let us reflect

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace…

Isaiah 9:6 (ESV)

 

Indeed, God is good.  He has chosen to save us by sending His own into this dreaded world.  Thank you, Lord, for being Immanuel–that is, “God with us.”  

To you alone, O Lord, be the glory.  To you alone.  

Amen.

soli Deo gloria!

Matthew

Dr. Ergun Caner, a man after God’s own heart

Dr. Caner,

I know that I have been (somewhat) silent (and slow) in responding to you, but I felt the need to respond to your last post.

First, let me just say that I have learned a lot about you in our recent dialogue that has been going on the past few days.  It is evident to me that you are a man of grace and passion for the cause of our Lord.  And despite our disagreements, you have also shown that you are able to rise above them and pursue the highest and most noble thing of all: love for the Christian brother.  I was really humbled that you would even take the time and respond to my blurbs on this controversial issue, and I was even more humbled to see how graciously you responded.  For that, I commend you. 

Though we disagree about some major doctrines, I think there can still be civility and respect as we hash out what we believe.  In the end, we are all still growing into the maturity of the knowledge of Christ, and we should show each other grace during our journey upward.  

I think, Dr. Caner, that both sides of the aisle could learn from the grace that you have shown in the last post, and I think that same grace is what will help lead others to Christ.

So with that, I thank you, Dr. Caner, for the lively ”debate” and for the time to get to speak with you on this subject. 

For God’s glory alone,

Matthew

of rules and comments

Hello, everyone! 

First, let me just say that I am enjoying everyone’s comments that have been posted on the blog.  I think there is a lot to talk about, and given that, I want to write up a few rules for commenting.

First, no cursing, swearing, or anything of that sort.

Second, no taking the name of our great God in vain.

Third, always show grace to the opposing side!  Even though we might hold to different viewpoints as to what God does behind the scenes (election, predestination, etc), we all believe (I hope!) that we were saved by God’s grace, and we want to manifest that grace to others.

I think if we follow these simple rules, then we can have great discussion, lively debates, and all the while give God the glory He alone deserves.  That’s what it’s all about, amen?

soli Deo gloria!

Matthew Halsted

Response to Dr. Ergun Caner

First, let me say that I am personally a fan of Dr. Caner.  I think he has a lot to offer the evangelical community, and I believe he is an excellent apologist for the Christian faith.  However, I wish to respond to his comment made in the previous post.

I want to counter what Dr. Caner stated in his “Exegetical Response to Romans 9” in the previous post’s comment section with a few comments of my own.  Obviously, a whole dissertation could be written on a topic such as this, and I know that I am not the smartest person in the world, so I will do my best to keep this brief for the sake of the sanity of all mankind (of course, “all” means all at this point in the debate!).  

1. Did God CREATE Esau hated- meaning that God CREATED him predestined for hell? My answer: NO

2. IF, in fact, the reading as the reprobation view holds, that God loves some, and hates others, intrinsically, then the exegesis of most of the others texts must be reworked.

Dr. Caner, while I can tell that your heart is in the right place, I think you erred on your exegesis of Romans 9.  The text does seem to suggest that God did elect both Jacob and Esau before they did anything—that is, “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s election might continue, not because of works but because of his call—she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’  As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’” (Romans 9:11-13 ESV). 

Now obviously, it is certain that the word hate means “rejection,” as Dr. Bruce Waltke has pointed out.  But what is interesting is that Jacob was chosen before he done “either good or bad.”  And likewise, Esau was reprobate before he had done “either good or bad.”  Why was this the case?  So “that God’s election might continue” (v.11).

I suppose that you mean when you say “intrinsically” to be before Jacob and Esau had done anything at all—that is, either good or bad.  Well, according to the text, it is the case that God’s election took place “before” they were born.  It is clear from this text that God does not elect based upon conditions, but, rather, upon no conditions.  It’s all for His purpose.

3. Again, these are the same texts thrown back and forth. 1 Tim 2: 1-8, 2 Peter 3:9, etc.

As some have argued (Piper and Waltke, for instance), a possible solution to this “tension” (as you say) is to say that God has both a sovereign will and a permissive will.  The former could be said to relate to salvation history, and the latter could relate to some of his other commands (“thou shalt not lie”).  I’m sure you have heard the argument, so I doubt I need to go into detail with this. 

