Anthony Hoekema, in his book Saved by Grace, gives a good summary of the effects that one's view of the effectual call of the gospel had in relation to one's view of the nature of man.
The 'gospel call' is the demand the gospel places on all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel. The 'effectual call' is that which results on one man's responding to the gospel call while another does not.
According to Hoekema, one's view of the nature of man has great impact on whether one sees a distinction between the gospel call and effectual call at all, and the relation between them and the nature of man.
The Pelagian View
Man is morally and spiritually neutral so that he is free to choose to do good or bad. No effectual call is necessary.
The Semi-Pelagian View
Man is morally and spiritually sick, but all still have the ability to respond to the gospel. No effectual call is necessary.
The Arminian View
Man is depraved, but there is sufficient enabling grace such that those who hear the gospel can cooperate with this grace and accept the gospel. No effectual call is necessary.
The Reformed View
Man is dead in sin, unable on his own to respond favorably to the gospel call. Effectual calling is necessary to bring the man to life and enable him to respond.
It is certainly apt to suggest that the doctrines of grace all fall into place once the biblical picture of the nature of man is accepted. As J.I. Packer said, one needs only be a one-point Calvinist: God Saves Sinners.
Showing posts with label Reformed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reformed. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Friday, August 20, 2010
Reformed vs Southern Baptist: SBC Entities
[This is the seventh article interacting with a series by Les Puryear -- www.lesliepuryear.blogspot.com -- regarding whether Southern Baptists can be Reformed]
Many in the SBC view unqualified support of the Cooperative Program -- typically meaning that each church give "10% of undesignated gifts" to it -- as a litmus test for discerning true (SBC) believers. Because the perception is that those who hold a Reformed Baptist perspective reject such support, the conclusion is that it is impossible for one to be both Reformed and Southern Baptist.
Critics complain that Reformed Baptists aren't exclusive to Cooperative Program giving: that they also support non-SBC entities and agencies, most notably the Acts 29 network, which 'plants reformed churches.'
But the idea that Southern Baptists must only support official SBC agencies and entities means much more than support for the Cooperative Program. The SBC maintains a publishing arm, LifeWay, which prints a plethora of literature and runs retail outlets to sell it. If the criticism is to be consistent, then Southern Baptists should not purchase non-LifeWay literature or books from a non-SBC press. I remember one local education minister who tried to force all teachers to use only literature from the then "Sunday School Board" -- it was, in fact, as absurd as it sounds.
And what about non-SBC charity? Samaritan's Purse is not an SBC organization, but plenty of SBC congregations fall over themselves to participate in Operation Christmas Child. (I'm not criticizing the enthusiasm; I like OCC...I'm just sayin') To be consistent, pastors who hold to the same SBC-only mentality would have to tell their congregants not to give money or time or service to anyone but the local SBC church, local SBC association, state SBC agency, or the SBC itself. How likely is that?
Shibboleths are useful to detect outsiders. But even SBC shibboleths are due to be abandoned -- that is, the sacred cows tipped and processed for boots and burgers -- when they either don't reflect the essence of the group or actually serve to keep outsiders out.
In the case of the Reformed vs Southern Baptist debate, shibboleths used to characterize Reformed Baptists as outsiders fail on both counts.
Many in the SBC view unqualified support of the Cooperative Program -- typically meaning that each church give "10% of undesignated gifts" to it -- as a litmus test for discerning true (SBC) believers. Because the perception is that those who hold a Reformed Baptist perspective reject such support, the conclusion is that it is impossible for one to be both Reformed and Southern Baptist.
Critics complain that Reformed Baptists aren't exclusive to Cooperative Program giving: that they also support non-SBC entities and agencies, most notably the Acts 29 network, which 'plants reformed churches.'
But the idea that Southern Baptists must only support official SBC agencies and entities means much more than support for the Cooperative Program. The SBC maintains a publishing arm, LifeWay, which prints a plethora of literature and runs retail outlets to sell it. If the criticism is to be consistent, then Southern Baptists should not purchase non-LifeWay literature or books from a non-SBC press. I remember one local education minister who tried to force all teachers to use only literature from the then "Sunday School Board" -- it was, in fact, as absurd as it sounds.
