Except They Be Agreed, Pt 2

So ultimately, the question is, can Calvinists and non-Calvinists dwell peacefully together under the Southern Baptist roof, or any other roof for that matter?  I suppose the answer would differ from person to person or even church to church.  However, there are some distinctions that may be helpful in determining the overall viability of such a proposal.

Understanding Calvinism

Firstly, to avoid confusion, I shall use a definition of Calvinism that is distinctly reformed and confessional.  Calvinism is spoken of today as though it is a spectrum (five-point, four-point, etc.), but that is an unfortunate distortion of the Calvin's theology.  Calvin's theology was a thorough systematic and biblical theology, not a few points that could be separated and held to independent of one another.  One who professes to be a "four-point" Calvinist (typically a nomenclature given to the individual that denies Particular Redemption) simply demonstrates his lack of a good understanding of the fully orbed theological system of Calvin and other reformers.  Rejecting one of the "points" is to undermine the implications and foundation of the others - that foundation being the Covenantal framework of reformed theology. There must be a mutual understanding of what is at stake in disagreement and unfortunately, I fear that most of whom oppose Calvinism are not fully aware of what reformed Calvinists believe.

Theological Triage

Albert Mohler published his "triage" as a useful way of distinguishing the hierarchy of doctrine.  Calvin also had a similar understanding of the practical division of biblical doctrines.  For Mohler, the first tier of doctrine includes those essential doctrines that define Christianity (The Trinity, the deity of Christ, the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ, etc.).  One cannot be a Christian without adherence to the first tier doctrines.  The second tier are those doctrines that prevent fellow Christians from worshiping together in one congregation.  These are those doctrines that bring divisions between believers and prevent worship or service together (Mohler cites Baptism and ordination of woman here).  The third tier would consist of those doctrines that believers can disagree over but still serve and worship in harmony within the same congregation (Mohler includes eschatology and passages that are difficult to interpret, I suppose like 1 Peter 3:19).  This structure can be very helpful, but there may be disagreement as to what tier to place certain doctrines.  For instance, for the believer convinced of the soundness of reformed theology, salvation doctrine is central to the faith and worship of the church, belonging firmly in the second tier.  There may be however, a well meaning four-pointer or even an Arminian (relatively unaware of his own theology much less that of a Calvininst), that would think it to be of little importance, third tier for sure.

Confessional Unity

Confessionalism is a very important matter for the reformed believer.  The confessions and Catechisms that arose out of the Reformation (Westminster Confession of Faith, The Savoy Declaration, The London Baptist Confession of 1644 and 1689, Heidelberg Catechism, Westminster Catechism, Canons of Dordt, etc.) were robust and distinctive regarding key doctrines of scripture.  These documents were very concise, even wordy (dare say) about the scripture, God's sovereignty, His decree, the work of redemption, the church, the means of grace (Word and sacraments), the life of the believer and more.  Doctrines pertaining to salvation were central - salvation is, after all, a work of God's free grace in the application of that redemption accomplished by Christ.  To give up the distinction of these doctrines, or to effectively relegate them to a dusty closet, is unacceptable in the reformed faith.

This is exactly what has happened in most evangelical churches today.  Little by little, the doctrinal distinctives have been abandoned in favor of "peace" in the camp. Contrarily, the Baptist 2000 Faith and Message is actually a better statement than its predecessor in that it is more definitive rather than following the trend of ambiguity, but this has also been one of the sparks of the Calvinist controversy in the SBC.

I know, I know, I can hear people saying, "We need to teach the Bible, not a confession!".  But dear one, a confession is nothing more than a standard of what we believe the Bible actually teaches.  Everyone has a confession whether it is articulated in a document or not.  Unfortunately, most in the church today don't give much thought to what they believe (perhaps this is the rancid fruit of our watered down theology).  How much better to have it articulated so we can agree and stand together in true unity with brethren today and historically.

Imagine the debate that would ensue before the PCA, OPC or ARBCA, would throw out the Westminster or the 1689 LBC to adopt a confessional statement that could fit on one page, EGAD!  It would never happen because these denominational organizations build their unity around doctrine, not a false "peace" at the expense of doctrinal reductionism.  Does excluding a doctrine because of the controversy that may arise from it really lead to a functionally vibrant church, or does the "salt lose its savor"?  Does it build true unity and peace, or is it a cheap facade?  Wherever peace and unity is bought at the price of truth, liberalism is reigning.  True unity can only come from "standing in agreement with" (the definition of confession by the way).


