[Please read the last two posts for the context of what you are about to read.]

The verse I mentioned at the end of the last post, Revelation 5:9, which mentioned the song the saints will sing in heaven to Jesus, who ransomed people for God from throughout the world by His blood, provides an excellent transition to the next point under consideration, that of Dr. Vines’ appeal to Baptist hymnody, as he expressed with the following statement:

“We sang these beautiful songs tonight… about the Cross, ‘For Man, the creature’s, sin.’ That’s the death of Christ for the whole world!”

Dr. Vines attempted to demonstrate that the hymns sung in Southern Baptist churches are indicative of incompatibility between Southern Baptist beliefs and the doctrine of Limited atonement. In response to this, I would like to assert that the songs found within the majority of Southern Baptist hymnals fall into three categories:

(more…)

[Please see yesterday’s post for the context of what you are about to read.]

Dr. Vines began his anti-Calvinism speech with the following two statements, declaring:

“Number 1. I’m not going to attack individuals in this message. I have many friends and they’re many sincere Christians who are Calvinists. I’m not dealing with personalities or individuals; I’m dealing with the theology of Calvinism; Number 2, What I’m going to say to you tonight is not exhaustive. I will not deal with every Scripture that is used on both sides of the issue, nor will I address every logical argument pro or con.”

Likewise, the current series of posts on Strange BaptistFire are in no way an attack on Dr. Vines as an individual. I personally have little knowledge about Dr. Vines or his past ministry. I do know that he has a very good reputation among many in the Southern Baptist Convention. As Dr. Vines said, “I’m not dealing with personalities or individuals.” Instead, my contribution to this series of posts will be to examine Dr. Vines’ recent teaching against the doctrine of Limited atonement. Following Dr. Vines’ lead in terms of relative brevity, this will not be an exhaustive treatment of the Bible’s teaching on the extent of the atonement. Again, as Dr. Vines stated, “I will not deal with every Scripture that is used on both sides of the issue, nor will I address every logical argument pro or con.” I do hope, however, to give a fairly throrough examination of Dr. Vine’s teaching on this subject as presented in the speech under consideration, as well as asserting what I believe to be the biblical response to his position.

(more…)

I really wonder if in 125 years or so anti-Calvinists will be trying to quote John Piper to support their philosophical positions. You might read this and think, “That’s ridiculous! Piper’s a 7-point Calvinist! He’s influenced myriads of young men and women to accept Reformed soteriology! He’s about to receive the Puritan Boy award from Purgatorio!” While all of these objections may be true, I still say that there is a possibility, as Piper continues to gain popularity among a wide range of evangelicals, that someone may one day try to take portions of his books and sermons out of context and portray John Piper as supporting their anti-Calvinist agenda.

Want proof?

I submit to you one Charles Spurgeon (d. 1892). This great evangelistic preacher wrote A Defense of Calvinism and preached on the doctrine of Particular Redemption, yet Norman Geisler in his book Chosen But Free and Dave Hunt in his book What Love is This? have both tried to utilize Spurgeon’s teachings to attack the very Doctrines of Grace that the “Prince of Preachers” held so dear.

The most recent notable attempt to enlist Spurgeon for the anti-Calvinist cause has come from the blog of Ergun Caner.

(more…)

This past Tuesday (9/5/06) Dr. Frank Page spoke at the chapel service for Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. This was the first time Dr. Page has spoken at a Southern Baptist Convention seminary chapel service since being elected to office as president of the SBC. Both Timmy Brister and I were present for this event. What follows is Timmy’s summary of the sermon delivered by Dr. Page, with some of his additional thoughts:

Page’s message was entitled “Changing That Which We Can Change” with the sermon text as Philippians 1:12-20. He began by asking the question, “Is there anything we can change or have impact within the sovereign will of God?” To that Page answered with an unqualified “yes.” Again, he asked, “Are there aspects in our lives which we can control in the changing circumstances of our lives?” And to that Page replied again with an unqualified “yes.” So how does one exactly do this, one might ask? Page answers by showing us that it is through our mindset, motive, and methodology.

Page shared that Paul’s perspective (mindset) of his imprisonment (vs. 12-14) wasn’t a matter of limitation but of liberation, for it caused others to be set free from fear and proclaim the gospel with boldness. It was also an opportunity to take the gospel to those in prison. Under the providence of God, God takes us to various circumstances and places for the progress of the gospel and for the purpose of his glory. As Page iterated, “No matter where I am, what I am doing, or what happens to me, I want to bring glory to Christ and proclaim his gospel.” To that I heartedly say, “Amen!”