And what about non-SBC charity? Samaritan's Purse is not an SBC organization, but plenty of SBC congregations fall over themselves to participate in Operation Christmas Child. (I'm not criticizing the enthusiasm; I like OCC...I'm just sayin') To be consistent, pastors who hold to the same SBC-only mentality would have to tell their congregants not to give money or time or service to anyone but the local SBC church, local SBC association, state SBC agency, or the SBC itself. How likely is that?
Shibboleths are useful to detect outsiders. But even SBC shibboleths are due to be abandoned -- that is, the sacred cows tipped and processed for boots and burgers -- when they either don't reflect the essence of the group or actually serve to keep outsiders out.
In the case of the Reformed vs Southern Baptist debate, shibboleths used to characterize Reformed Baptists as outsiders fail on both counts.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Reformed vs Southern Baptist: Altar calls
[This is the sixth article interacting with a series by Les Puryear -- www.lesliepuryear.blogspot.com -- regarding whether Southern Baptists can be Reformed]
Those who maintain that Southern Baptists cannot be Reformed utilize the latter's caution about the use of "invitations", "altar calls", and the "sinner's prayer" as proof positive. Good Southern Baptists, it is asserted, will do all of these, and more, in "leading a person to Christ."
It is certainly true that we "persuade" men with the gospel, we "urge" men to be reconciled to God, and we make clear the urgency of the situation for those who hear the gospel, understand it, yet put off repentance and belief.
But this is not the same thing as concluding that the only way to persuade and urge men is to utilize the altar call. Nor is there any foundation for the assertion that a necessary and distinguishing feature of Southern Baptist practice is the invitation.
Reformed Baptists believe that the proclamation of the gospel IS the invitation, the expression of the good news IS the urgency: a preacher need not tack on to the end of his sermon non-biblical devices to CREATE them.
An additional problem with that view of Puryear and others is demonstrated in the description of the "sinner's prayer": 'The use of a "sinner's prayer" is a means to help guide the sinner to say what he wants to say to Jesus but doesn't know how.' Reformed Baptists would say to this that if a person does not know how to express repentance and belief, the gospel might not have been presented, and it might not be a good idea to admit to membership one who cannot express this basic work of Christ in his heart. Scripture tells us that when we "confess with our mouth" we will be saved, not that we will be saved when someone else confesses for us.
The worst example of straw-man argumentation and ad hominem attack, however, is this gem from Puryear:
'If your church doesn't want to invite people to Christ during a worship service then go ahead and call a reformed pastor to your church. But if you want for everyone to have an opportunity to come to Christ during all worship services, call a traditional Southern Baptist pastor.'
Again, if the proof of whether a church invites people to Christ is the use of an altar call, invitation, decision card or sinner's prayer, then something is terribly wrong with the preaching and teaching ministry of that church. And equating 'opportunity to come to Christ' with man-made devices and 'traditional' services is an almost perfect example of the man-centered, gospel-weak, Spirit-impotent approach to evangelism that Reformed Baptists prefer to avoid.
Those who maintain that Southern Baptists cannot be Reformed utilize the latter's caution about the use of "invitations", "altar calls", and the "sinner's prayer" as proof positive. Good Southern Baptists, it is asserted, will do all of these, and more, in "leading a person to Christ."
It is certainly true that we "persuade" men with the gospel, we "urge" men to be reconciled to God, and we make clear the urgency of the situation for those who hear the gospel, understand it, yet put off repentance and belief.
But this is not the same thing as concluding that the only way to persuade and urge men is to utilize the altar call. Nor is there any foundation for the assertion that a necessary and distinguishing feature of Southern Baptist practice is the invitation.
Reformed Baptists believe that the proclamation of the gospel IS the invitation, the expression of the good news IS the urgency: a preacher need not tack on to the end of his sermon non-biblical devices to CREATE them.
