Calvinism, The Gospel, and Adrian Rogers

Ray,

You have been shown the error of this statement before. It can no longer be attributed to simply no knowing or to reading and believing the wrong resources. It is now a willful repeating of a false statement.

You cite Piper. How unfortunate it is for you that you quote selectively. First you apparently give the wrong page number since the quote in my copy is on pp. 24-25. Perhaps you have a different edition. More striking is the very next paragraph:

"Not surprisingly, therefore, yet paradoxically, one of the most esteemed fathers of the Roman Catholic Church "gave us the Reformation" [my note: not Calvinism but the Reformation]. Benjamin Warfield put it like this: "The Refmormation, inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of the church." In other words, there were tensions within Augustine's thought that explain why he could be cited by both Roman Catholics and Reformers as a champion" (pp. 25-26).

Had you continued to read, your questions would have been answered and would have showed that you drew a wrong conclusion.

Calvinism has its roots in Scripture. We have shown you the texts but you have remained closeminded to the truth. Some catholics may have held to certain of its tenets. Catholics also hold to the trinity but I don't see you running out to deny that biblical truth. Why are you running to deny this biblical truth? The roots of Calvinism are in the teachings of Scripture. It is unfortunate that you are unwilling to conform your own theology to that of Scripture.

We are calvinists, not becuase of John Calvin, Augustine, Luther, or the RCC. We are Calvinists because of the teaching of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ whom we follow. When you accept this fact, you will be better suited to carry on this conversation. Of course, this is not new. And I suspect that you will reject this post, just as you have hundreds of others, choosing to continue in what you wish to be true regardless of its truth.

 

Since this is not a Baptist history thread, I will restrict my comments to simply say that the first covenant of the Sandy Creek tradition reflected a modified Calvinism that included statements on election and human freedom. The 1845 confession stated that "election is the gracious purpose of God" but added that "the belssings of salvation are made free to all by the gospel; that is the immediate duty of all to accept them by a cordial and obedient faith; and that nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner on earth, except his own voluntary refusal to submit to the Lord Jesus Christ."

I am not saying there were a lot of non-Calvinistic influences in the early traditions. What I am saying is that certain Seperate Baptists represented a modified form of Calvinism. These groups seem to have been driven more by their evangelistic practices which in return tended to guide their theology.

In the end, neither 5-pointers, modifieds, nor those of a more Arminian persuasion can claim a monopoly on early Baptist theology.

I have never suggested Rogers has not created an unnecessary firestorm with some of the things he has said about Calvinism. I stated in an earlier thread that he seems to be reacting to 2nd generation Calvinism or a pseudo-Calvinistic straw man.

The whole reason this discussion began was b/c a Calvinist suggested that AR did not believe salvation was from God (which is definitely a more severe accusation than the "kick them out" threat).

I am hesitant to label a man-created philosophy the "best explanation of the gospel." I think I would prefer to stay with Paul's definition in 1 Cor 15.3-4. But you can opt for the post-Calvin definition if you prefer.

This is an unfair statement and reflects a spiritual arrogance that is a bit repulsive. If you truly believe in God's sovereignty in salvation, you would not limit God to a certain preferred soul-winning technique. God is just as capable of using Bailey Smith's supposedly flawed techniques as he is someone of a more Reformed taste.

Or is it because of a lack of presentation by Calvinists hiding behind their system?


Again, I am far more Reformed in my beliefs than not. But at the same time I recognize God is not limited to a finite created philosophy to define salvation.

While I cannot provide all the details of how God's sovereignty and human responsibility come together, one thing that I can say is that the more the gospel is shared, the more people come to know Christ.

And that my friend is the bottom line

 

Hi SBCBYGRACE,

You said,

To be honest with you, you will find similar statements in the Canons of Dort and even Calvin's commentaries. I think it is more of preconceived notions by non Calvinists who think Calvinists are not Evangelistic. That appears to be Dr. McBeth's intepretation but to say the gospel is free to all and that nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner on earth, except his own voluntary refusal to submit to the Lord Jesus Christ is consistent with Calvinism. As much as I like Dr. McBeth as a historian, he is putting his own theological interpretation on the document

On early Baptist theology, The Arminians could claim a monopoly on Baptist theology from 1609-1639. From 1644 to the late 1800's Baptist theology moved into the Calvinist camp as the General Baptists declined. The closest to a modified Calvinist confession in the USA was the New Hampshire but that is higly debatable since it clearly taught Unconditional election and Regeneration producing Faith.

