David Cloud has out done himself. As king of the fundamentalist “dirt alert” squad, Cloud recently declared that the original fundamentalists were all wrong. They cared about the fundamentals of the faith, as something to rally around and unite over. They actually stood by the age-old maxim: “In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things charity.” Imagine that! Boy were they duped. There is no such thing as a non-essential, don’t you know. Rom. 14 and Matt. 23:23 not withstanding.
Cloud has an article entitled “In Essentials Unity”, where he quotes disapprovingly many wise comments from other fundamentalists, like Charles Keen and Clayton Reed, who are waking up to the fact that standing with a brother for the gospel doesn’t imply a wholesale endorsement of every single doctrinal position he may espouse. In fact we can appreciate the contributions of those who differ with us on less important points. Cloud however disagrees, saying, “I challenge anyone to show me where the Scripture encourages the believer to treat some doctrine as ‘non-essential’ or to ‘stand for the cardinal truths and downplay the peripherals’.”
I have previously spelled out my thoughts on how important it is to accept that the Gospel and other core doctrinal truths are far more important than peripheral matters. And I could also point you to Al Mohler or John MacArthur for excellent defenses of my position on this point. I can add Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John Calvin and even Thomas Manton, the old Puritan here too. I might as well throw in John Piper and D.A. Carson while I’m at it!
My point in this post, however, is to seize on a small bit of Cloud’s post which speaks volumes about how he and many other fundamentalists think about “fellowship” and “partnership”. This actually might reveal why Cloud and his disciples find themselves so far afield from their fundamentalist forebears.
Cloud brings up Calvary Baptist Seminary’s upcoming National Leadership Conference where they (a fundamentalist institution), will be inviting Mark Dever to be their keynote speaker. Dever, of course, is a leading conservative evangelical, who is not a fundamentalist insider, and certainly not acceptable for fellowship of any kind in Cloud’s book. Here is how Cloud lets us know this problem as to Dever’s credentials:
…and New Evangelical Southern Baptist Mark Dever in 2010. (Dever’s church, Capitol Hill Baptist in Washington, D.C., is a member of the District of Columbia Baptist Convention, which is partnered with the very liberal American Baptist Church, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and Baptist World Alliance. For documentation of this see http://dcbaptist.org under “Partners.”)
In Cloud’s mind, Dever’s association with the District of Columbia Baptist Convention makes his case even more egregious. Not only is he a “new evangelical” and a Southern Baptist, but he is “partnered with” the liberal organizations listed above.
What struck me about this is how completely far off the mark Cloud is in this assertion. Mark Dever is known throughout Christian circles as a conservative’s conservative in many respects. He defends substitutionary atonement and stands for a complementarian position on women in ministry, and he is certainly a champion of the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention. Dever encourages a very local-church-centric philosophy of ministry, and has some of the best resources available for Biblical church life. Before I go on to defend Dever, the charges against him are actually going to get worse.
Perhaps as a result of some feedback, Cloud recently sent out two clarifying emails about this statement, through his Fundamental Baptist Information Service newsletter. The second clarification expands on the original statement:
In the article “In Essentials Unity,” December 7, 2010, I made the following statement:
“Dever’s church, Capitol Hill Baptist in Washington, D.C., is also a member of the liberal American Baptist Church, which is affiliated with the horribly apostate National Council of Churches and World Council of Churches.”
I have been challenged on this, as the Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s web site only lists its affiliation with the Southern Baptist Convention.
While Capitol Hill Baptist Church is not a member of the American Baptist Church directly, it is definitely partnered with the ABC, as well as the very liberal Baptist World Alliance and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, by dint of its membership in the District of Columbia Baptist Convention.
For documentation of this see http://dcbaptist.org under “DCBC Directory of Churches” and “Partner Organizations.”
Tod Brainard, author of “The Convergence of Fundamentalism and Non-Separatist Evangelicalism,” The Projector, Fall 2010, wrote to me on December 8 as follows:
“Before the publication of my article I contacted the DC Baptist Association in Washington to verify Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s membership with them. The DC Baptist director told me personally that Capitol Hill Baptist Church was a paying member of the association and current on their dues. He further indicated that they had not questioned or expressed concerns over the DC Baptist Association affiliates including all those listed in my article. By the way, Jesse Jackson is a member of the National Baptist Association [which is partnered with the DC Baptist Association].”
In “The Convergence of Fundamentalism and Non-Separatist Evangelicalism,” Pastor Brainard wrote:
“Capitol Hill Baptist Church is a member of the District of Columbia Baptist Convention which is affiliated with the following three national associations: American Baptist Churches, USA; Southern Baptist Convention; and the Progressive National Baptist Convention. The American Baptist Churches, USA and the Progressive National Baptist Convention are both members of the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches, which are both blatantly apostate. In addition the American Baptist Churches, USA and Progressive National Baptist Convention maintain affiliation with the Baptist World Alliance which in turn maintains ecumenical relations with the apostate Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (Roman Catholic Church).