Page also explained that Paul’s purpose (motive) was a singular devotion to Christ (vs. 15-18); however, this devotion was not met without enemies. There will be those who will have the wrong motives in their ministry, fostering envy, rivalry, and strife. Page added, “What I want to know is, ‘Are you bringing glory to Christ?’” He continued the line of questioning and examination, asking, “Why do you do what you do? Do you have a secret agenda?” Bringing denominational application to the surface, Page readily responded, “We do not own the convention, and we cannot control it. For those who have the mindset that ‘I own it’ with follow up with the motive that says ‘I can control it.’” Giving the historical illustration of the differences of Wesley and Whitefield, Page asserted that he had differences with Dr. Mohler, but quickly added, “But we are on the same team!” Wesley and Whitefield, though they had serious theological differences, were on the same team in the progress of the gospel; likewise, those who have differences should always remember that we are on the same team – for the progress of the gospel and for the glory of God.

Finally, Page noted that Paul’s practice (methodology) mattered (vs. 19-20). It was Paul’s prayer that whatever he did, it was to be in a way that will bring glory to Christ. Page emphasized that it does matter what your methodology is and that some churches are adopting methodologies today that are not bringing glory to Christ. He asks the probing question, “Will the way you do what you do bring glory to God?”

In conclusion, he reminded us that we seek to change what can be changed. And it is time to let the world know what we are for, not just what we are against.

Personal Reflections

I was really encouraged by Dr. Page’s message. I believe we should come together for the gospel and the glory of God. This is where my heart lies. I am also encouraged to see the direction Dr. Page has taken in the early stages of his presidency, calling our convention to brokenness and repentance, seeking to revive a spirit of cooperation and unity in the midst of an increasingly divided convention. The days and months ahead will be difficult days, demanding wisdom from God and requiring the prayers of God’s people on his behalf. I encourage you to join me in praying for Dr. Page as he seeks to lead us in the days ahead.
On another note, I want to add a fourth point to his sermon. I believe that Paul needed to have the right mindset, motive, and methodology, but he also believed it was necessary to have the right message. As those who have been entrusted with the gospel, it is imperative that we get it right, for we are living in a day where the gospel is quickly being lost in our churches. We should not just be concerned about the extent of the gospel (in its breadth) but also the content of the gospel (in its depth). In other words, we should not only focus our attention on the progress of the gospel but also the status of the gospel. Again and again, this was one of Paul’s greatest concerns as he was aware that many were either tempted to believe “another gospel” or were likely to “turn away from the truth and wander off into myths” after having their ears tickled. In many SBC churches today, a counterfeit gospel is being preached; in others anemic and truncated gospel is purported. We need to recover the full and biblical gospel of Jesus Christ in our day, and this requires us examining our message and the gospel we preach.

A lot has been said in the SBC over recent months about the exponentially increasing impact Calvinism is having on our Convention. Let me suggest to you that one of the primary reasons why this is happening is not the adoption of some philosophical system (even as Page as argued in his book Trouble with TULIP), but rather a passion for the gospel of Jesus Christ and a willingness to see it recovered in our day. We believe God is sovereign in salvation, just as he is sovereign in all of life. We believe that God’s grace is truly amazing, for it is an electing and efficacious grace for those who have nothing to vouch for except the matchless mercy of God.

Page and others have shared their concerns about Calvinism and its impact on our churches, but if we are on the same team, I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. I don’t understand so many who are anti-Reformed have sought to publish articles either in SBC presses or “white papers” which falsely represent and caricature those who are supposed to be on the same team. I don’t understand why, when some disgruntled church members don’t like their pastor, they can call up their State Board of Missions and be given free copies of For God So Loved the World by Fisher Humphreys and be directed to BaptistFire (which no longer exists) for information to use against their pastor to have him removed (because they found out he was a Calvinist). I don’t understand why pastors are teaching and training their students to defend themselves against Calvinism as thought it was either heresy or equivocal to modern-day false teachings. If we are on the same team, why are so many churches and pastors treating us like we aren’t?

Yes, put me down, I am on the same team with Dr. Page. I hope that we, who are in “the Reformed hotbed” are treated as such (as well as those throughout our convention). I believe our greatest days are ahead in our convention as further reform, by God’s grace, will continue to take place in our churches, and I look forward to laboring with my brothers and sisters for the progress of the gospel which we have received, in which we stand, and in which we are being saved.