An additional problem with that view of Puryear and others is demonstrated in the description of the "sinner's prayer": 'The use of a "sinner's prayer" is a means to help guide the sinner to say what he wants to say to Jesus but doesn't know how.' Reformed Baptists would say to this that if a person does not know how to express repentance and belief, the gospel might not have been presented, and it might not be a good idea to admit to membership one who cannot express this basic work of Christ in his heart. Scripture tells us that when we "confess with our mouth" we will be saved, not that we will be saved when someone else confesses for us.
The worst example of straw-man argumentation and ad hominem attack, however, is this gem from Puryear:
'If your church doesn't want to invite people to Christ during a worship service then go ahead and call a reformed pastor to your church. But if you want for everyone to have an opportunity to come to Christ during all worship services, call a traditional Southern Baptist pastor.'
Again, if the proof of whether a church invites people to Christ is the use of an altar call, invitation, decision card or sinner's prayer, then something is terribly wrong with the preaching and teaching ministry of that church. And equating 'opportunity to come to Christ' with man-made devices and 'traditional' services is an almost perfect example of the man-centered, gospel-weak, Spirit-impotent approach to evangelism that Reformed Baptists prefer to avoid.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Reformed vs Southern Baptist: Elders & Congregational
[This is the fifth article interacting with a series by Les Puryear -- www.lesliepuryear.blogspot.com -- regarding whether Southern Baptists can be Reformed]
On this point, the criticism of Reformed Baptists is that they prefer an elder-led polity to one traditionally characterized as "congregational." At least on this point the criticism correctly cites the predominant fact: Reformed Baptists do favor an elder-led structure.
Yet clarification -- as seems to be the consistent need -- is in order.
Reformed Baptists do not favor single-elder, autocratic rule that overrides the will and voice of the congregation. In fact, this type of wayward leadership is more possible in "congregational" churches than in the elder-led form favored by Reformed Baptists. The Reformed concept of spiritual leadership is that each church be led by a team of elders, consisting of both staff and lay elders. In this structure, the preacher becomes the "teaching elder" and member of the elder team. Although he is the point man, no one elder overrides or vetoes the others. And the congregation remains the final authority, approving significant elder action, and approving or removing elders as appropriate.
Furthermore, elder-led and "congregational" are not mutually exclusive. An "elder-led, congregational" form is, after all, the example found in Scripture. Elders tend to the ministry of the word and prayer, deacons handle service matters, and the congregation remains the final authority in issues related to affirming elders' handling of doctrinal disputes and the discipline or expulsion of members.
The conflict between and elder-led structure and "congregational" form comes when the church is informed by U.S. style political notions of one-man-one-vote (pure democracy), rather than being conformed to the teaching of Scripture.
Additionally, the "priesthood of the believer" does not mean that every member has an equally valid opinion on every subject. If it did, teachers and preachers would be superfluous, and spiritual leaders an oxymoron. Scripture plainly teaches that there are differing roles for believers in each local body; to suggest that every member is equally able to lead ignores this truth.
Finally, it is unfortunately true that many Southern Baptist churches are neutralized by the presence of unbelievers with voting privileges. There are, as it were, tares among the wheat. To ignore this is naive. Our membership practices encourage little discernment in this regard, and granting a vote to every 'member' and granting members votes on every issue is inviting spiritual disaster, or at least virtual inaction. While an elder-led congregational polity does not completely eliminate this problem, it does a much better job at reducing the potential for having the foxes guard the henhouse.
There is no example in Scripture for a "congregational" form in which votes on every issue are put to the membership in monthly business meetings. God could certainly, if he desired, sanctify such a method, but the teaching of Scripture and the observation of experience suggest that he has not.
On this point, the criticism of Reformed Baptists is that they prefer an elder-led polity to one traditionally characterized as "congregational." At least on this point the criticism correctly cites the predominant fact: Reformed Baptists do favor an elder-led structure.
Yet clarification -- as seems to be the consistent need -- is in order.