4. IF Esau was created for damnation, then can anyone say for certain that God loves them? Could they not logically be reprobate? Sheer numbers would have to suggest that MOST people would be created for damnation.

I think that it is true that God does not love the reprobate with a covenantal love.  But why do we presuppose that he does?  Does God owe man his mercy? Moreover, it is clear from Romans 8:29 that God only foreknows—that is, “foreknew,” i.e., “proginosko”—his elect. 

“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son…And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified…” (Romans 8:29-30 ESV).

This idea of proginosko is a type of intimate knowing.  Just like Jesus says in Matthew 7:22, “I never knew you”—meaning that he never loved them in a covenantal fashion.  Besides, if Jesus did in fact love everyone the same way and foreknew everyone in the same way, then according to this passage, everyone will be saved.  Notice how all those whom God “proginosko-ed,” he also predestined.  And those whom he predestined gets called, and those whom he calls gets justified.  Surely you, Dr. Caner, do not think this is the same calling that goes out to the whole world, do you?  For everyone who gets called gets justified!  No, this is a specific calling designed for the elect.

So from this, we can conclude that there is a reprobate.  Time really doesn’t permit to exegete 1 Peter 2:7-8 (ESV), which says:

“…they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. But you are a chosen race…”

Not only is there a clear distinction between the elect and the reprobate, there is also the mention of the reprobate!

So it seems, Dr. Caner, that there is such a thing as a reprobate, who, in God’s sovereignty, was not elected unto salvation. 

I know that there are some who would say that John 3:16 contradicts this; however, all John 3:16 says is that “whosoever” believes will have eternal life, and the “whosoever” are those whom God draws (John 6:37, 44).  While I do not deny that God loves all the world, I do think that his covenantal love is only for the elect.  God does, indeed, cause it to rain on the just and unjust, but his salvation is for only those whom he draws. 

Of course, most Christians do not like such a doctrine, for it offends the dignity of man.  It belittles him, and it causes one to see the utter depravity mankind is in.  Furthermore, it also destroys our presumption that God owes everyone the same amount of mercy.  This proposition is simply not true.  God disperses his mercy as he wills, to whom he will, when he will. 

If I am going to err, I will not only err on the side of God’s omnibenevolence, but on his divine distinctive to disperse his benevolence to whom he wants.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Matthew

Ergun Caner, Calvinism, and Protestantism

 

Q: DIDN’T YOU SAY THAT CALVINISTS ARE WORSE THAN MUSLIMS?

A: Yes, absolutely. For a small portion of these people, just daring to question the Bezian movement is heresy. They will blog and e-mail incessantly. I call it a “Calvinist Jihad,” because just like Muslims, they believe they are defending the honor of their view. They can discuss nothing else. I have even had a few call for my head! Dr. Falwell and I have laughed about it, because they are so insistent, and they miss the point completely. There are plenty of schools to which the neo-Calvinists can go, but Liberty will be a lighthouse for missions and evangelism to the “whosoever wills.” Period.

The difference is, Muslims know when to quit – for these guys, it is the only topic about which they can talk.

-Ergun Caner

(Taken from Ergun Caner’s website:  http://erguncaner.com/blog/?p=72)

First, let me just say that I am grateful to Dr. Caner for his commitment to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  He is known for his outstanding zeal in wanting to make the name of Jesus Christ famous in all the world.  For that, I commend him.

Despite my accolades for Dr. Caner, I want to call him out on what he said above.  I don’t think there is such a thing as a “neo-Calvinist.”  Dr. Caner fails to accurately define what this group believes in distinction to the typical “Calvinist.”  At any rate, I think in today’s age calling someone “worse than a Muslim” is tantamount to calling them a terrorist.  Maybe that is not what Dr. Caner intended.  I don’t know.  But he should have known it would have been taken that way. 