In Practice

Practically speaking, the Cooperative Program of the SBC leaves a bitter taste in the mouth of this reformed Baptist.  I can't stomach seeing God's storehouses emptied to support seminaries that don't teach from a biblical confessional standard.  To hear the reports boasting 500 member roles and less than 100 show up on the Lord's Day for worship.  To send missionaries into the field that are primarily trained to "get decisions".  To pay six figure salaries to men who design visionary platforms for planting churches when 15% of the existing churches don't even have a pastor and are struggling to keep the doors open.  Every issue just mentioned stems from doctrinal errors that are easily addressed from a Calvinistic/Reformed theology.  But who wants to hear the answer if they don't agree with it?

Can two really walk together except they agree?  Can two really join efforts in ministry when they can't even agree on the foundational doctrines of salvation?  For a confessionally reformed Baptist as myself, this is a road of futility and frustration.  But I also understand that there are many that stand elsewhere in the doctrinal spectrum.  We can both be wrong, but we cannot both be right.  I can admit that I may be wrong, but I must also profess that I am convinced of what I believe from the scriptures.  So I am left to say with Martin Luther, "Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God."

The great encouragement for all who are in Christ, is that we will one day worship Him in glory where all the disagreements here in this world will fall off and we will worship in true unity.  It is without doubt that we can agree with that!

A Portrait Of A Pastor

On Wednesday evenings, our church has been studying through John Bunyan's wonderful book, Pilgrim's Progress.  As Christian has entered in through the Wicket Gate, he is first sent to Interpreter's house where he is shown several things.  Upon entering the house of Interpreter, he immediately sees the picture of a man.  The description Bunyan gives includes the following characteristics:

A grave person
Eyes lifted up to Heaven
The best of books in his hand
The law of truth written upon his lips
The world behind his back
He stood as if he pleaded with men
A crown of gold hung over his head

Interpreter explained that this man was one of a thousand, he can beget children, travail in birth with them, and nurture them when they are born.  He explained further that it was his work to know and expound dark things to sinners and that he slights and despises the present things (of this world) for the love that he has to the Master's service and that he is sure to have glory for his reward.  Interpreter then tells Christian that it is this man that the Lord has authorized to be his guide.

Who is this man?  He is none other than the ordained minister of the gospel and shepherd of the flock of Christ.  He is the pastor!

Throw The Baptist Dog A Bone

Many of the solid authors, bloggers and audio that I frequent are dear Presbyterian brothers.  I so appreciate their ministry and learn much from them, but some, more than others, play the "Anabaptist" card.  They alienate Baptists from a seat at the "Reformed Table".  Some pretensiously proclaim that Baptists can't be truly reformed.

I am guilty as charged!  When first invited to a Reformed Baptist church a dozen years ago, my reply to my wife was, "What?  'Reformed-Baptist' is an oxymoron, you can't be covenantal and be a Baptist!"  Well, I readily admitted my ignorance and now wear the oxymoronic cap atop my greying/balding head.

It was so refreshing to read Jeremy Walker's article on Reformation21.  He explained the perspective of the framers of the 1689 BC, was that they were persuaded from the scriptures that the Reformation was not complete at Geneva, Dordrecht, or even Westminster, but that it should continue with the eradication of the State-church and the Roman popish practice of sprinkling infants. He had this wonderful quote from Benjamin Keach's Light Broke Forth In Whales, Expelling Darkness (London 1696) that I just had to share:

I look upon Infant-Baptism to be one of the chief Pillars of the Romish Church, and of all National Churches and Constitutions in the European World; this is that Christendom that is so cried up, and the way of making and continuing the pretended Christian-Name; in the Anti-christian Church, and World, all are made Christian in their Infant-Baptism: And thus the inhabitants of the Earth are cheated, and deluded with a Shadow and empty Name that signifies nothing; and certain I am, until Christendom (as it is called) is Unchristianed of this pretended Rite, or Christendom, there will never be a thorough Reformation:  I mean until they see that Christianity, or Christian-Name, which they received at their Infant-Baptism, signifies nothing, but throw it away as an Human Innovation, and labour after true Regeneration, or a likeness to Christ, and so believe and are baptized upon the profession of their Faith, according as in the Apostolical Primitive Church: 'Tis Infant-Baptism that tends to uphold all National Churches, and deceives poor People who think there were hereby made Christians. (234)