“It does not take a person long to realize that Mark Dever’s associations and that of his church reveal associations with apostasy. If I am playing Ring-Around-the-Rosie and I join hands with Mark Dever, and Mark Dever joins hands with the District of Columbia Baptist Convention, and the District of Columbia Baptist Convention joins hands with the American Baptist Churches, USA, Southern Baptist Convention, and around to the Baptist World Alliance and the World Council of Churches and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, sooner or later we come full circle and we realize that we all are holding hands together. To say that my hand-holding of Dr. Dever is a separate issue from Dr. Dever’s hand-holding with compromising associations is disingenuous and deceptive. Dr. Dever writes eloquently on many Biblical subjects, but rejects Biblical Separation. ”
———-
I cut off the article at that point where it continues to expound on the perceived dangers of such awful associations and partnerships and where all this can lead. From staunch conservative, Mark Dever has now been transformed into a closet Roman Catholic who collaborates with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity! Better be careful what kind of perceived associations fundamentalists will find in you!
Now for the killer. All of this is just a bunch of hooey. The only thing that is true is that Dever’s church is a member of the DCBC. But not a paying member, nor a compliant member. In fact, years ago, Dever led the charge in the SBC to defund the DCBC from any national convention dollars due to their liberal ties. Dever’s church in fact does not pay dues to the DCBC, in fact they don’t even charge dues, they just accept free will offerings (which Dever’s church does not send their way).
A contact of mine at Dever’s church, verified that the church secretary has been receiving calls about this and just this week called the DCBC to verify that they haven’t received funds from Capitol Hill Baptist Church (Dever’s church). In fact, CHBC is on a list of “non-contributing” member churches. The church is in the DC and perhaps there is some benefit to being listed in the DCBC listings. But their “membership” is anything but a complicit involvement in apostasy!
This account is documented in Christianity Today which did a story on the controversy surrounding the DC Baptist Convention and their defunding by the SBC national convention. Here are some quotes from CT documenting Dever’s stance to all of this:
Most area pastors line up with the local convention. Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist Church is not among them.
“They [DCBC] are presenting this as a political move,” Dever says. “But these agreements presume a common understanding of our purpose. I would encourage the SBC not to give a penny to the D.C. convention.”
…
Dever believes the district convention has a confused theology.
“There’s no personal animus,” Dever says. “That’s what I keep hearing from the DCBC, like somebody’s out to get them. I don’t think they have a good category for genuine theological disagreement.”
So the record is plain for all to see, Dever is not partnering with the DCBC in any theological sense. But David Cloud and his like, see it differently. Any membership or association of any kind, entails a complete agreement, not only of the association itself, but all the associations each group has which is associated with the other group. I don’t see how most of those Baptist groups are really and truly connected in spirit with the Pontiff of Rome. But the fundamentalist notion of “partnership” can magically make this happen.
This isn’t just a crazy story. This isn’t just a ludicrous blunder by Cloud. This is a travesty of Christian fellowship. If this is how we treat fellow ministers of the Gospel, woe be to us! Such foolishness crowds out the Gospel, which becomes just another hill we will die on. With the Gospel as “just another doctrine”, we lose a Christ-centered, Gospel-rooted faith. The result is a schismatic, piety which is no one’s true friend. And grace is left out of the mix. I’ll close with some wise words of old, from the Puritan, Thomas Manton (commenting on Phil. 3:15):
…when men give themselves up to separating and narrow principles, the power of godliness is lost, and all their zeal is laid out upon their petty and private opinions, and so religion is turned into a disputacity…. Observe it where you will, and you shall find that separation and distance from the rest of believers, doth not befriend godliness, but undermine it. A regiment fighting apart from the rest of the army of Christ, is always lost through their own peevishness; at least, they lose great advantages of promoting the kingdom of Christ.
thanks for “marking them” who would call us to a different gospel while having their head in the clouds. very well written. love that quote by Manton.
Thanks, Mark.
Another friend of mine just commented on this too, and his thoughts are worth sharing here:
“I think that we need to recognize the difference between fellowship and mere association. We also have to recognize that there are indeed degrees of fellowship. Many folks seem to feel that it’s all or nothing, though they don’t truly practice that, because there are no two people in absolute agreement.”
In your complaint about Cloud’s alleged misrepresentation of Dever, you engage in the same polemic against Cloud of which he is supposedly guilty toward Dever.
I don’t agree with Cloud’s conclusion as to whether or not, for fellowship, there are non-essentials but I certainly do not believe the merits of his argument were substantially treated, rather this read as an ad hominem rebuttal with a distortion of his position. For example you interpreted Cloud as saying:
“Cloud recently declared that the original fundamentalists were all wrong”
Cloud said no such thing. He stated with regard to non-essentials and fellowship:
“It was adopted by the Fundamentalist movement of the first half of the 20th century. As a movement Fundamentalism focused on unity around “the fundamentals of the faith†while downplaying the “minor issues.†The objective was to create the largest possible united front against theological modernism.”
