In response to the post “Death by Degrees?” a commenter named Brad posed the following objections:

Does this really matter?

Can’t we all agree that so much of the world needs help, and the only way to help anyone is with the love of Jesus?

Does it really matter how depraved we think the world is, as long as we agree that without Jesus they need our love?

This debate — what a fantastic way to waste 5 hours of some probably intelligent people’s time, as well as the time of however many people might listen.

Think of the value of that time. Think of the things that God could do through us during that time to bring his reality to others rather than deciding who’s more right about this or that.

I guess I don’t understand how this is vital to anything, or even important — meaningless talk and debate.

-Brad

Initially, my thought when reading the above comment was to wonder why, given his low view of this conversation, Brad would want to waste precious moments of his life even addressing such a useless issue. But then I realized that the points he raised are serious and are probably common.

So, what does it matter if people living after Genesis 3 are Totally depraved by nature? Why should we be willing to debate this issue? Read the rest of this entry »

In his new book Young, Restless, Reformed, journalist Collin Hansen includes a chapter titled “Ground Zero: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky.” Whether or not SBTS can rightly be labeled “ground zero” for the New Calvinist Movement is a matter of some debate at the Seminary, but this Movement has certainly had a dramatic impact within the Southern Baptist Convention, and the real focus of Hansen’s chapter is to give a brief examination of Calvinism within the SBC; the situation at SBTS is used to frame this examination. In writing of the Seminary, Hansen mentions President Mohler, a few professors (Drs. Nettles, Schreiner, and Ware), a former student, and two current students; the former student is Matt Hall, who now produces the Albert Mohler Radio Program; the current students are Bradley Cochran and SBF’s own Timmy Brister. Three pages are devoted to Timmy’s story, and it is therefore obvious that Hansen believes Timmy’s experiences shed light on the mindset of many Southern Baptist Calvinists. Read the rest of this entry »

I wanted to repeat this point, as it may have gotten somewhat buried in my last post.

The Reformer Martin Luther taught Limited atonement.

Regarding Romans 9:20-21, Luther wrote:

“God will have all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4), and he gave his Son for us men, and he created man for the sake of eternal life. And likewise: Everything is there for man’s sake and he is there for God’s sake in order that he may enjoy him, etc. But this objection [to God’s sovereignty in salvation] and others like it can just as easily be refuted as the first one: because all these sayings must be understood only with respect to the elect [emphasis in original], as the apostle says in 2 Timothy 2:10, “All for the elect.” Christ did not die for absolutely all, for he says: “This is my blood which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20) and “for many” (Mark 14:24)- he did not say: for all- “to the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28). [Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans, translated and edited by Wilhelm Pauck (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), 252.]

This is (at least) historically significant, for with all the debate over ‘did Calvin himself believe the L of TULIP?’ and with all the charges against Beza– that he introduced Limited atonement as a strange new teaching within Reformed thought (Dr. Allen is far from alone in this kind of argumentation), it turns out that at the time of the Reformation, the first teacher to assert Limited atonement was the same man who (in a sense) started the Reformation, with his clear, forceful assertions of justification by faith alone.

This past February, Dr. David Allen, the Dean of the School of Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, delivered two lectures from the book of Hebrews. In the first lecture, Dr. Allen argued for Lukan authorship of Hebrews and against the contemporary practice of sign gifts as found in modern charismatic movement. In the second lecture, Dr. Allen offered additional arguments for Lukan authorship of Hebrews and argued against Limited atonement. [Listen to the lecture HERE.]

Dr. Allen’s argument against Limited atonement is primarily based on his understanding of Hebrews 2:9, and I hope to interact with his teaching on this verse in a future post. In this post, however, I wish to examine some historical comments that Dr. Allen made while prefacing his assertions from Hebrews.

Dr. Allen said:

Virtually every Christian from the early church until the Reformation believed in an unlimited atonement. That is a historical, provable fact. The only possible exception to that fact would be the later writings of Augustine, and even that’s disputed… Martin Luther believed in an unlimited atonement… Lutherans still believe that today, it’s a part of their doctrinal statement… All of the [early] English reformers– Cranmer, Latimer, you just name [them]– they all believed in an unlimited atonement… Ulrich Zwingli believed in a universal atonement… Universal atonement was the accepted viewpoint even of Reformed theology until about the year 1600. [The Heidelberg Catechism is quoted in support of this last point: “He bore in body and soul the wrath of God against the whole human race.”] Theodore Beza was probably the first Reformer to explicitly teach limited atonement, and then follows the Synod of Dort. Read the rest of this entry »

In an issue of The Founders Journal titled Contending for Truth in Love an article by Fred Malone was published titled “Infant Baptism and the Regulative Principle of Worship.” I draw attention to this article because it rightly ties together topics of two recent discussions on Strange BaptistFire- the defense of believers’ baptism and the regulative principle of worship. Readers are encouraged to view the article HERE and to leave comments about the article in the meta of this post.