Reformed Baptists do not favor single-elder, autocratic rule that overrides the will and voice of the congregation. In fact, this type of wayward leadership is more possible in "congregational" churches than in the elder-led form favored by Reformed Baptists. The Reformed concept of spiritual leadership is that each church be led by a team of elders, consisting of both staff and lay elders. In this structure, the preacher becomes the "teaching elder" and member of the elder team. Although he is the point man, no one elder overrides or vetoes the others. And the congregation remains the final authority, approving significant elder action, and approving or removing elders as appropriate.
Furthermore, elder-led and "congregational" are not mutually exclusive. An "elder-led, congregational" form is, after all, the example found in Scripture. Elders tend to the ministry of the word and prayer, deacons handle service matters, and the congregation remains the final authority in issues related to affirming elders' handling of doctrinal disputes and the discipline or expulsion of members.
The conflict between and elder-led structure and "congregational" form comes when the church is informed by U.S. style political notions of one-man-one-vote (pure democracy), rather than being conformed to the teaching of Scripture.
Additionally, the "priesthood of the believer" does not mean that every member has an equally valid opinion on every subject. If it did, teachers and preachers would be superfluous, and spiritual leaders an oxymoron. Scripture plainly teaches that there are differing roles for believers in each local body; to suggest that every member is equally able to lead ignores this truth.
Finally, it is unfortunately true that many Southern Baptist churches are neutralized by the presence of unbelievers with voting privileges. There are, as it were, tares among the wheat. To ignore this is naive. Our membership practices encourage little discernment in this regard, and granting a vote to every 'member' and granting members votes on every issue is inviting spiritual disaster, or at least virtual inaction. While an elder-led congregational polity does not completely eliminate this problem, it does a much better job at reducing the potential for having the foxes guard the henhouse.
There is no example in Scripture for a "congregational" form in which votes on every issue are put to the membership in monthly business meetings. God could certainly, if he desired, sanctify such a method, but the teaching of Scripture and the observation of experience suggest that he has not.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Reformed vs Southern Baptist: Sacraments & Ordinances
[This is now the third article interacting with a series of posts by Les Puryear (www.lesliepuryear.blogspot.com) in which he compares and contrasts what he considers to be the "traditional" Southern Baptist position and his concept of "Reformed" Baptist.]
With regard to the Lord's Supper and Baptism, Puryear claims that Reformed Baptists classify those functions of the church as "sacraments" as opposed to the traditional view of them as "ordinances."
First, there is the lingering problem with the assessment that Reformed Baptist thought is truly what Puryear says it is. Puryear seems to propose that every person with whom he has spoken who claims the mantle "Reformed Baptist" views the Lord's Supper and Baptism as sacraments. Yet I have not met one who believes this. Rather than reconsidering his characterization of Reformed Baptists, however, Puryear insists that those who claim to be Reformed but who reject the sacramental perspective are not really Reformed, after all, but are merely "Calvinist" Baptists.
Patronization is alive and well, it seems, and one also finds that there are many distinctions without differences, especially in the blogging world.
Second, it is not altogether certain that a thing cannot be both an ordinance AND some sort of platform for grace. That is, it is certainly true that the physical act of being submerged in water is not the mechanism of saving grace to the believer. Baptism is certainly the believer's outward profession of the inward change that God has wrought in him through Christ. But is it ONLY that?
By disfavoring the term 'sacrament,' Baptists reject the sacerdotal baggage that comes with it, nameley, that the 'sacrament' of Lord's Supper and Baptism is necessary for grace. Southern Baptists reject the notion that should a believer miss partaking in a given 'sacrament,' that he will in some respect be cut off from gospel privileges.
But to reject the 'necessary for grace' view of sacerdotalism does not require us to view Baptism and the Lord's Supper are bare human acts with no relation to grace.
Would not everyone agree that witnessing Baptism as part of our corporate worship, and in that act being reminded that God is still raising men from death to life through Christ, is somehow 'gracious' to the one witnessing it?
And would not everyone agree that participating in the Lord's supper -- and in so doing not only being reminded that the body and blood of Christ were given up for our trangressions and justification, but also 'participating' (Gr. 'koinonia') in the body and blood (1Co10:16) -- is somehow 'gracious' to the participant?
