Cuban election, as in years past, (b) the new SBC president doesn’t use his position as a means to attack the Reformed / Sovereign Grace wing of the Convention, and (c) he doesn’t use his position to further narrow the parameters of cooperation within the Convention.

While we’re on that subject, did anybody else catch this line?

That decision was made a long time ago through prayer. And the best of my knowledge of my own prayer life, God never discussed Calvinism.

I wonder, did this conversation occur through a private prayer language? If not, what sort of “impressions” did God provide? I’ll simply point readers to Steve’s words to JP Moreland about this sort of thing.

Personally, I find it rather ironic that there will folks who will vote for Dr. Cox who will then stake out a cessationist view on spiritual gifts and PPL. This sort of subjective “God told me to run for SBC President” talk needs to stop too. How exactly does one verify one’s subjective impressions that God spoke to you through prayer to run for SBC President? That’s called bibliomancy. It reminds me more of divination than PPL. Will those who raised concerns over PPL please be consistent? Indeed, how is using this method to decide if you should run for SBC president functionally any different than a hyper-Calvinist thinking he has to subjectively discern whether or not he is elect in order to find a warrant to believe and therefore convert? Answer: it's not! Will the real hyper-Calvinist please stand up?!

The SBC underwent a “Conservative Resurgence” in the 80’s and 90’s. Kudos to the SBC. As a byproduct, one would have hoped that the Convention’s leadership would begin doing a better job modeling the characteristics of good theologians. I agree with Michael Spencer’s comments a few weeks ago in that regard:

Regular, Nashville published, fully Cooperative, SBC saved, trained and ordained authors? Not many. In fact, there were very, very few. A relatively empty shelf of significant influences and books, so to speak.

The subjects of my evedropping efforts were two students discussing Redeemer Presbyterian pastor Tim Keller’s new apologetics book. Keller, the rising star of the PCA and of conservative evangelicalism in general, has written the kind of book Southern Baptists have largely failed to write or promote in the last fifty years. Apologetics is just one area where the shelf of Southern Baptists is largely empty.

I don’t doubt that some Southern Baptist writers have written apologetic materials in the past, but for whatever reason, these materials passed quickly into oblivion, exerting little influence over the denomination that produced them. They are just one category of writing, thinking, teaching and publishing that find Southern Baptists largely awol. Aside from books on church growth, evangelism and the “popular” level of devotional literature, Southern Baptists have shown little interest in making major contributions to the evangelical conversation, including areas that it would seem SBCers would have taken up their pens and addressed.

It’s no surprise that Beth Moore and Rick Warren are the first two Southern Baptist writers you’ll see in most bookstores. It’s no surprise that Presbyterians are writing and publishing the books that SBC ministers in training are reading for their theology. It’s a sad fact that a younger Southern Baptist in the process of spiritual and ministerial formation would have to dig deep to find resources from his/her own tradition, even on areas as prominent as the Lord’s Supper. (Some of these areas have been addressed recently, usually by SBC Calvinist authors.)...

Southern Baptist dearth of formative resources is a serious problem. Try to deepen your devotional life using resources written in the SBC. Try to learn church history or understand Baptist history in its Anabaptist stream. Try to find serious reflection on the pastorate. The shelf is strangely, even embarassingly, empty, and it’s not surprising that younger, intellectually curious Southern Baptists are going to denominations and influences far outside of the Baptist family and the Baptist “ethos” to find formative, helpful resources.

And as I go out the door….does Lifeway, Broadman and the SBC’s publishing arms need to look at this issue more seriously? I know Beth Moore sells, but is it a good thing that there seems to be a bias against publishing serious Southern Baptist work? Is there really such a dearth of good writing in the SBC that our young people MUST be formed by non-Southern Baptists in their journeys?

Looking at some of the folks who have served as SBC president over the past few years and their churches, I see the same problem, only in a different way. The SBC still seems enamored with “theology that sells” with respect to their choice of Convention leadership. Where are the Gentleman Theologians like Broadus, Mell, Boyce, Johnson, Williams, the 2 Manly’s, and so on? The Convention President should be a model for other SBC leaders. He should be a Gentleman Theologian, in this age when Baptists are recovering, one would hope, the gospel, church discipline, and wading into deeper theological water. He doesn’t need to be Calvinist, he just needs to demonstrate something more than the intellectual confusion than we see here.