As most of you reading this are aware, this year SBF blogger Timmy Brister has organized a Puritan Reading Challenge in which participants read one classic work by a Puritan author each month. As the Puritans sought not only to purify the doctrine of the Church of England according to Reformed theology, but also the worship practices of the Church of England according to the Regulative Principle of Worship, it should have been expected from the outset of the Challenge that we would find teaching directly relevant to Timmy’s question to Mark Driscoll. The book from last month, The Godly Man’s Picture by Thomas Watson, contained a section titled, “A Godly Man Is Very Exact and Careful About the Worship of God,” which offers an excellent explanation of the convictions that drive the Regulative Principle. Below, I have reproduced the entire section. This is long, but I believe it to be of utmost importance, as it demonstrates the dangers of the Normative Principle that Driscoll and many others who would (in some sense) claim to be Reformed have adopted.

A Godly Man Is Very Exact and Careful About the Worship of God

The Greek word for ‘godly’ signifies a true worshipper of God. A godly man reverences divine institutions, and is more for the purity of worship than the pomp. Mixture in sacred things is like a dash in the wine, which though it gives it a colour, yet only adulterates it. The Lord wanted Moses to make a tabernacle ‘according to the pattern shewed thee in the mount’ (Exodus 25:40). If Moses had left out anything in the pattern, or added anything to it, it would have been very provocative. The Lord has always given testimonies of his displeasure against such as have corrupted his worship. Nadab and Abihu offered ’strange fire’ (other than God had sanctified on the altar), ‘and fire went out from the Lord, and devoured them’ (Leviticus 10:1-2). Whatever is not of God’s own appointment in his worship he looks upon as ’strange fire’. And no wonder he is so highly incensed at it, for it is as if God were not wise enough to appoint the manner in which he will be served. Men will try to direct him, and as if the rules for his worship were defective, they will attempt to correct the copy, and superadd their inventions.

A godly man dare not vary from the pattern which God has shown him in the Scripture. This is probably not the least reason why David was called ‘a man after God’s own heart’, because he kept the springs of God’s worship pure, and in matters sacred did not superinduce anything of his own devising.

Use: By this characteristic we may test ourselves, whether we are godly. Are we careful about the things of God? Do we observe that mode of worship which has the stamp of divine authority upon it? It has dangerous consequences to make a medley in religion.

1. Those who will add to one part of God’s worship will be as ready to take away from another. ‘Laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men’ (Mark 7:8). They who will bring in a tradition, will in time lay aside a command. This the Papists are very guilty of; they bring in altars and crucifixes, and lay aside the second commandment. They bring in oil and cream in baptism, and leave out the cup in the Lord’s Supper. They bring in praying for the dead, and lay aside reading the Scriptures intelligibly to the living. Those who will introduce into God’s worship that which has not been commanded, will be as ready to blot out that which he has commanded.
2. Those who are for outward commixtures in God’s worship are usually regardless of the vitals of religion: living by faith, leading a strict mortified life; these things are of less concern to them. Wasps have their combs, but no honey in them. The religion of many may be likened to those ears which all run to straw.
3. Superstition and profanity kiss each other. Has it not been known that those who have kneeled at the pillar have reeled against a post?
4. Such as are devoted to superstition are seldom or never converted: ‘publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of God before you’ (Matthew 21:31). This was spoken to the chief priests, who were great formalists, and the reason why such person are seldom wrought upon savingly is because they have a secret antipathy to the power of godliness. The snake has a fine colour, but it has a sting. So outwardly men may look zealous and devout, but retain a sting of hatred in their hearts against goodness. Hence it is that they who have been most hot on superstition have been most hot on persecution. The Church of Rome wears white linen (an emblem of innocence), but the Spirit of God paints her out in scarlet (Revelation 17:4). Why is this? Not only because she puts on a scarlet robe, but because her body is of a scarlet dye, having imbrued her hands in the blood of the saints (Revelation 17:6).