Second, I want to say that I think Dr. Caner is a bit insensitive to the Calvinist side of this whole debate.  We Calvinists defend it so much so because we truly believe that we are defending the glory of God in the eyes of men.  Likewise, non-Calvinists are really passionate about their view because they feel they are defending the dignity of man as well as the idea of a “loving” God (as opposed to the “non-loving” God of Calvinists). So it seems that both sides have their reasons, and both sides should show the other a little grace.  Quite frankly, Dr. Caner’s statement does not disclose that kind of grace, and this is unfortunate for someone of his standing in the evangelical community.

Furthermore, I want to swerve a little off topic for just a moment.  I pose to anyone of Dr. Caner’s defenders the following challenge:  Give me one instance of Dr. Caner actually giving a sound exegesis of the Scripture concerning his anti-Calvinistic position.  What does he say regarding Romans 9?  I have never heard him give one exegetical-friendly exposition of that text or any of the texts that speak of election, predestination, or any other reformed term that is found in the Bible.  I’m not saying there isn’t one; I’m just saying I haven’t heard one.

Furthermore, I want to comment on the following quote by Dr. Caner on whether or not Baptists fall under that category of Protestant:

“Secondly, as a Baptist, I do not stand in the “Protestant” tradition. Historically Baptists are dissenters, and were hunted by many of the Reformers. I do not believe, as the longer version of the Manifesto reads, that “evangelical is synonymous with Protestant” (p. 10)” (Taken from http://www.erguncaner.com/home/news/manifesto.php)\

I think that statement by Dr. Caner is unfortunate, too.  Let me dispel some common misconceptions that might be prevalent among Dr. Caner’s supporters. 

First, while it is true that the present-day Baptist can trace their theological lineage back to some of the “dissenters” of the Reformation, I think it would be huge mistake for the contemporary Baptist to identify more closely with the radical Anabaptist movement during Luther and Calvin’s time.  If the present-day Baptist identifies more with the Anabaptist, then we have other problems.  For the Anabaptists were a little on the not-so-cool side of Christianity.  (I highly recommend an article by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon for a good exposition on this movement: (http://www.apuritansmind.com/Reformation/McMahonRiseAnabaptists.htm)

As Dr. McMahon has laid out, the Anabaptists did not want a reform of the current church; they wanted their own branch.  Of course, Luther did not want to break away from the Church at Rome; he merely wanted to reform it. 

I would have to say, the only thing in common with the Anabaptists that the present-day Baptist should have is the affirmation in believer’s baptism (in fact, the term “Anabaptist” means to “re-baptize”).  Everything else that the Anabaptists stood for should be discarded.  It was the reformers who began the movement away from the Catholic heresy, and it was the reformers who brought back the heralded notions and traditional beliefs of sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, and sola scriptura.  It seems to me that the Reformers were more right than they were wrong, and the Anabaptists were more wrong than they were right. 

So the question remains.  Should Baptists consider themselves Protestants?  Well, that depends.  Do we embrace Protestant principles that were inherent to the Reformation?  That is, do we embrace salvation by faith alone, by grace alone, through Christ alone, for God’s glory alone?  Do we adhere to the doctrine of Scripture alone?  Luther said the church stands or falls on the doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura.  Those two doctrines were what drove a wedge between Rome and the reformers.  Baptists, especially Southern Baptists, face a crucial question that must be answered.  Do we align more with Rome or with the reformers?  There is no other alternative.  Either you believe in salvation by faith alone, or you don’t.  If you don’t, then you are not Protestant.  If you do, then you fall under the reigns of Protestantism.  There is no other choice. 

So, Dr. Caner, since you are not “Protestant,” are you Catholic?  Surely not. 

I think this is once again a time when Dr. Caner has stuck his foot in his mouth.  Having not considered the consequences of his words, he has driven a deeper, more elongated wedge between those of the Reformed ranks and those who are not necessarily Calvinists.  This is unfortunate.  We should pursue peace when possible.  And Dr. Caner, it is possible.  Don’t drive the wedge any further. 

