Following are responses to comments posted by a blogger on the SBCToday blog December 11, 2013, http://sbctoday.com/2013/12/page/2/ in response to the article entitled “A Better Gospel”, which I posted here last week. I introduce his statements which I am responding to by “you said, then follows my response
Blogger,
Thanks for your response. Here are my thoughts on your thoughts.
You said, “First better, I suppose, is in the eye of the beholder. You claim it’s a better gospel when the deciding factor depends upon the individual. I claim it’s a better gospel when the deciding factor depends up on God.”
First, by better, I do not mean merely better perspectively, but rather that the Scripture’s clear portrayal of the gospel is that it is good news for all who hear, and that it can be received by anyone as opposed to the gospel as understood by Calvinism. That is better. Second, you have misunderstood my position, and therefore provided a false dichotomy which for any Christian results, ipso facto, in Calvinism being the only possibly correct biblical position. That is to say, you present me as believing everything is in the hands of most capable man, whereas humble Calvinists trust God. The fact is, I do not believe, nor have I ever said nor written such a concept or juxtaposition as you have portrayed. I believe the deciding factor of everything depends on God, e.g. whether there even is a gospel. This belief includes whether God would sovereignly decide to include other substantive factors or not. To wit, a person can only be saved because God decided to offer that opportunity. A person can only be saved because God sovereignly chose to create man with otherwise choice (libertarian free will), and then sovereignly provided sufficient grace (convicting of the Holy Spirit, power of the gospel etc.,) to enable the lost to either exercise faith in the gospel or not. Therefore, regardless of the salvific plan, if God sovereignly chose to set up the plan, He is the deciding factor. To characterize your brothers otherwise is pap.
You said, “The difference here is really in our differing anthropologies.”
Although not in the sense you articulate, there are indeed two irreconcilable anthropologies – Calvinism’s compatibilism and libertarianism. I do utterly reject Calvinism’s deterministic anthropology and theology. Remember that compatibilism does nothing to moderate determinism except to provide a plausible sense in which man, although man is determined, can still be responsible (something a pure determinist is not interested in demonstrating).
You said, “I see in Scripture that sinfulness in man brings about total moral inability, such that nobody can even say from the heart “Jesus is Lord” without the enabling power of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3). However, you see the sinfulness in man as bringing about some moral debilitation, such that while handicapped by sin, it is still within his moral power to say from the heart “Jesus is Lord.””
Ben, I go to great lengths to express the essence of Calvinism accurately, and I would appreciate the same consideration. This is the only way we can actually have meaningful discussions about these vital issues. Rightly reflecting a person’s view is not tantamount to agreement, but it is an indicator of whether one is willing to learn or just defend the system. We can unwittingly misrepresent a position, but your representation of my article seems quite beyond that since you are saying what I believe, which ideas I have never spoken or written are. In everything I have written on SBC Today and elsewhere, I have expressed my belief in the total (extensive) depravity of man so that man cannot come nor will he even seek God on his own. God is the initiator and even works throughout the salvific process.
You said, “From what I see in Scripture, every boast concerning my salvation is in the Lord because it is completely by His doing that I am IN Christ Jesus (1 Cor 1:30-31), but for you, the determining factor is in man. Therefore, at best you can say, “It is by His doing and my own doing that I am in Jesus Christ.” To say anything less is to engage in the double speak that you regularly accuse Calvinists of.”
First, see my response above regarding the determining factor. I make no apologies for believing that God has both required faith (faith or believe are used about 150 times in the New Testament as the condition for receiving salvation) and grace enabled man with the ability to exercise that faith or not exercise that faith. Second, you have apparently misunderstood my concept of “double talk.” In previous SBC Today articles, as well as many other places, I have articulated this, but here it is again.
By double-talk, I specifically and only mean thinking, praying, writing or speaking in such a way that obscures the disquieting realities of consistent Calvinism. I believe much of the double talk is unintentional but unfortunately not all of it. If a person accepts and clearly and unabashedly articulates these realities, then he can be a knowledgeable and consistent Calvinist; if one is unwilling to do so, he cannot be a consistent Calvinist. Since I use the term double talk in this specifically limited way, the problem of inconsistencies that I am addressing cannot be ameliorated by referring to inconsistencies due to the frailty of man that may be present in others’ approaches to Scripture as well as in Calvinism.