If you wish to see fairness or objectivity from Cloud I encourage you to audit your own toward his statements as well. As well,
Alex, I tried to be fair, but this kind of thinking is egregious.
To demure with the original fundamentalists on this point is to downplay the entire fundamentalist movement altogether. That was their entire essence, their very being. If they were totally wrong on “in essentials, unity”, then they were “all wrong” in just about all they did.
I find it odd how the fundamentalists of today, try to beat the original fundamentalists at their own game. It’s sad, really. I’m not trying to jump on the beat up on Cloud bandwagon. I almost never post about Cloud (although I could if I wanted to). In this case, he shows how a minor membership as a non-paying church in a local convention is taken out of context and stretched into Dever’s holding hands with the papal anti-Christ, practically. That kind of abuse of the truth needs to be stood up against, I believe.
Thanks for commenting though. Feedback from your perspective is welcomed. I did try to measure my words, and I’ll try to continue to be careful, and even more careful in the future.
In Christ,
Bob Hayton
David Cloud made it all very clear when he said that he was playing “Ring-Around-The-Rosie.” If that is what Christian fellowship and Fundamentalism is, then you have problems. I’m glad that others have gone beyond playing games. And thankfully many have quit playing games.
When I was a raging fundamentalist, I would always go to Cloud’s site to get the ‘goods’ on anyone I didn’t like. Whenever I would come into contact with anyone outside my narrow circle, I would always look at wayoflife first to try to find a reason to dislike them. I’m sad to hear that so many fundamentalists are still engaged in the same activity: little empire building and throwing mud on anyone who does not share their particular man-made traditions.
I think I’ve commented here before that if there are any good solid works defending any of the true fundamentals of the faith published, they won’t be published by so-called ‘fundamentalists’.
By the way, who says “New Evangelical” anymore? Why do they keep using that term?
@Andrew:
“Whenever I would come into contact with anyone outside my narrow circle, I would always look at wayoflife first to try to find a reason to dislike them”
Wow. I can’t explain how much I relate to that! Sad how we used to think, but man, I’m so grateful that God has rescued me from that kind of thinking!
I agree, Damien. I had a similar way that I used Cloud to learn all the dirt on people. Thanks too Andrew for your testimony here.
All it means to “maintain ecumenical relations” with the Pontifical Council Promoting Christian Unity is that various churches, the Baptist World Alliance among them, send delegates to observe and engage in dialogue with the other groups at their various gatherings. It sounds like no more than keeping tabs on each other, and communicating clearly and accurately with and about each other. Something on which it seems Cloud could use some pointers.
(Source–http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_pro_20051996_chrstuni_pro_en.html)
Thanks for digging that up, John.
The evidence you offered indicates a direct tie by Dever and Capitol hill Baptist church with the American Baptist churches. Churches affiliate with the ABC now through regionals. This is normal and full affiliation with the apostate ABC and the liberals that left the SBC and formed the PBC.
Any church or institution of Biblical discernment would, or should, use great caution and not have ministry connection with those who have shown indifference and openly affiliate with apostasy and apostates.
Or perhaps any act of separation would criticized by New evangelicals in fundamentalist clothing. The wolves are howling loud. READ MY POST ON SI in response to your article. Acts 20:17-35
Bob,
I responded over at SI.
For others interested in the comments there, you can find that discussion here: http://sharperiron.org/filings/12-10-10/17272
Pardon me, but what prevents Dever’s church from simply leaving DCBC? He isn’t responsible for what the SBC does, but he is responsible for what his own, autonomous local church does. Also, he can set an example for the SBC by leaving DCBC first. (And if SBC doesn’t refuse to cease affiliating with DCBC, then he should pull his church out of SBC as well.) It really isn’t that hard. Or shouldn’t be. Is there something that I am missing here? Based on what you said about this David Cloud, it appears that I cannot endorse his doctrines. But with the membership in the DCBC issue, he has Dever on a legitimate issue that neither Dever or his apologists have a leg to stand on. (Then again, Cloud’s overt race baiting with the gratuitous Jesse Jackson reference almost destroys any good point regarding Dever’s church and DCBC that he might have made. Almost, but not quite.)
Actually, the SBC did defund the DCBC. The SBC doesn’t have any power to disband a convention. Baptist denominations are still very loosely organized as all the member churches remain autonomous (which is what being Baptist is all about).
So Dever defunded the DCBC, why does he have to leave it? Staying in it he might be able to have some kind of influence for the good, possibly. I’m not entirely sure why they’re still in it. I just know the whole story hasn’t been told by Cloud. Rather, the infamous connection now with the Roman Catholics even (and heaven forbid, Jesse Jackson), is what is clear!
“So Dever defunded the DCBC, why does he have to leave it?”