I am referring to Jack Hyles style Easy Believism techniques that were prevalent during the 60's-80's that even many Non Calvinists admit were wrong.

Techniques are ok as long as they present the Gospel but High pressure techniques in Door to Door Evangelism were prevalent in the 1960-80's in the SBC and numbers increased but so did spiritual drop outs. Perhaps I was unfair to Dr. Rogers on that but he along with all of us must question why most people being baptized in SBC churches this year will not be in any church next year.

Sorry Calvinists were not the ones Baptizing people who stayed in the Church for less than a year since Calvinists are a small minority in the SBC. If a Church baptized 1,500 people last year but a year later only 500 remain in Church should we not be alarmed? Is it because Salvation has been presented as a Fire Insurance policy by many and is not the "Once Saved Always Saved" Doctrine being preached by many SBC churches unbiblical and teaching a salvation that is cheap ? (Read Charles Stanley's Barthian view that God perseveres with the saints but we may not persevere with God in his book ETERNAL SECURITY) Calvinism teaches Unconditional security of the believer but emphasizes that only those who persevere are truly saved but the OSAS doctrine of such men as Stanley comes from the theology of Karl Barth and gives many church drop outs false assurance of salvation.

Some would label our Baptist Distintives as a man-created philosophy but we know better don't we? I don't opt for a post Calvin definition since the Apostle Paul presents Calvinism better than any extra Biblical theologian be it Augustine, Waldenses, Calvin or Dort. Certainly you believe in the Trinity? even though the term was only first used by Tertulliam in the 2nd century and expanded on by the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon. Certainly the Doctrine of the Trinity is not a man made philosophy however but a Biblical one.

On that we can agree my brother in that Calvinism teaches Whosover Will may Come and Unconditional Election but we do not try to prove how all this comes together HOWEVER I am alarmed by some easy believism techniques are still used by many Southern Baptists and we have a crisis in that a vast nember of our "converts" are leaving the Church and it could be that a weak Gospel is being presented. We dare not stick our heads in the sand on this issue.

In all fairness I find that most Baptists are Hyper Calvinists in regard to evangelism since very few Southern Baptists regardless of their theological persuasion truly witness.

 

This is from a Book I have on Baptist Confessions. It explains the history behind the New Hampshire Confession, which some in this thread have stated was a factor or a product of the early SBC (I'm not sure if this was true).

"...the theological views of Calvinistic Baptists in the New Hampshire area had been considerably modified after 1780 by the rise of the Free Will Baptists following the leadership of Benjamin Randall. The Free Will Baptist message was welcomed with enthusiasm by the great middle class of in New England and its warm evangelism produced a revolt against the rigid theological system of some Calvinistic Baptist. The New Hampshire Confession thus sought to restate its Calvinism in very moderate tones.."

Interesting that there was an intention to come across a Moderate Calvinists.

Jacob.

 

These two paragraphs come from "The Bible Almanac"written by Drs. James I. Packer, Merrill C. Tenney and William White, Jr. p. 347.

'While the see of Rome dominated Western Christianity, the pope required churches to use the Latin version of the Bible, the Vulgate, translated by Jerome. {The Vulgate was the Latin and Catholic version of the Bible-my note} Thus Latin served as the common language of Western Christianity from A.D. 400 to nearly 1800. It was the international language used by the Reformers of the sixteenth century and their predecessors. Hus, Luther, Wycliffe, and Calvin all wrote and published in the Latin. All the Reformers' Bible Commentaries were written in Latin.

Jerome's Latin version of the Scriptures has had a tremendous influence on the church's thinking; it has influenced all of the great modern translations.'

Calvin was greatly influenced by Augustine. Augustine had his "City of God" and Calvin copied with his experiment in the city of Geneva with both men having their repressive regulations and persecutions. No one would think that Calvin came out of Catholicism and completely changed his Augustinian theological thoughts just because of his conversion to Christ.

This reference from Church History and Dr. Piper's statement noted on February 17 at 1:35 p.m. establishes the truth that John Calvin was more than greatly influenced by his trusted spiritual guide, St. Augustine.