Last Rites

Jay Dyer has posted another reply to Josh Brisby:

http://www.nicenetruth.com/home/2008/03/debate-orthodox.html#more

I’ll confine my comments to those parts of Dyer’s reply that are central to the debate between the Protestant rule of faith and its Orthodox counterpart:

“I didn’t say that the Church was in ‘disagreement’ as to the canon, I said that there are different traditions and levels of reception within the Church.”

And what makes different traditions differ? That they disagree, perchance? If they all agree, then how do they differ?

Same thing with “different levels of reception” in the church. What makes the different levels differ—if not on points of disagreement regarding what level of reception that ought to be accorded to prospective books of the canon?

Mind you, it’s possible for two people to differ simply because they don’t have access to the same information. And they might agree if they did have access to the same information.

But that can’t very well be the explanation at this juncture. The Orthodox church is conversant with all of the canonical candidates by now. Has been for many centuries.

“Strictly speaking, there is no definite canon in Orthodoxy, in the sense that the historic Protestant wants.”

Which means what, exactly? That Orthodoxy doesn’t know when God has spoken? Doesn’t know where the word of God begins and ends?

An indefinite canon might be indefinite in two respects: excluding inspired books while including uninspired books. In which sense is the Orthodox canon indefinite? Or is it indefinite in each respect?

“I have focused on the canon throughout the extent of this debate because it is the core of Protestantism...But this is not a ‘problem’ for Orthodoxy as you imagine, but a fact of the Early Church.”

Three related problems:

i) This would not be a problem for Orthodoxy if it had a fallback position. But Dyer hasn’t begun to establish a fallback position. He spends a lot of time *asserting* the Orthodox alternative, but he never gets beyond his bare assertion.

ii) And, even in theory, what would constitute an adequate alternative? Is Orthodox theology grounded in revelation or not?

If, on the one hand, it’s underdetermined by revelation, then, to that extent, it lacks divine authority. How is that not a problem for Orthodoxy?

Or is Dyer appealing to continuous revelation? That would be the equivalent of an open canon. Like Montanism. How is that not a problem for Orthodoxy? Why would continuous revelation be confined to the Orthodox communion?

iii) To say that something is a “fact of the early” church doesn’t mean it can’t also be a problem. It can be a problematic fact (or factual problem, if you prefer) for the early church—and a problematic fact for Orthodoxy inasmuch as Orthodoxy claims to be the rightful heir to the early church.

“First, everyone has this problem, including Roman Catholics, as I will show below.”

And, indeed, he spends a lot of time showing that Catholicism has the same problem. That would all be very pertinent were he debating a Roman Catholic. But to say that Catholicism and Orthodoxy have the same problem is irrelevant in a debate with a Protestant opponent.

It didn’t take Dyer very long to run out of material against Evangelicalism. So now he must pad his case with irrelevant material about how Catholicism and Orthodoxy are passengers in the same sinking lifeboat.

“The Quinisext Council, which, for us, functions with all the weight and authority of the previous councils due to its wide acceptance and confirmation of previous synods.”

Why would the fact that a later council confirms an earlier council be a reason to treat it as authoritative? Is he claiming that an earlier council requires the confirmation of a later council to authorize the earlier council? But it that event, what authorizes the later council?

“I think we agree that there is no human way to set up an external criterion which would satisfy all interested parties as to what automatically constitutes de facto legitimacy…So, really, the question becomes what makes something ‘infallible’? It is simply and uniquely the presence of the Holy Spirit leading and guiding, and I think we both agree that there is no external, created authority which may be erected to signify when and where the Holy Spirit has acted (such as the pope).”

That’s a little too slick. An external criterion may not a sufficient condition, but it is still a necessary condition. If I’m blind, I can’t use a map—but eyesight is not a substitute for a map. I need both: (i) a standard, and (ii) the ability to use it.

“Therefore, the fact that said council is lawfully assembled, gives a true definition, and its theology accurately expresses God’s Revelation in Christ, is enough to make the council simply true, and because it is the Body of Christ, it is therefore protected from error.”

i) How does Dyer verify that a council (a) is lawfully assembled, (b) gives a true definition, (c) and accurately expresses divine revelation?

ii) Dyer offers no argument to justify his claim that the church is inerrant.