Reformed Baptists do not believe that the ordinances convey saving grace. But it is unwise to suggest that neither do they convey any sort of sanctifying grace.
With regard to the Lord's Supper and Baptism, Puryear claims that Reformed Baptists classify those functions of the church as "sacraments" as opposed to the traditional view of them as "ordinances."
First, there is the lingering problem with the assessment that Reformed Baptist thought is truly what Puryear says it is. Puryear seems to propose that every person with whom he has spoken who claims the mantle "Reformed Baptist" views the Lord's Supper and Baptism as sacraments. Yet I have not met one who believes this. Rather than reconsidering his characterization of Reformed Baptists, however, Puryear insists that those who claim to be Reformed but who reject the sacramental perspective are not really Reformed, after all, but are merely "Calvinist" Baptists.
Patronization is alive and well, it seems, and one also finds that there are many distinctions without differences, especially in the blogging world.
Second, it is not altogether certain that a thing cannot be both an ordinance AND some sort of platform for grace. That is, it is certainly true that the physical act of being submerged in water is not the mechanism of saving grace to the believer. Baptism is certainly the believer's outward profession of the inward change that God has wrought in him through Christ. But is it ONLY that?
By disfavoring the term 'sacrament,' Baptists reject the sacerdotal baggage that comes with it, nameley, that the 'sacrament' of Lord's Supper and Baptism is necessary for grace. Southern Baptists reject the notion that should a believer miss partaking in a given 'sacrament,' that he will in some respect be cut off from gospel privileges.
But to reject the 'necessary for grace' view of sacerdotalism does not require us to view Baptism and the Lord's Supper are bare human acts with no relation to grace.
Would not everyone agree that witnessing Baptism as part of our corporate worship, and in that act being reminded that God is still raising men from death to life through Christ, is somehow 'gracious' to the one witnessing it?
And would not everyone agree that participating in the Lord's supper -- and in so doing not only being reminded that the body and blood of Christ were given up for our trangressions and justification, but also 'participating' (Gr. 'koinonia') in the body and blood (1Co10:16) -- is somehow 'gracious' to the participant?
Reformed Baptists do not believe that the ordinances convey saving grace. But it is unwise to suggest that neither do they convey any sort of sanctifying grace.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Reformed vs Southern Baptist: Justin vs Les
The recent Southern Baptist convention in Florida has seemed to spur once again the discussion of issues regarding the relationship of Southern Baptist distinctives -- that is, what distinguishes Southern Baptists from other Christ-followers -- and Reformed theology.
Les Puryear (blog) and Justin Nale (blog) have been dueling on their banjos regarding this topic, generally generating more light than heat, which demonstrates quite a bit of progress in comparison to the customary treatments of such subjects in the blogosphere.
The general question is whether one can be both Reformed and Southern Baptist: Les says No, Justin says Yes.
Justin fairly represents the Affirmative side of the debate -- into which I fall -- so I won't duplicate his efforts, but I will demonstrate what I take to be the most serious errors of the Negative side, to which I think Les gives appropriate voice.
Primarily, Les commits a classic error by deciding for himself what "Reformed" in Baptist circles means, then attacking it (the "straw man" fallacy). He proposes that a Reformed Baptist must look exactly like a Reformed Presbyterian, as if the only theological and ecclesiological brand coming out of the Reformation was the Presbyterian church, and that to be "Reformed" means, necessarily, that one accept a litany of positions that Les decries as not only inconsistent with Southern Baptist thought and practice, but also as antithetical to it.
If, in fact, Les's description of a "Reformed Baptist" were accurate, I would be opposed to it, too. Les maintains that "some characteristics" of Reformed Baptists include:
"1. Non-congregational polity
2. Liturgical-based worship
3. Societal giving
4. Calvinist in soteriology
5. Covenant theology
6. paedobaptism
7. no "invitation" at the end of worship service
8. creedal"
I consider myself "Reformed Baptist," but this list mystifies me. For Les, a Reformed Baptist who does not admit to each of these is secretly attempting to convert his congregation, despite all protestations to the contrary (both by the duped church and the deceitful pastor).