Jerome also gave the Roman Catholic view of theology and then charted it in the Latin Vulgate. Notice there was no repeated, study of the Greek manuscripts leading to a more Biblical theology. All of this interpretation of the Word was under the guidance of the Catholic see. 'Pope Demasus I commissioned the scholar Jerome (A.D. 340-420) to produce a standard text of the Latin Bible . . . ' Historical, Systematic and Contemporary theology clearly indicates a linkage betwen Jerome, Augustine and Calvin.

Augustine lived between (A.D. 354-430).

 

Again, I find it odd that you are so eager to conclude that errors in Jerome's translation are largely responsible for Calvinism. Luther, not Calvin, was the leading influence in re-establishing election and predestination over free will, and Luther frequently faults Jerome in his writings.

For example, Luther accuses Jerome of being blasphemous in Bondage of the Will:

And from Luther's commentary on Galatians:

So it seems to me that it is a gross error and misrepresentation to suggest that Calvinism grew out of errors in Jerome's translation.

 

Kiffin wrote,

AMEN and AMEN, I've been saying that for years!!!

 

Ray,

What you do not appear to be grasping is that "who" believed something is irrelevant. The Catholics believe in the Trinity and the death/resurrection of Christ. But you are not running from those doctrines because they are found in Scripture. In the same way, the soteriology that is found in Scripture should be believed. Scripture clearly teaches the sovereignty of God in salvation and that doctrine had the unfortunate happenstance of being attached to Calvinism. You need to learn to separate the relevant from the irrelevant. John Piper himself corrected your erroneous view of this as I quoted.

 

To add that Calvin, or Luther were Catholic is irrelevant to the extent they are called 'Reformers' did they expect to start 'denominations?'

We have first, the church, then errors grew into the Roman church, then we have the reformers. The church has been in the world since Christ established it. Calvin and Luther intended to 'Reform' the Roman church.

The first I can see to intentionally break is King Henry VIII.

Wesley didn't intend to begin a new denomination either, but he did.

From this came the 'holiness' movements, I think, during the Great Revivals of the 1800's.

The Baptist, at least in doctrine, were present long before Luther's 98 thesis, or Calvin, or even Augustine.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Actually, I'm very serious. The history books which continually speak of the Sandy Creek / Separates being "modified" Calvinists is historically inaccurate. The reason individuals make this claim is because they (the Separates) were evangelistic. However, so were the Regulars. Not only that, but the Synod of Dort and other Calvininists have historically been evangelistic (Puritans, etc.). The differences were NOT doctrinal (as far as Calvinism goes) - unless you hold to a revisionist history.

It isn't the Calvinists / Founders guys who are firing the shots at the non-Calvinists. It is Rogers, Patterson, Vines, Gage, etc. We have extended a hand, they have extended a fist.

 

Just as saying such statements are consistent with Calvinism is putting our own interpretation on the document

Again I am not arguing Calvinism was not a primary influence. I am simply saying there were different "levels" (maybe allowances is a good term here) of Calvinism reflected in the early Baptist statements.

Again I agree that the Reformed, Particular roots are the dominant ones. I am simply saying that there was a level of doctrinal diversity in issues regarding the extent of the atonement (and of course military involvement and church/state issues -- which are altogether different Calvinistic topics ).

I can agree with this assessment.

Perhaps the problem comes more on the "make disciples" side of the Great Commission coin than on the "go & preach" side.

This is definitely correct. As a matter of fact, there are very few Calvinists who baptize more than a handful a year. Most of the more influental Calvinists in Baptist circles baptize very few people each year.

I am sure there are many reasons for the problem, but the solution is not a return to strict 5-point Calvinism. Perhaps the solution involves disciple-making and not convert-making.

Stanley's book is not a theological treatise. It was written for lay people. And yes, I do think he blew it in how he presented "eternal security."

I definitely wouldn't suggest the Baptist distinctives are the only true gospel.

If it is so clear, why is there a C/A debate to begin with? Are you also going to adopt Calvin's view on church/state, etc.?

Oranges and apples.

Agreed.

At the same time, I have heard way too many callow Calvinists criticize great men of God and certain evangelistic programs in the name of the doctrines of grace. There is an innate danger in Calvinism to become so elect that one loses sight of a lost world who needs to hear the gospel.