Except They Be Agreed

In chapter 3 of the minor prophet book of Amos, we find several rhetorical questions that demand a negative response.  Will the lion roar if he has no prey?  Will the trumpet be blown in the city and the people not be afraid?  Will evil come upon a city and the Lord has not done it?  Can two walk together except they be agreed?  The resounding answer,...NO!

There has been a lot of contention in the SBC these days over the five points of Calvinism.  In the last decade or so, things have really gotten heated up.  The prominent leaders have done all that they can to steer the SBC away from the battle and to encourage a Rodney-King-esque "Let's just get along" demeanor.  Al Mohler and Paige Patterson met head to head at the 2006 convention for a much anticipated "debate", which turned out to be more of a display of mutual admiration between the two, disappointingly void of any doctrinal discussion whatsoever.  Daniel Akin preempted this "debate" with this reconciling article where he displays a genuine understudy on the history and teaching of Calvin and the reformed church with statements like this:

Later in the 17th century, followers of Calvin would systematize his theology and go beyond what Calvin himself taught. This system would ultimately be codified through the now famous acrostic TULIP.

With the Institutes of the Christian Religion and the vast body of work that Calvin produced, does Dr Akin really imagine that somebody besides Calvin systematized his theology?  Does Dr. Akin have anything to cite from the Canons of Dort and Calvin's Institutes to demonstrate this accusation of going "beyond what Calvin himself taught"?   The reformed world would like to know.

Dr. Akin, as do many others, sugar-coat the history of the SBC (as though, at the foundation, there was no particular theological leaning) with statements like this:

The reality is that the SBC has included "Five-Point Calvinists" and "Modified" Calvinists from the start. It should be stressed here that, from a denominational standpoint, in this discussion there is no "right or wrong." Southern Baptists have always been diverse in many regards, and the theological realm is no exception. 

I wonder if the SBC founders would agree with this.  Would James P Boyce agree that there is no "right or wrong" in the discussion of salvation doctrine?  The answer can be found in Boyce's own Abstract of Systematic Theology (there is no danger of "going beyond what Boyce himself taught").

And just recently, the hotly contested "A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God's Plan of Salvation" coming from the office of Eric Hankins added a bit of spice to the 2012 convention.  Furthermore, out of the convention came the well-cooked affirmation of the Sinner's Prayer.  The non-Calvinists were wearing smiles on their faces because the "sinner's prayer" is now a part of documented Southern Baptist affirmation, and the Calvinists all left with smiles because they re-worked it to the point that they could affirm it.  

So here we go again, we continue to dance around the table with victory on both sides.  But will either side be content with just "getting along", or will this debate continue to rage and enrage?  Both sides would no doubt answer, "sure we can get along as long as I get to teach what I believe and they don't".  And really, isn't that what it is all about?  Would Paige Patterson or Jerry Vines be content to sit under the teaching of Al Mohler or Mark Dever? Or would Al Mohler or Russel Moore be content to sit week after week under Jerry Vines or the belated Adrian Rogers who vigorously declared from his pulpit, "Calvinism is death to evangelism!"?  There is so much misunderstanding and misrepresentation going on, and in the process, nobody is willing to actually come to the table and contend for what they believe.

Now, what does this have to do with the prophet Amos' rhetorical question (can two walk together except they agree?); in the next post I will seek to give what I believe to be several valid reasons why this balancing act cannot work, and furthermore, why it is unhealthy for the church.

The Sacraments As A Means of Grace

Recently, our congregation was blessed to observe the sacrament of Baptism as a young man professed his faith and the reality of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in his life.  What a glorious gift our Lord has given to His church through the sacraments.  It is truly a marvel to ponder that we have been immersed into Christ and that we are crucified, dead, buried, and resurrected via our mysterious union with the conquering Son of God.  We are washed clean by the regenerating work of His Spirit and we do really walk in newness of life.