Because the Bible tells us to do so. That makes all other considerations moot.
It’s not as clear cut on it as you think. There are degrees of fellowship, and being a non-paying member of an association does not entail an “unequal yoke”. And being a Baptist association with associations with even more liberal groups, is not the same as being definitively a work of darkness either. That’s my thoughts on the matter. Still even if Dever should separate, Cloud has not told the entire story.
I think many would agree with Bob’s point about degrees of fellowship. If not, then you’d be hard pressed to buy a computer, a piece of clothing – whatever. Several of those companies you purchase things from probably give to (what are perceived by some of my fundamentalist friends as) unacceptable organizations like Planned Parenthood, etc. If one really holds to an all or nothing approach then the church would have to be very careful about where the building materials were purchased, and where the office supplies were made, etc. Otherwise they would be supporting un-godly organizations with their purchases.
Bob,
Great post! I know your writing on this topic comes from a heartfelt passion and great concern. There are times when you just have to say what needs to be said. As always I appreciate the honesty and candor in your writing. Good luck with the snow. 😉
Thanks Shaun. You’re more south and east, so you’ll get more snow than we will, most likely. Should be fun!
Please note that you have overstated the conclusion of the evidence you offer here. Your referral to the Article in CT is to an article that merely states the Southern Baptists have threatened to cut off their funding if not given a greater say in its use. Also there is no evidence offered regarding Mark Dever’s church not paying dues to DCBC. There is also no evidence offered that Dever was involved in initiating the SBC initiative. Cloud states he personally called the DCBC to verify that Capitol Hill Baptist Church pays dues. You do not offer any first hand evidence to counter this. You offer the statements of Dever from the article in CT. These only indicate Dever disagrees with the DCBC and supports the action of the SBC. WORDS ARE CHEAP. Dever’s church is still listed in the DCBC. That’s the reality. Many pastors have proclaimed their disapproval of a group but remain affiliated. Often it is because they are afraid of disunity in the church by bringing a proposal to separate before them. Praise God for the courageous men who took a stand and then separated. Some at great cost.
I probably would disagree with many things that Cloud says and stands for. I understand he is KJVO and I do separate from such (yes there is that nasty word). However, it appears that on this subject Cloud offers good evidence and is right. You, and your friends replying on here, are offering a knee jerk defense of one of the Militant Hyper Calvinist leaders who has been caught with official ties to Apostasy.
By the way, Dever’s materials on the church and ministry are OK but far from the best out there. The guy doesn’t even know what expository preaching is. His definition is way “off the mark” and only defines textual preaching but calls it expository. This is typical of most all Reformed pastors. The history of Reformed theology involves mostly textual preaching. Reformed theology failed in Europe and in America but there are those who are trying to resurrect it in the old Hyper Calvinist form English Puritan form as some sort of new found hope. It is old as last months newspaper and just as relevant. I bring this up as it appears to me that is behind your twisting what Cloud offers and attempting to defend Dever.
My post was long and so I left out another link to the follow up CT article. This article documents that the DCBC was defunded. I stated in my article:
I reached out to someone who is a member at CHBC who verified that he personally has seen their church listed on a non-paying member list. He also had just spoken to the church secretary who had just verified with a DCBC official that yes, they don’t receive any money from CHBC.
Also Dever himself has stated that he led the charge to defund DCBC. That is the story given me by my contact and is something that Dever shares in his Weekender conferences too.
I just dug up further confirmation of this, from Mark Dever in an article entitled “Mark Dever Doesn’t Practice Separation” dated 6/14/2008:
You can refuse to believe my evidence, but that is not a charitable thing to do here. Cloud didn’t call the DCBC, a fellow he quoted did. And who knows what exactly that guy asked. Yes they’re a member, but he got it wrong because my contact tells me the DCBC doesn’t even charge dues. Now at one time, before Dever got there or before he realized DCBC’s issues, they may have contributed to the DCBC. But again they are on a list of non-paying members.
I wonder Bob, how this matter would have been handled, had it been addressed in a Christian manner. Perhaps, if Cloud had genuine concern for Dever and his close association with apostasy, he would have made an attempt to contact Pastor Dever and share his concern. Were Pastor Dever to go the “be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good”, perhaps Cloud could have found other Pastor associates of Pastor Dever who could explain to the good man that his association gives the appearance of evil and may be misinterpreted or used as a weapon by those that are looking for an excuse to attack him and the gospel ministry in DC. If Dever were to remain unpersuaded, perhaps Cloud could have gone to the conference organizers and explained the situation and perhaps the conference could explain their position and dis-invite him.
I’m not sure if that is the right approach or not, but something along these lines would certainly be more brotherly than the cheap shot gosip-rag antics found here.
Regardless, I’m very thankful to be a part of a truly independent church so that I don’t have to play the “who’s on my team” games that the more denominationally minded folks ini IFB churches seem so obsessed with.