Let us, then, as we would show ourselves to be godly, keep close to the rule of worship, and in the things of Jehovah go no further than we can say, ‘It is written.’

Most of us have seen a TV show or have read a story in which the plot involves the use of a love potion. Usually, the case is one of unrequited love: The guy cherishes a girl who barely recognizes his existence. A love potion is obtained (typically from an elderly gypsy lady), applied to the girl, and she magically begins to return his affection. Generally, this leads to disastrous results, contrary to the enamored guy’s intentions, and the relationship ends- either permanently, or in such a way that the guy must re-win the girl’s affections through normal means.

The viewer or reader understands this storyline because we recognize the use of a love potion as a violation of a person’s will. The Arminian capitalizes on this line of thought in arguing against the doctrine of Irresistible grace. The Arminian argues that just as a love potion cannot be ethically used to bring someone into a human relationship, God cannot act by sovereign decree to bring an individual to Himself, if a relationship of love is to be established. God must (the reasoning goes) either preserve or restore a sinner’s free-will so that he or she can freely choose to either accept or reject His offer of grace. We see an example of this argument during the first episode of the five-part debate on Calvinism between James White and Steve Gregg [the entire debate can be heard HERE.]

Gregg asserted:

Salvation is itself a relationship with God, and relationships are not of really very much worth if they are forced. If a person is forced to be in relationship with someone they don’t want to be in a relationship with, or did not previously want to be in– they were made to– that’s not the same thing as a relationship. Read the rest of this entry »

Last Thursday, Reformed Baptist apologist James White began a debate with Steve Gregg, radio host and author of Revelation: Four Views (a very useful resource), on the subject of “Calvinism,” which will last a total of five one-hour time periods, concluding this coming Wednesday. [The debate can be heard HERE.] Gregg rightly identified the core distinctives of “Calvinism” to lie in a particular view of God and of Man (as Calvin noted at the beginning of his Institutes, “Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves”); “Calvinism” teaches that God is totally sovereign and that Man, after his fall into sin recorded in Genesis 3, is totally depraved. [These teachings are, in fact, see, common to the Reformers; see, for example, John Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 26, in which Calvin demonstrates that he is in agreement with Martin Luther’s teaching on these matters.]

In explaining total depravity, Gregg said:

Total depravity, as is taught in Calvinism, teaches that Man in his natural state at birth is totally so in bondage to sin, so dead in sin, so incapable of making any response to God, that in our natural state there is nothing we can do to approach God or even to really want to approach God– that our hearts are strictly hostile to God from birth, that we hate God and we hate His laws, all people do, says Calvinism.

This definition of the T in TULIP is not bad, as far as it goes. But it does contain at least one notable curiosity, seen in the [repeated] use of the word “so.” Read the rest of this entry »

In the last few months of 2007, Mars Hill Church in Seattle initiated the “Ask Anything” project, which was, “designed for all of you out there in cyberspace who have ever wondered about or demanded to know Pastor Mark’s thoughts on…anything.” People submitted questions that were voted upon, and the top nine questions would form a sermon series to be made into a book. SBF blogger Timmy Brister submitted what became the number 1 question:

Do you believe that the Scripture not only regulates our theology but also our methodology? In other words, do you believe in the regulative principle? If so, to what degree? If not, why not?

As I believed the question to be important, I did a bit of work in promoting this question and defending it on the meta of the “Ask Anything” website.

On March 2, Mark Driscoll preached his sermon on the regulative principle. His answer to the question, in a nutshell, was, ‘No, because I believe we live our whole life of worshiping God by the same principles, and as we do not live by the regulative principle in other areas of life, why would a different principle come into effect when we gather as a church?’ Fundamental to Driscoll’s rejection of the regulative principle is his rejection to any distinction between public and private worship. Read the rest of this entry »

I’ll end the current SBF emphasis on baptism with a link to a debate between Reformed Baptist apologist James White and Dr. Gregg Strawbridge, the editor of The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism. One of the more interesting features of this debate concerns the idea of Christ as the Mediator for the New Covenant community. Dr. Strawbridge agrees to White’s assertion that Christ is the Mediator for all persons within the New Covenant community, which community, in Dr. Strawbridge’s view, includes baptized infants- some of whom will never come to faith in Christ. When asked what Christ mediates to those persons (supposed to be) in the New Covenant community who never believe in Him, Dr. Strawbridge responds with, “Wrath.”

Listen to the debate HERE.