“All of this, of course, presupposes a certain view of the Church, which I freely admit is a bit circular. But ultimately all arguments are circular, especially when we get to the foundations of our worldview.”

True, but deceptive. You can appeal to circularity if you worldview has, in fact, hit rock bottom.

For example, one doesn’t need a linear justification for logic, memory, testimony, or sensory perception precisely because they are both inescapable and indispensable. Therein lies their justification. You can’t go any deeper, and you can’t do without them.

But Dyer hasn’t begun to establish that his ecclesiology is fundamental in that epistemic respect. Hence, his circular argument for Orthodoxy moves in a vicious circle rather than a virtuous circle.

“But again, I agree that we cannot set up subordinate, created categories (e.g., a pope) to be themselves ‘proofs’ of something superior (the action of the Holy Spirit). Only the Spirit of God can prove His own work. And thus His Spirit testifies with our spirit, as St. Paul says. For us, the meaning of Chrismation is every Christian believer receiving the Holy Spirit, and as St. John says, we ‘know all things’ and are able to ‘test the Spirits’ (1 John 4)…The actions of the Spirit are not monopolized by the hierarchy.”

i) It’s quite debatable that John says, “We know all things” (1 Jn 2:20). It’s at least as likely that he says, “all of you know.”

ii) More to the point, how does the democratic cast of Dyer’s pneumatic epistemology count as any sort of argument for the identity of the Orthodox church as the true church? Why wouldn’t the very existence of Christians who belong to other communions not undercut Dyer’s case for the Orthodox church? By his own admission, every Christian enjoys the spiritual discernment to distinguish truth from error—yet every Christian is not an Orthodox believer. Not by a long shot.

“The recognition of a true, ecumenical council, or more properly, an infallibly true council, would have to depend on the work of the Holy Spirit both in the council and in the hearts of the people, and would result in the eventual reception of the council by the people and Bishops: the true Church at large. What else could it be? In other words, I agree with Josh that the recognition of the Apostolic Faith and the proper interpretation of that Faith can only come by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and not ultimately from any exterior, created entity or courtroom, although we believe that God has ordained councils and Bishops to be authorities.”

But many Christians who, according to Dyer, enjoy spiritual illumination, do not believe that God “has ordained councils and Bishops to be authorities.” Once again, Dyer’s pneumatology is at odds with his ecclesiology.

“One might as well ask, ‘when do you know to follow the Bishop or to reject his teaching?’ Simply put, when he keeps or departs from the Faith.”

In that case, who needs the bishops? In what sense are they “authorities.”

“The Church has ‘the mind of Christ,’ as St. Paul says, and the mind of Christ is present in all His Body-the mind of the Church.”

i) Where does Paul say that “the Church” has “the mind of Christ”? This is typical high-church spooftexting, Take a text that doesn’t even mention the church, then annex it to “the Church,” in a classic bait-and-switch scam.

ii) And this isn’t just a question of whether the word (“church,” ecclesia) is present or absent. High churchmen also import their concept of the church into their prooftexts.

“This recognition of the “infallibly-trueness” of any council or Creed may, in fact, take decades, as is evident from the councils and their history in the Church, but we Orthodox see no problem here. These are just the facts.”

Once more we see Dyer’s false dichotomy between “facts” and “problems.” If the murder weapon has the fingerprints of the suspect, if he has gunpowder residue on his hand, and if there’s a bloody shirt in his hamper, these “facts” are also “problems” for the suspect.

“So, the goal of the council itself is to preserve tradition, not set up an exterior, epistemic category by which truth may be recognized, since this alone is not sufficient to convince anyone of a religious truth and is impossible.”

An insufficient condition may still be a sufficient condition. If I’m blind, a flashlight won’t help me see in the dark—but if I’m sighted, I can’t see in the dark without a flashlight.

“One can only recognize an infallibly true council from within the Church, having been integrated into His Body.”

That’s a question-begging assertion. And it’s not tangential to the issue at hand. This is the big casino.

“God has, we believe, determined councils and the episcopate to be the proper form of government in His Church. We see it done in Acts.”

Notice the fatal equivocation of terms. We see elders appointed in Acts. This doesn’t mean that Lucan eldership is synonymous with the Orthodox prelacy. Likewise, there are a number of basic differences between the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 and an ecumenical council.