Good thoughts, Andrew. I’m not necessarily defending Dever’s continued membership in DCBC. I’m just saying that there are certainly factors about it that we don’t know, and what we do know is he is not approving of the liberal nature of the DCBC. Potshots from the backrow isn’t the best approach to this. Now as for my calling Cloud out on this, I’m doing it publically since he had already gone public. I’m not expecting to convince Cloud otherwise, but perhaps he could add a clarification saying he now knows Dever at least has done some pretty public things to condemn the liberal nature of the DCBC.
Bob,
By “cheap shot antics found here”, I meant Cloud’s article and not your blog. I’m sorry for the confusion!
I think Dever is wrong, but there is a right way to handle a situation like that, and Cloud is not one to go about that way. He makes a name for himself by cheap-shotting everyone he doesn’t like.
No worries, I didn’t take it wrong.
BT –
Militant Hyper-Calvinist? Brother, you are either playing fast and loose with the facts, or are ignorant of theological terminology, or are letting your personal bias get the better of you. You and I both know that your cheap snipe is not an accurate portrayal of the man.
How many of Dever’s sermons have you listened to?
What is textual preaching? Preaching a text of Scripture?
The souls that were saved by gospel preaching, and the families that were united by family worship and a structured society were not failures. Modern religious innovations are the failures. You are correct in your assessment that the religious situation that we have in America today is not Calvinistic or Puritanical.
Perhaps the sinfulness of man and the glory of God are as irrelevant to you as yesterdays newspaper, but your modern religious innovations, centered on man-exaltation and pragmatics has not proven fruitful.
Andrew,
I am afraid it may be you who are not well informed. Evidently you have not had Expository preaching training. It involves an extended passage of scripture and both the main points and sub points come from the exegetical study of the passage. The key is sub points.
Also, the term Hyper Calvinist has an old definition accepted by Reformed Calvinists but a more contemporary definition accepted by most Evangelicals that refers to a Calvinism that goes beyond what Calvin himself taught. Since both Particular atonement and pre conversion regeneration were not part of Calvin’s theology, then it is Hyper Calvinism to hold to those doctrines and to use Calvin’s name with them. Militant has to do with the exclusionary practices and inordinate obsessions of some. Reformed theology is today Hyper Calvinist by historical progression.
Excuse me but you are outright lying in calling those beliefs “hyper-Calvinist”, and in calling Reformed theology today “hyper-Calvinist”. There is no excuse for this kind of intentional falsehood coming from someone your age. You should know better. There is only one definition of “hyper-Calvinism”.
Bob T,
So what did Calvin teach? Universal atonement? Faith as an inherent ability of unregenerate man?
Just curious,
Greg
FWIW, in John Calvin’s Sermons on Isaiah’s Prophecy of the Death and Passion of Christ, (London: James Clark [1559] 1956), 141, Calvin said these things in a sermon on John 3.16:
“And indeed our Lord Jesus was offered to all the world. For it is not speaking of three or four when it says: ‘God so loved the world, that he spared not His only Son.’ But yet we must notice what the Evangelist adds in this passage: ‘That whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but obtain eternal life.’ Our Lord Jesus suffered for all and there is neither great nor small who is not inexcusable today, for we can obtain salvation in Him. Unbelievers who turn away from Him and who deprive themselves of Him by their malice are today doubly culpable, for how will they excuse their ingratitude in not receiving the blessing in which they could share by faith.”
That doesn’t sound like Limited Atonement to me.
As far as Dever’s listing by the DCBA, I find it astonishing that one would want to continue to be listed by such an organization. I have been listed on KJO websites (including, for a while, David Cloud’s). I have objected to such listings where I find them unless they are willing to list me as “strongly opposed to King James Onlyism” as Cloud used to describe me.
Perhaps there is some kind of benefit to being listed with all the liberal Baptists in DC, but it isn’t apparent to me.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
Here are Calvin’s comments on I John 2:2. “And not for ours only…I pass over the dreams of the fanatics, who make this a reason to extend salvation to all the reprobate…Such a monstrous idea is not worth refuting. Those who want to avoid this absurdity have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world but effectively only for the elect…I allow the truth of this…Therefore, under the word ‘all’ he does not include the reprobate, but refers to all who would believe, and those who were scattered through various regions of the earth.”
Warm regards,
Greg
Well, it is a mystery… And a bit of a side story. What Calvin thought or not isn’t too relevant except as a matter of historical theology. Which isn’t the point of the issue at hand. I am not demanding consistency from him!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Yea, I do think there is evidence that Calvin wasn’t as systematic on that point as his followers. But I’ve never heard anyone say believing in Limited Atonement makes one a hyper-Calvinist. That’s news to me, and seems a bit of a convenient slam on people to redefine the standard definition and use it on them.