 

I almost laugh when I read this statement. Yes some non-Calvinists have fired some unnecessary shots at the Reformed guys. But to suggest the Calvinists are extending a hand is derisory. Spend a few days on SBTS' campus and you will quickly discover the "our way is the only correct way" mentality that threatens the life of the seminary and Calvinism itself. Let me ask you this: why has Calvinists such as Mohler pulled away from movements such as the Founders Movement? It is all about attitude and perspective.

 

I will not disagree with you on that though the Bible never judges the success of a Church on how many baptisms are performed. I would rather baptize 5 this year and have all 5 still active and serving Christ next year than baptize 400 and only have 50 still active and serving Christ next year. This spiritual drop out rate will catch up with the SBC unless it is addressed.

Agreed.

Baptist distinctives primarily focus on the doctrine of the Church and the Bible and not the Gospel. The Baptist view of the Church sets us apart from other churches of the Protestant Reformation and I certaintly don't think Baptist distintives were conjured up by either the Anabaptists in the 1500's or the early Baptists in the 1600's but are grounded in scripture.

Calvinism is only a nickname. The foundation is scripture and not Calvin who is only one of many who held to the beliefs that the Apostle Paul and others taught.

Nope, it's a fair representation.

Your criticism is well taken. I have not heard however of criticism of Evangelistic programs unless they involve hyper evangelistic techniques of the Jack Hyles variety which in fairness many non Calvinists have problems with. I think a rebirth of emphasis on TULIP will increase personal evangelism...It should if we Calvinists really believe it!

I think it is a danger in that if the Doctrines of Grace are corrupted but Calvinism if taught corretly will lead to a greater emphasis on Evangelism and Missions.

 

I am not aware of this at all. Could you provide documentation to prove Dr. Mohler has pulled away from the Founders Movement?

 

I think the Acts description is very concerned with "numbers." When the Great Commission was being effectively carried out, the church was adding to its numbers.

I am just afraid the "baptized 5 and they are still active" excuse allows Calvinists to justify their silence.

If salvation is truly of God, I must simply be faithful to go, preach, and disciple and as that happens, the church will grow. As I have stated before, it is odd how the more a church is committed to sharing the gospel, the more it usually grows (and no I am not talking about the Hyles methods of yesteryears).

My point is that Baptist distinctives and defining the true gospel are two separate matters. In its very essence, Calvinism is a man-created, philosophical-based system to explain salvation from a certain perspective. Calvinism does not equal the gospel. It is an explanation of the gospel. To use your analogy, the term Trinity does not equal the essence of the Godhead. It is a man-created word to explain the Godhead. The word Trinity does not do full justice to the essence of who God is & the word Calvinism does not do full justice to the essence of salvation.

Then we have run in different circles b/c I have consistently heard wholesome methods (e.g., the FAITH program & The Four Spiritual Laws tract) criticized by Calvinists as being misleading, man-centered, etc.

And yet God is using multitudes of churches who do not embrace TULIP to reach people for Christ! Such an amazing fact should help put things in perspective for those who are so system-bound in their soteriology.

Again -- great in theory, difficult in practice.

This is fairly common knowledge among those who associate with insiders in the Mohler camp.

 

I agree to an extent but Acts is not a doctrinal book on how to do Evangelism but is a Historical account. According to most church growth experts, Jeremiah would have been a failure. If numbers is what designates success then the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are very successful. We should be concerned about numbers but that does not indicate success.

SBCbyGrace, who is silent on the Gospel? Some Calvinists Churches outside the SBC such as Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (Whose pastor D. James Kennedy designed Evangelism Explosion) and John MacArthur's Grace Community Church fit in with the Mega Church and have more conversions a year than most SBC churches. God will bless his word but statements such as "baptized 5 and they are still active" excuse allows Calvinists to justify their silence." shows arrogance and implies that my Church never shares the Gospel nor even cares about the lost.

I agree regard sharing the Gospel but Numbers are not the barometer of whether a Church is healthy or not. Read Revelation 1-3 for examples.

Well, I will stay away from the Trinity comment..though I think you believe in the Trinity (I hope so!)

I think the Four Spiritual Laws is a poor tract and I would not use it. I am not familiar with FAITH so I cannot comment. I have no problems with the Roman Road which some Calvinist criticize .

Well Theology is Important! and not just Jesus Loves You! and that's all that matters. We all have systems in our soterology God will use his Gospel by whoever preaches it be it a Calvinist like Whitefield or an Arminian like Wesley. Your problem seems to be that you believe only those who hold to your system-bound soteriology are doing Evangelism.