In light of this glorious thought, it is grievous to consider that many in the church today are unaware and without anticipation to the working of the Spirit through the ordinances.  I attribute much of this to a lack of doctrinal teaching in our churches today.  The author of the epistle to the Hebrews, after scolding them of their having need to be taught when they, by this time, should themselves be teachers, admonishes them,

Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.  And this will we do, if God permit. Hebrews 6:1-3


But we in the church today can surely not afford to "move on" from doctrines that have not been firmly established in our congregations.  The doctrine of the ministry and working of the Spirit through the sacraments is either sheepishly avoided or utterly rejected in favor of a Zwinglian view.  When the reformers departed from the Roman Catholic traditions, the presence of Christ was much debated.  Luther held onto the physical presence of Christ, though denying the transformation of the elements, while Zwingli denied any presence whatsoever, and simply maintained it as a memorial.  Calvin took the balanced and middle-of-the-road view of a true and particular presence of the Spirit of Christ with His people.  This balanced reformed view of Calvin allows for a communication of grace to the recipients of the sacraments, not imparting grace through the elements themselves, but indeed a real presence and working of the Spirit of Christ communicating grace to the heart of the believer through the proper observance of the sign.  A command ordained and given to the church with a promise of great blessing from the Savior Himself - truly a "means of grace".

The 1689 Baptist Confession stands in complete agreement with this reformed view.  It clearly articulates the notion of the sacraments being a means of grace in the first section of Chapter 14 on Saving Faith:

The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word; by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord's supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened.

The confession rightfully calls faith a grace, after all, it is a gift (Eph 2:8).  It then further explains that it is the work of the Spirit, is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, and then is further "increased and strengthened" by the means appointed by God, namely the Word, sacraments, and prayer.  The primary ordinary means of grace - Word, Sacraments, and prayer.  The ministry we find in the Scriptures is a Word and Sacrament ministry.  A ministry of Christ's ordained means of grace appointed unto and carried out by the ordained minsters.  The preaching of the Word is God's chosen means by which He imparts the grace of faith.  The Preaching of the Word, the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and prayer are the means He has chosen by which He increases and strengthens that grace of faith.  Can we really believe and trust that this is how Christ intended to build and strengthen His church?  Can we rely on such a simple formula, that God has chosen the foolishness of preaching to save the lost and to feed the saved?  I would answer an emphatic "YES!"



Unfortunately, our modern Baptist churches are plagued by a low view of the church, a low view of preaching, a low view of the ministry, a low view of the Sabbath, and of course, a low view of the sacraments.  It is truly shameful to have such a low view of the blessings and gifts that Christ has left His church to strengthen and increase their faith.  

Richard Barcellos recently, and skillfully, defended the Reformed Baptist position on the sacraments against the presuppositions by some peaedobaptist brethren that Baptists can't really be reformed.  I am thankful for his rebuttal, but my concern is more towards the growth of Baptists unto the illumination that we can be biblical and have a proper high view of the sacraments without being paedobaptist or even papists.  I leave off with a hearty "Amen!" to this wonderful quote from Calvinistic Baptist preacher C. H. Spurgeon,

“Other means, however, are made use of to bless men’s souls. For instance, the two ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. They are both made a rich means of grace. But let me ask you, is there any thing in baptism that can possibly bless any body? Can immersion in water have the slightest tendency to be blessed to the soul? And then with regard to the eating of bread and the drinking of wine at the Lord’s Supper, can it by any means be conceived by any rational man that there is any thing in the mere piece of bread that we eat, or in the wine that we drink? And yet, doubtless, the grace of God does go with both ordinances for the confirming of the faith of those who receive them, and even for the conversion of those who look upon the ceremony. There must be something, then, beyond the outward ceremony; there must, in fact, be the Spirit of God, witnessing through the water, witnessing through the wine, witnessing through the bread, or otherwise none of these things could be means of grace to our souls. They could not edify; they could not help us to commune with Christ; they could not tend to the conviction of sinners, or to the establishment of saints. There must, then, from these facts, be a higher, unseen, mysterious influence — the influence of the divine Spirit of God.”