Bob:
Sorry for the delay, but I answer your question here.
http://sharperiron.org/comment/22972#comment-22972
G.N. – Ref to Calvin’s comment on 1 John …Such a monstrous idea is not worth refuting… It is this type of “exegesis” that I find incredible from Calvin, and even more incredible that people follow this “monstrous” teaching of his. I guess Calvin thought this just can’t be, the biggest promoter of the doctrine of grace, can’t wrap his small mind around
“real” grace that is big enough that, yes all means all, must just mean for the “believers” funny thing is, that is not what it says at all. I submit that 99.99% of the people that read this passage of scripture would never come to this belief, had it not been for Calvin teaching this “mess.”
As much as I appreciate Bob Hayton and the wonderful things he does for the kingdom, this type of teaching of Calvin does not help the cause of Christ, in fact it diminishes it. I really hate to rain on you guy’s hero his theology will not stand up under biblical scrutiny.
Calvin is simply a man, and a misguided one at that. “Let God be true and every man a liar.”
Greg, it’s your fundy foolishness that doesn’t stand up to Biblical scrutiny.
Dear Greg, (nice name 🙂
I used to think as you do now. However, long years of study, soul searching, and wrestling with tough questions gradually showed me how wrong I had been. Calvin is not my hero. In fact, it was several years after I became a “Calvinist” (by realizing this is what the Bible teaches, once the blinders of misconceptions are removed) before I began to read Calvin. I had been so prejudiced against John Calvin, that I didn’t care to read him even though I had embraced the theology that is named after him.
But when I began to read Calvin, I found out, once again, how wrong I had been. Calvin is an unusually good Bible teacher, many would say brilliant, and is also warm and gracious. It is only a misreading of Calvin that concludes otherwise.
The battle over Calvinism was fought before you and I came along, and will continue long after we are gone. Neither side is ever going to convince everyone who disagrees. However, I do not want to see Calvin misrepresented, as he was earlier in this thread. Agree with Calvin or not, let’s at least be careful to present his views accurately. OK?
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
G.N. – I have had many good rounds with Bob and I appreciate his always gracious responses and you seem just as gracious, to us “unenlightened” folks. Bob knows well, and I alluded to it in my last sentence, I simply don’t place any man or system of belief with any man’s name attached to it on a very high plain. I was debating with a calvinists some time ago, that comments here regularly, and he called me a biblicist, it was supposed to have been a slight, but I accepted it as a very nice compliment. Just always give me the scripture, I don’t care what Calvin, Piper, McArthur, Cloud, or Graham has to say about it, I care what thus saith the Lord. I know this will sound cocky, but I care more about my opinion than I do Calvin’s, in fact awhole lot more.
I don’t know if you are saying I was misrepreseting Calvin, I was directing my comments solely to your above quote of Calvin’s, and as for me there would be no reason at all to misrepresent him, the truth about him is already bad enough.
I am not an arminian just absolutely not a calvinist.
I too have spent many years of studying the issues involved and have not seen anything, and particulary calvinism that comes close to disrupting my view of how men get saved and “real” grace.
That’s the problem, your reading of Scripture is clouded by your own opinion and feelings, and most of all, your traditions. “Whatever it means, it can’t mean that!”
If you don’t like Arminian, than how about Synergist, which is what you are. The traditions which cloud your reading of Scripture, however, do originate with Jacobus Arminius and John Nelson Darby.
Pastor Barkman –
My testimony is similar to yours. Some years ago I had a family member get involved in an aberrant form of theology and I thought I’d make a close study of my Bible in order to disprove it. Along the way, I thought I might as well study the Calvinism issue, as well – kill two birds with one stone. Along the way my man-centered and flesh-loving traditions started giving way to the Word of God. I fought it at first! I (no kidding) listened to a lot of David Cloud and other IFBs rail against the man and the system. I also during that time started listening to sermons from those that believed in salvation by grace and I was totally awestruck how Scriptural and Biblical the arguments were from the grace side and how emotional and traditional the arguments from the “everybody deserves a shot” side.
I tried to retreat from my IFB Pelagianism to Wesylanism, but that was only a half-way house to the truth. Eventually I had to accept the fact that God IS God – not fate nor human will power. God is God, not man! The proper view of man and God opened the Scriptures up fresh to me and ignited a fire for the love of His Word that is yet to be extinguished.
Never to that point, or even now, have I based my faith on Calvins work, but I do realize the error of leaning so heavily on my traditions over those so blessed by the Holy Spirit to teach the church.
Greg,
I was not referring to you re Calvin being misrepresented, but to another post that claimed Calvin did not believe in particular redemption, nor regeneration before faith, both of which misunderstand Calvin. I don’t know why anti-calvinists want to find support for their position in Calvin? On the one hand, they usually say that they do not care what any man teaches; they are only interested in what the Bible says. On the other hand, they seem to delight in finding what they believe are “non-Calvinistic” statements in Calvin to somehow prove that Calvin was not a Calvinist, and then making modern, main-stream Calvinists out to be “hyper-Calvinists.” That’s what I was referring to.