Hogwash! The Church you attend most likely has it's roots with Calvinism. The First Great Awakening was a Calvinist revival. George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards were all strict 5 point Calvinists. William Carey the father of modern missions was a 5 pt Calvinist.

C.H. Spurgeon whom according to your standard must have been a successfull pastor because he pastored a Church of 5,000 and averaged baptizing 400 a year was a 5 pt Calvinist. The Anglican bishop J.C. Ryle in the 1800's was higly involved in Gospel tract ministry yet was a militant 5 point Calvinists. D. James Kennedy another 5 pt Calvinist is the Founder of Evangelism Explosion. In my state of Louisiana, the Baptist mission work here in the 17-1800's was pioneered by David Cooper and Ezra Courtney both of whom were 5 point Calvinists.

So your point is mute and basically sounds like "Those Calvinists don't believe in Evangelism" something that has the same Dave Hunt smell that only has a sterotype of Calvinism as "the Frozen Chosen".

I know good friends of Dr. Mohler and I have not heard of Dr. Mohler distancing himself from the Founder's ministry from them. It is news to me and I doubt there is any validity to such statements.

 

The Mormons/JWs tactic has been tried before and found wanting. There must be a genuine gospel presupposition in this discussion. Can you provide a NT example of a church that followed the Great Commission paradigm and did not grow?

You missed my point. I was simply suggesting that I have heard those who baptized 5 excuse their lack of fruit by saying something like: "Yeah, but we preach a pure gospel and do not use any of those man-centered techniques."

Obviously I am familiar with some Calvinists whose churches are growing. I respect them for maintaining the balance.

I tend to agree with Warren's barometer for a healthy church, and one of the marks is evangelism and discipleship, which will naturally result in numbers.

My point is simply that the term Trinity (which man uses to describe God) does not do full justice to the complete essence of who God is (I am not speaking ontologically here). Do you disagree? How can the finite fully define the infinite?

And yet God has used it to lead multitudes to a saving faith in Christ. Proves my point.

Wrong. My whole point is that God uses people on all ends of the spectrum. I am actually very Calvinistic in my theology and hold 2 Masters degrees in theology and am completing a dissertation for my PhD in NT Theology. So I hold theology very high. I just do not isolate others who differ.

I am well familiar with those past Calvinists who have been active in evangelism, and yet there is still a danger in 2nd generation Calvinism of taking it to its unintended end. After all, Carey was reacting to a form of Calvinism that did not believe in evangelism. Most Calvinists recognize the innate danger in their system of losing one's passion for the lost. This is not a new warning.

I taught Mohler's SS class when he was out of town (which was most Sundays ) before I became a pastor. My wife was his personal secretary for over 2 years. I have spent many hours in his home and talking with him. His closest friend and VP Danny Akin is one of my dearest friends and mentors, so I speak authoritatively on this issue. Just find the last Founders Conference in which Mohler spoke.

 

Carey and Fuller reacted to HYPER-Calvinism, as did Spurgeon and a host of other Calvinists. There is, no doubt, a danger that exists when the doctrines of God's sovereignty, etc., come to the forefront. People can become lopsided and forget responsibility, etc. However, the main problem is a heart problem. A lack of concern for the lost occurs because there is a lack of love for God. This is not a "Calvinist" problem.

I believe the last statistic within SBC circles shows that it takes about 45 church members to reach one person with the Gospel. That's pitiful! "Calvinism" hasn't done that to SBC churches.

If there are "Calvinists" on the campus of SBTS who are arrogant regarding the doctrines of grace, then they do not comprehend them. The doctrines of grace abase pride. However, I don't doubt such individuals exist. Still, often people can confuse conviction with arrogance.

As for Mohler, I think he has distanced himself from the Founders because of political reasons. I know the Founders guys very, very well. The attitutudes expressed are humility, patience and gentleness, yet with conviction and honesty.

 

"Just find the last Founders Conference in which Mohler spoke."

Dr. Mohler spoke here in Missouri in 2000 at the Midwest Founders Conference That was the last time I heard him and he still loved us then!

Are you saying he has issues with the Founders Organization?

Or is he pulling away because of Denominational Politics?

Or is he pulling away because he is recanting and becoming an Arminian?