Yet I have never met any Baptist who claimed to be Reformed who looked like this Reformed Baptist man, straw or otherwise.
Reformed Baptists actually hold to a congregational, elder-led form of church structure (#1), which is a far cry from "non-congregational". Every church -- whether they protest liturgy or not -- has a liturgy (#2): stand up, opening song, welcome, prayer, sit down, song, prayer, stand up, song...look familiar? So, if by this Les means that Reformed Baptists prefer 'high church' liturgy, he is mistaken.
I would also think that all Baptists would be in favor of "societal giving," (#3) but here I think that Les opposes anything but Cooperative Program giving as being anti-Southern Baptist. This too is mistaken and unfortunate.
Most Reformed Baptists are "Calvinist in soteriology," (#4) meaning simply that God is sovereign over the salvation process from first to last, while maintaining the truth of human responsibility, and which rejects all forms of Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, Wesleyanism, and Arminianism.
However, being Reformed Baptist does not mean that one holds to "covenant theology" (#5, which is different from recognizing the New Covenant in Christ), or is in favor of baptizing infants (#6 paedobaptism). In fact, Reformed Baptists are generally more sensitive to the distinctive of believers' baptism in that they are not inclined to baptize or accept into membership anyone who does not evidence belief.
Which is why, for most Reformed Baptists, the invitation at the end of the service is not a good idea, because combined with an immediate "vote" for membership, this type of response to invitations eliminates any possibility of examining a person's profession of faith (#7). Furthermore, such invitations are relatively recent, dating to the time of Charles Finney, who manipulated people into false professions with extended, laborious invitations. Nonetheless, Reformed Baptists insist on presenting the gospel and explaining the urgency of the situation to those who hear it. Yet "urging men on behalf of God" does not mandate the typical invitation.
"No creed but the Bible," (#8) is, to put it plainly, hogwash, and terribly irresponsible, to boot. For a creed is nothing more than that set of beliefs that 'distinguishes' your fellowship from another. And, while Southern Baptists do not require assent to the Nicene Creed or the Apostles' Creed, for example, we do 'distinguish' ourselves from other fellowships with congregational polity, believers' baptism, and so forth.
So, while Southern Baptists typically do not identify ourselves with a certain established creed, we are, nonetheless, creedal, in the sense that we consider ourselves distinguished from others on the basis of certain interpretations of Scripture. We do, after all, frequently cite our affirmation of the Baptist Faith & Message. Reformed Baptists, themselves, typically do not require adherence to an established creed as a test of orthodoxy, but frequently prefer, for example, the Second London Confession for its greater detail on key doctrinal issues.
Secondarily, Les commits the additional error of confusing the issue regarding what Baptist distinctives are. Is it accurate to say that we want our distinctives to be such things as "democratic congregational" church government? Or fidelity to the Cooperative Program? Or a confused idea that we have no creed?
This is on par with suggesting that we should continue to be known as tee-totalers, because that is "who we are" as Southern Baptist believers.
But a faith that defines itself upon such terms is neither one of which I want to be a part, nor that I find in the pages of Scripture, nor that I believe best demonstrates the power of the gospel for salvation.
Les Puryear (blog) and Justin Nale (blog) have been dueling on their banjos regarding this topic, generally generating more light than heat, which demonstrates quite a bit of progress in comparison to the customary treatments of such subjects in the blogosphere.
The general question is whether one can be both Reformed and Southern Baptist: Les says No, Justin says Yes.
Justin fairly represents the Affirmative side of the debate -- into which I fall -- so I won't duplicate his efforts, but I will demonstrate what I take to be the most serious errors of the Negative side, to which I think Les gives appropriate voice.