To you, Greg, I will only say that I, too, once prided myself in looking only to the Bible, and not to any man or system. But the truth is that you have a system too. It may not be standard Calvinism or Arminianism, but it is a system none the less. We all have a system. Yours may be a common modern-day Independent Baptist system, though since I don’t know you, I don’t know at this point what your system is.
However, my commitment to the Bible, not to any man-made system, eventually led me to a fairly standard Calvinism, not because of Calvin, or what any of the men you mentioned teach (I came to my understanding before I knew most of them), but because of my study of the Bible, and the way Scripture forced me to change my previous understanding to better align with Scripture.
That’s the brief story of my journey. I pray that it may prove to be yours as well.
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
G.N. – I was involved in the IFB for many years, however I always knew there were problems with some of their belief “systems” for instance I am no longer real strong on the pre-millennial view of scripture, why, because “scripture” is not real clear to me regarding that subject, so you can see how that would make my old fundamentalists pastor/buddies upset with me. Actually to be clear I was never personally real strong on it I merely regurgiated what the Pastor said.
I am truly independent in my understanding of grace/salvation and derive 100% of my beliefs from the Word of God. I would actually like to find a group of like-minded believers to join with. Btw the Baptists that I left actually get alot of the salvation plan correct, I’m speaking of the “system” that our Lord put into place for the redemption of man.
God put a plan/system into place for Adam and Eve, they “chose” to reject that plan and suffered the cosequences, as do we all.
God put a plan/system for the children of Israel in the desert to look upon the pole with the serpent to be spared from the poisionous snake bites. Look and live. Some “chose” not to look and perished in the desert.
Our precious Saviour also made a plan for you and I, he tells us over and over in the scriptures to look and live. “If I be lifted up (points to the aforementioned desert incident) I will draw “all” men (not some) unto me. We can “choose” to accept this plan or not, our Lord will not force anyone, just as He did not force his “salvation” on the above. It doesn’t diminish his sovereignity at all, in fact it confirms it!
My good friend if you understood Grace like I understand Grace you would run from calvinism, like a horse running from a burning barn.
You apparently understand grace like Pelagius understood it. Far less than 100% of your beliefs are derived straight from the Word of God.
Dear Greg,
Thanks for the brief account of your journey. I applaud your willingness to stand for truth, as you understand the Scriptures, regardless of the cost. That’s not easy, but that is so necessary!
Believe me, I tried to run from calvinism for several years, very much like a horse running from a burning barn. However, God arrested me, and drew me back. It’s that stubborn commitment to the Scriptures, regardless of what others think. It cost me dearly in many ways, but as is always true for those who take their stand with God’s Word, the blessings have turned out to exceed the liabilities. God is so good! And the barn? What I thought was burning down turned out to be burning with the glory of the Lord, and what a wonderful glory it is!
I was greatly helped by studying the word “all” in it’s context in the NT. I found that “all” seldom means every individual in all the world. It usually means “all of a particular group,” or “all kinds of,” or “many.” Seriously! In my early days I thought those who said what I just wrote were twisting Scripture to fit their system. Surprise! The more I studied, the more I realized that this is exactly the way the Bible uses the term. For example, “And it came to pass in those days that a decree went our from Caesar Augstus that all the world should be registered.” (Luke 2:1, NKJV) Does that mean every individual in all the world without exception? Not hardly! You’re a pretty bright guy, so I’ll let you draw your own conclusions as to what “all the world” means in this text. You’ll find texts like this throughout the NT. If “all” doesn’t mean “all” in texts like this, how can you be certain it means “everybody in all the world without exception” in John 12:32?
Every blessing in Christ Jesus,
Greg
G.N. – I like your writing style, and also like your gracious manner, I’m sort of more in your face, Peter-like, if you will. I realize I’m not very delicate in my writing to get to my points, many folks would have come back more strongly and used my type of battering ram style to refute my points, which you didn’t. I don’t mean to really be abrasive, and yet in the limited time and scope of this medium, in order to get to the meat of what I perceive to be bible truth I try to cut right to the point. So again thanks for being so gracious, I must say Bob Hayton has always been just as gracious, even though we have travelled a similar road with these type of exchanges.
I’m fairly confident that I won’t be changing your mind and I can’t imagine that you would ever change mine. I’m reminded of what a good baptist pastor/friend once said when we disagreed on a point of scripture “God will be straightening all of out on many things when we get to heaven” As mere men it is difficult to understand God’s ways at times. For instance I know that I was chosen before the foundation of the world, God knew that I would accept His plan of salvation, He did not force me, it was completely and utterly my free will, I could have rejected His plan, just as I mentioned above – btw, I noticed you didn’t touch any of those examples, in those examples “all” involved meant “all” – God’s ways are above our ways, His ways past finding out. I truly don’t understand how He gives me free will and yet “knows” that I am going to accept Him, its past my pay grade, and I find it funny when any one tries to stand in the place of God and “explain” it – while they are at it, perhaps they can explain the Trinity so my very simple mind can grasp that as well, may as well go on explain the concept of “eternity”
This is getting long and I haven’t conveyed my thoughts real well, but I do want to touch on one more point. CONTEXT – This is fast becoming my #1 pet peeve. I will say it, the IFB’s, at least many of them, are some of the worst offenders. The example you gave above is obvious, very obvious. If you want to “share” with me and the other readers of FR try exegeting John 1 –
“There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. the true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.”