“And there is no reason to believe that the Holy Spirit left the Church in terms of this leading and guidance.”

This is sophistical. In fact, the appointment of elders signals a transitional stage as the Apostles are phased out while elders are phased in. So, yes, there is a discontinuity between the apostolic age and the subapostolic age.

“In fact, Christ says He will dwell in the Church by His Spirit until the end (Matt. 28:20), and lead her into all truth (John 14:26).”

i) Back to the spooftextual, bait-and-switch scam. Where do these verses ever mention “the Church”?

ii) And even if they did, it hardly follows that NT ecclesiology is isomorphic with Orthodox ecclesiology. So there are two crucial gaps in Dyer’s appeal.

“Only the heretics strive to divorce the work of the Holy Spirit from the Church of History, inventing ‘invisible churches’ and unknown, imaginary associations of proto-Protestants prior to Luther and Calvin. They do this even more ferociously when they realize that all the Fathers held to things they think are heretical. Simply put, there are none of these proto-Protestants (except in short-lived, completely heretical groups).”

Personally, I don’t think this is even relevant to the case for sola Scriptura, but assuming that it was, Dyer is opining rather than arguing for his position.

“And on top of that, it’s all the more absurd for Protestants to try to criticize us on the grounds of ‘ecumenical councils,’ since they have absolutely none.”

There’s nothing absurd about critiquing the other side on its own grounds. An internal critique is a valid move.

“Yet Orthodoxy is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”

It is? But didn’t he say, just a few paragraphs earlier, that “[Nicea] eventually achieved an empire-wide acceptance…The recognition of a true, ecumenical council, or more properly, an infallibly true council, would have to depend on the work of the Holy Spirit both in the council and in the hearts of the people, and would result in the eventual reception of the council by the people and Bishops: the true Church at large…This recognition of the ‘infallibly-trueness’ of any council or Creed may, in fact, take decades, as is evident from the councils and their history in the Church.”

“Decades.” “Eventual reception.” And this is decades after each successive council. So we’re dealing with a long, drawn-out process.

i) Thus, by his very own admission, Orthodoxy is not the same yesterday, today, and forever. Rather, it had to pass through a gradual process of recognition to finally achieve consensus.

ii) And not only is it not the same in time, but it’s also not the same in space. Dyer has also admitted as much when he talks about the way in which regional differences on the canon persist in the Orthodox church.

Throughout his reply to Brisby, Dyer spends his time *describing* the Orthodoxy alternative instead of *demonstrating* the Orthodox alternative. Dyer is like a boy on a rocking horse: we see a lot of motion without any locomotion.

Chasing a mirage

Former Evangelicals typically convert to Catholicism because it supposedly supplies a level of religious certainty lacking in Protestant theology. However, even if, for the sake of argument, we accept the claims of Rome, what do those lofty claims actually amount to? Like a product warranty or insurance policy, once you begin to read the fine print, the actual extent of your coverage is quite elusive.

Notice some of the ironies in the excerpt below. To begin with, the questioner is directing his inquiry to a lay Catholic epologist. Needless to say, Sungenis is not infallible.

Also notice the hairsplitting distinction between form and content. The content may also be infallible, but only in a derivative, secondary sense.

Furthermore, even in the case of formal infallibility, “although possessing the language of infallibility, does not actively become infallible unless the reigning pope authorizes it.”

And this, in turn, shifts the question to what constitutes an infallible papal pronouncement.

So where does a Catholic actually locate infallible teaching? Converting to Rome does not represent the end-point in his quest for religious certainty, but the beginning of newer, labyrinthine pursuit of religious certainty. Behind every hill is another hill.

And that assumes, for the sake of argument, that Rome is even the right road to begin your search.

***QUOTE***

It is correct to say that only the statements in the Council which begin with "If anyone says..." and end with "let him be anathema," are considered the formally infallible statements, in the canonical sense of the term, of the Council of Trent. That is why they are called "canons," since it is the rule of faith that everyone must follow without exception or objection.