Primarily, Les commits a classic error by deciding for himself what "Reformed" in Baptist circles means, then attacking it (the "straw man" fallacy). He proposes that a Reformed Baptist must look exactly like a Reformed Presbyterian, as if the only theological and ecclesiological brand coming out of the Reformation was the Presbyterian church, and that to be "Reformed" means, necessarily, that one accept a litany of positions that Les decries as not only inconsistent with Southern Baptist thought and practice, but also as antithetical to it.
If, in fact, Les's description of a "Reformed Baptist" were accurate, I would be opposed to it, too. Les maintains that "some characteristics" of Reformed Baptists include:
"1. Non-congregational polity
2. Liturgical-based worship
3. Societal giving
4. Calvinist in soteriology
5. Covenant theology
6. paedobaptism
7. no "invitation" at the end of worship service
8. creedal"
I consider myself "Reformed Baptist," but this list mystifies me. For Les, a Reformed Baptist who does not admit to each of these is secretly attempting to convert his congregation, despite all protestations to the contrary (both by the duped church and the deceitful pastor).
Yet I have never met any Baptist who claimed to be Reformed who looked like this Reformed Baptist man, straw or otherwise.
Reformed Baptists actually hold to a congregational, elder-led form of church structure (#1), which is a far cry from "non-congregational". Every church -- whether they protest liturgy or not -- has a liturgy (#2): stand up, opening song, welcome, prayer, sit down, song, prayer, stand up, song...look familiar? So, if by this Les means that Reformed Baptists prefer 'high church' liturgy, he is mistaken.
I would also think that all Baptists would be in favor of "societal giving," (#3) but here I think that Les opposes anything but Cooperative Program giving as being anti-Southern Baptist. This too is mistaken and unfortunate.
Most Reformed Baptists are "Calvinist in soteriology," (#4) meaning simply that God is sovereign over the salvation process from first to last, while maintaining the truth of human responsibility, and which rejects all forms of Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, Wesleyanism, and Arminianism.
However, being Reformed Baptist does not mean that one holds to "covenant theology" (#5, which is different from recognizing the New Covenant in Christ), or is in favor of baptizing infants (#6 paedobaptism). In fact, Reformed Baptists are generally more sensitive to the distinctive of believers' baptism in that they are not inclined to baptize or accept into membership anyone who does not evidence belief.
Which is why, for most Reformed Baptists, the invitation at the end of the service is not a good idea, because combined with an immediate "vote" for membership, this type of response to invitations eliminates any possibility of examining a person's profession of faith (#7). Furthermore, such invitations are relatively recent, dating to the time of Charles Finney, who manipulated people into false professions with extended, laborious invitations. Nonetheless, Reformed Baptists insist on presenting the gospel and explaining the urgency of the situation to those who hear it. Yet "urging men on behalf of God" does not mandate the typical invitation.
"No creed but the Bible," (#8) is, to put it plainly, hogwash, and terribly irresponsible, to boot. For a creed is nothing more than that set of beliefs that 'distinguishes' your fellowship from another. And, while Southern Baptists do not require assent to the Nicene Creed or the Apostles' Creed, for example, we do 'distinguish' ourselves from other fellowships with congregational polity, believers' baptism, and so forth.
So, while Southern Baptists typically do not identify ourselves with a certain established creed, we are, nonetheless, creedal, in the sense that we consider ourselves distinguished from others on the basis of certain interpretations of Scripture. We do, after all, frequently cite our affirmation of the Baptist Faith & Message. Reformed Baptists, themselves, typically do not require adherence to an established creed as a test of orthodoxy, but frequently prefer, for example, the Second London Confession for its greater detail on key doctrinal issues.
Secondarily, Les commits the additional error of confusing the issue regarding what Baptist distinctives are. Is it accurate to say that we want our distinctives to be such things as "democratic congregational" church government? Or fidelity to the Cooperative Program? Or a confused idea that we have no creed?
This is on par with suggesting that we should continue to be known as tee-totalers, because that is "who we are" as Southern Baptist believers.
But a faith that defines itself upon such terms is neither one of which I want to be a part, nor that I find in the pages of Scripture, nor that I believe best demonstrates the power of the gospel for salvation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)