As a last note, I will agree with my non-Calvinistic brothers and sisters on one thing.  One’s stance on Calvinism does, indeed, determine where one stands on evangelism and missions.  For example, Charles Finney has been heralded as a great man of God by people like Jerry Falwell (Liberty University’s founder).  It was Finney’s anti-Calvinism that led to his error of trying to argue people into the Kingdom. Finney’s denial of penal substituionary atonement and original sin was only one of his many problems.  Finney also thought a sinner had the ability and goodness in himself to not only want God, but also desire Jesus Christ.  So, Finney concluded, a sinner can be argued into the Kingdom.  That, my friend, is the logical conclusion of anti-Calvinism.  If God does not do the drawing, the evangelist must.  And if a person does not choose salvation, then the evangelist hasn’t argued good enough.  This would be very difficult (and depressing!) evangelism. 

May our cry always be…

“Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory” (2 Timothy 2:10, NIV).

 

 

 

The salvation of the sinner is our mission, and may we always be about that mission.  May God get His way.

soli Deo gloria

Matthew

 

   

 

 

The Southern Baptist Convention and Calvinism

While I am not too much into my Baptist politics, I know how much of an issue Calvinism can be for Southern Baptists.  Quite frankly, it is an issue with many repercussions, for what one believes about the doctrines of grace will greatly influence other doctrines that are taught.  I agree with my Arminian and/or anti-Calvinist brothers and sisters that depending on where one stands in regards to Reformed theology will impact how one does evangelism, discipleship, and missions in general.  (I just happen to think that these three areas greatly benefit from a pro-Calvinistic position.)

 

That the doctrines of grace are dividing is an understatement.  I have heard of ministers being fired or asked to leave simply because they take a stand on one side of this debate.  That, I feel, is a little unfortunate.  However, I also know how emotional each person can get in respect to their position on this issue.  But I think—in fact, I know—that we can all maintain civility while debating this topic.  It’s possible to be at peace with one another; therefore, we should be. 

 

What does this debate really come down to?  Is it really about predestination, or is it about something much deeper?  I maintain that the issue is deep, and it is wide.  In fact, I know the issue runs much deeper than just the idea of predestination.  What it all boils down to is the following two analogies that were taken from RC Sproul:

 

(1) Man, who is drowning in the sea of sin, struggles for each breath.  As soon as he gets his head above water, he sinks again.  Losing energy, he gasps for one more breath.  Then, all of a sudden, he sees Jesus walking on the water, and His hand is reaching out for the ailing sinner.  The drowning man knows Jesus can save him if, and only if, he grabs hold of Jesus’ arm.  So, since he doesn’t want to drown, he does just that.  And the result?  Rescue. 

 

(2) Man, who is lying lifeless on the bottom of the ocean floor, has ceased struggling for each breath.  He has taken his last breath, and he is now showing no activity of life.  He has lost all energy, and he has no passion and no desire to be saved.  Simply put: he is dead.  Then, as an act of sheer grace, Jesus, the Savior, jumps into  the ocean and dives down towards the bottom.  He sees the lifeless man, and He delivers him from the ocean floor.  On the beach, Jesus breaths into him the breath of life, and the man is revived.

 

Which, I ask, is the most accurate description of man and salvation?  Is man merely struggling for life, or is he already dead in the sea of sin?  Does Jesus merely “help” the sinner, or does he actually have to give him new life? 

 

I think these questions are what the SBC is going to have to grapple with.  These issues are fundamental for everyone.  A healthy Christian worldview must be undergirded with a proper view of man and a proper view of God.  Simply put:  God is sovereign over everything, and we are not.

 

Of course, man does not like the idea of Reformed theology because it belittles sinful man—that is, it makes him look weak.  Well, the truth of the matter is that man is weak.  And, on the other hand, God and His love is strong.  In fact, God’s love is so strong that it can overcome any obstinate heart that man can concoct.  Otherwise, God’s love would be weak, and man’s obstinate heart would be stronger.  I guess that is what it comes down to.  Is the sinfulness of man stronger than the loving-kindness of God? 

 

It is high time for Christians to fully understand the Gospel message of Jesus Christ.  It is imperative that we understand the nature of our salvation so that we can properly give God the worship that He deserves.  In the end, may we always say, soli Deo gloria!