Here is an example of Scriptural double talk. If I did not graphically tell about hell in my preaching and witnessing, then I would be guilty of double talk because things like the exclusivity of Christianity, hell, inability of man, etc., are the harsh realities (entailments) of the gospel and Scripture. Since I do tirelessly seek to explicate this class of biblical truths, I am not engaged in double talk as I use it regarding Calvinism. Therefore, your indictment fails on two accounts; first, it is disanalogous with the point I am making with Calvinism in my use of double talk; second, and more importantly, I do not believe what you say I believe.
You said, “So, you may perceive the theology you espouse makes the gospel better news, but from what I see in Scripture, your theology is not good news at all because in the end you say it’s up to us.” (italics added)
At first you were saying what I believed (things I never said nor intimated) that is actually so misrepresentative of my beliefs and articles that they only exist in the tawdry caricatures of those who disagree with Calvinism and not reality. Now you are telling me what I said, e.g. “you say it’s up to us.” Where did I say that? Again, some Calvinists lack of concern for accurately reflecting a brother’s beliefs or words is disconcerting at best.
“You claim that the Calvinist gospel is good news to only some, but yours is not even that. It’s good news for none I’m afraid, if my anthropology is biblical.” (italics added)
Since you refer to my representation of Calvinism’s gospel as being good news for only some as my “claim,” which generally means that the claim is just that – a claim not factual. My inference leads me to ask, “Are you denying that Calvinism’s soteriology is actually good news for only some? If it is good news for more than some, I would greatly appreciate being corrected on my understanding of Calvinism. Could you explain how the gospel according to Calvinism is good news for all?”
You said, “if my anthropology is biblical.” I do not think it is!
You said, “Second, I find it very interesting that you expect Calvinists to be clear in presenting what they so doggedly believe to be the whole good news and don’t think that it’s too much to ask. Then I don’t think it’s too much to ask the same of you, believing that you are not Pelagian or a Semi-Pelagian. I assume that you believe that in order for a man to be saved, the Holy Spirit MUST draw him. Therefore, you could present the gospel, and the Holy Spirit not draw that man, resulting in the requisite rejection of the gospel. So, would it be fair to ask that you share the gospel by saying, “Come to Jesus and be saved, if the Holy Spirit draws you?” That’s precisely what you are asking Calvinists to do, “Come to Jesus and be saved, if you are one of the elect.” I don’t expect you to begin doing that, and I don’t expect Calvinists to begin either.”
First, you correctly noted that I am neither a Pelagian nor a Semi-Pelagian. Thank you! Second, to be clear, I am not asking Calvinists to say, “Come to Jesus and be saved, if you are one of the elect.” I am asking Calvinists to present the gospel so as to make clear that the gospel is understood for what the Calvinist believes it is, which involves more than your simple statement. Third, I do believe that, among other things, the Holy Spirit must draw someone before they can be saved. However, I believe all are drawn, and drawing precedes grace-enabled faith, and this drawing is neither prior to faith nor determinative this by God’s sovereign decision. I do not suggest that I know when this is happening; however, our beliefs about it happening and to whom are irreconcilably different, and to intimate otherwise is double talk. Lastly, contrary to what you say I do, I do actually incorporate the essentialness of the enabling of the Holy Spirit into my public invitations and private sharing of the gospel. I share the good news, but I also share the bad news. I warn them that without the Holy Spirit drawing, they cannot be saved; therefore, if the Holy Spirit is working in them, they need to flee the wrath to come and be saved now because they have no guarentees about how often they will get this chance or if this is their last chance. I explain this in many places but particularly in my explanation of the Unpardonable Sin see my book Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist.
You said, “Calvinists and “Traditionalists” alike will go forward proclaiming the same gospel to every person, “Come to Jesus and be saved” and will alike be praying that God works in the meantime to bring about that salvation.”
Here we go again, saying things in such a way that clearly indicate there are no notable soteriological differences in the gospel according to Calvinism and the rest of us, and yet we all know there are and they are brobdingnagian.