That principle, of course, applies to ALL the Church's dogmatic councils, not just the Council of Trent. Vatican I would also be considered a dogmatic council for the same reason, that is, because it contained "canons" with anathemas. In essence, only when the Church makes a formal, dogmatic and defined statement that binds the faithful under pain of excommunication does the statement become infallible and irreformable by the mere nature of its form. Even then, however, the form itself, although possessing the language of infallibility, does not actively become infallible unless the reigning pope authorizes it, which is certainly the case with the Council of Trent, since its canons were authorized by three successive popes. Incidentally, it is for this same reason that Vatican II, by nature of its non-canonical form (that is, it did not have defined dogmas in the form of canons), was said by Paul VI "not to contain any extraordinary statements with the note of infallibility," although, whatever Vatican II reiterated from previous dogmatic councils would be considered infallible by nature of its content, but not form.

The specific category afforded to "canons" as infallible in virtue of their form also means, consequently, that the "chapters" in the Council of Trent, or any Council, which preface and explain the definitions in the canons are not, in themselves, or because of their form, infallible. They are infallible only by nature of their content (not form), since they necessarily introduce or reiterate what is finalized in the canons.

http://www.askacatholic.com/AAC_AnswerDirectory/Answers_to_Questions/2005_04AprilQuestions/2005AprCounciOfTrentAndItsInfallibility.cfm

***END-QUOTE***

Paul 'The Inconsistent Calvinist' Apostle

Say that Ben Kangaroo is correct and that if an event E is fixed, then it is 'pointless' and 'meaningless' and 'a waste of time' to pray about E. Not only that, but any means to the end of E are illusion. E will happen regardless.

So, I could drop my Calvinism and follow Ben, or I could bite the bullet, remain inconsistent, and follow the Apostle Paul's actions (yes, those remarks were meant to be sarcastic).

Recall this story from Acts 27

===============

ACTS 27:21 After the men had gone a long time without food, Paul stood up before them and said: "Men, you should have taken my advice not to sail from Crete; then you would have spared yourselves this damage and loss. 22 But now I urge you to keep up your courage, because not one of you will be lost; only the ship will be destroyed. 23 Last night an angel of the God whose I am and whom I serve stood beside me 24 and said, 'Do not be afraid, Paul. You must stand trial before Caesar; and God has graciously given you the lives of all who sail with you.' 25 So keep up your courage, men, for I have faith in God that it will happen just as he told me. 26 Nevertheless, we must run aground on some island."

The Shipwreck

27 On the fourteenth night we were still being driven across the Adriatic Sea, when about midnight the sailors sensed they were approaching land. 28 They took soundings and found that the water was a hundred and twenty feet deep. A short time later they took soundings again and found it was ninety feet deep. 29 Fearing that we would be dashed against the rocks, they dropped four anchors from the stern and prayed for daylight. 30 In an attempt to escape from the ship, the sailors let the lifeboat down into the sea, pretending they were going to lower some anchors from the bow. 31Then Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, "Unless these men stay with the ship, you cannot be saved." 32So the soldiers cut the ropes that held the lifeboat and let it fall away.

===============

Notice that God promised that they would all live.

Notice that they prayed.

Notice that Paul told them to stay with the ship or they would die.

[Scratches head]

Why would they 'pray?' That was meaningless. God said they would live. So they would regardless of their prayer, right? Why didn't Paul condemn this action?

And, why did Paul tell them to stay on the ship? They would live regardless of whether they left the ship or not, right? God ordained the ends, and so the means of staying on the ship couldn't possibly have caused them to keep their life, right? Staying on the ship was 'pointless,' it was 'meaningless,' it was 'a waste of time.'

Seems to me that if the above is not 'inconsistent,' then neither is something like this: God decreed in advance that sinner S would not die in his sins, he also ordained that S would be saved in answer to prayer from S*. So, if S* didn't pray, S would die in his sins.

Since this essentially the same as what we find in Acts 27, and since Acts 27 doesn't report any inconsistency, then Calvinism has no inconsistency in praying for the lost. (And, if you note my last post, Roo Stew, I cite a multitude of other reasons and purposes for prayer. So, the case is only strengthened by the above observation).

I take it that, for the Christian, any argument that implies that the Bible advocates inconsistency, and that the Apostle Paul was inconsistent in moments like Acts 27, is a fallacious argument. Ben Kangaroo's argument (same with his cohorts on the matter) so implies the above. Therefore it must be rejected.

QED