Greg,
Thanks for the encouragment! I know I haven’t always been gracious in discussion, so your compliment means perhaps I am growing and changing. God isn’t finished with me yet!
The main point of my “all” discussion is that since “all” doesn’t always mean “every individual without exception” (in fact, it usually does not, though occasionaly it does), one cannot be dogmatic that the “all” of John 12:32 or similar texts means every man without exception. John 12:32 probably means all classes of people, Gentiles as well as Jews. After all, the context is that Greeks were seeking Jesus (Jn 12:20-22), something Jesus disciples were not sure how to handle. Since Jesus is the Messiah promised to Israel, is it all right to encourage Greeks to come to Christ? Answer: John 12:32.
John 1:7 probably means something similar. If “that all men through him might believe” means every man on earth without exception, you have to answer some difficult questions. 1) What about the millions who never heard John’s message, nor ever heard of Jesus Christ? 2) Was John’s ministry a failure? If he came to bear witness of the Light that every man on earth without exception through him might believe, he was a miserable failure. As to John 1:9, surely you limit this statement in some way, don’t you? If you take “every man coming into the world” to mean all men without exception, then surely you must limit the light to something akin to a limited general testimony about God that is given to all men, similar to Romans 1:18,19. Otherwise, how to do you explain the millions who have never heard the Gospel? In what sense do you believe Chist “gives light to every man coming into the world?”
Thanks for the discussion. I enjoy talking about God’s Word.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
Greg –
You and your friend were right about the following:
“God will be straightening all of out on many things when we get to heavenâ€
I can only imagine the shame I will feel when I finally understand the hardness of my heart and lack of understanding.
Anyhow, for my part, I didn’t take anything you’ve typed as ‘abrasive’. People get excited when they defend the truth of God’s Word -> your love for the Word of God and for the purity of the Gospel is proof that you are a fellow brother. May the Lord continue to bless your studies and mine.
All this talk about Calvinism aside, I sent a note to CHBC to ask about their affiliation with ABC and DCBC. I received the following response:
Dear [Andrew],
I apologize for my slow response. I’m happy to clear up this matter. To
be clear, we only support the Southern Baptist Convention. We are not
members of the ABC in anyway and do not support them in anyway. We do not
support the DCBC. The DCBC has placed us on their list simply because of
our location and because historically our church has given money to the
DCBC. However, shortly after Mark arrived he fought for the right to not
give any financial support to the DCBC and was granted that request. Our
church’s beliefs are represented in our Statement of Faith, which can be
found on our website http://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/ . I hope that
helps.
Best Regards,
XXX
Note:
I corrected the first name.
Thanks for reporting this Andrew. It might mean the situation is more like DCBC trying to claim CHBC, rather than CHBC trying to stay as a “member” church in the DCBC.
That is how I read it, Bob.
I also kindly asked the person who responded to me to relay to the leadership of the church that it may be wise to consider terminating this relationship (if possible); as it may be used as a weapon against their Gospel ministry. I understand full well that this is none of my concern, of course, but perhaps they hadn’t considered the way it could be construed (or misconstrued, rather) by those outside of their church.
Interesting. Glad you contacted them. But then again, is it the cause of Christ or the cause of the hyper fundamentalists that is being damaged? I can see why people would care less what a fundamentalist watchdog is saying about them…
Andrew – Thanks for the kind words and recognizing that I do get “excited” when trying to share what I feel are bible truths, and striving to “prove” those truths from scripture.
I also recognize that there are many views about scripture and I don’t hold the corner on bible truth. I do appreciate the exchanges, Iron sharpens Iron.
God Bless
G.N. – I have no problem with your 2nd paragraph, as far as Jesus making sure that the gentiles knew that the gospel was available to the them as well as the jews, that’s fine, but that doesn’t mean that it was for those only, or for only those within the sound of his voice, not at all. I think it really strains the passage to force it to that conclusion. Jesus is God in the flesh, if that was what He was intending He could easily indicate this. So within its proper context I remain quite dogmatic that this is speaking to all men everywhere.
I get somewhat lost on precisely what you are driving at on your last paragraph so I’ll just try to explain what I believe.
You mentioned Romans 1, but you refer to it as …a limited general testimony…I would really take exception to that description of this passage of scripture v-19,20 “since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what was made, so that men are without excuse” That to me is very strong, and not a general, limited testimony, so that in fact men that had no written language even, could be given a “chance” to receive Christ, but if we follow through on this passage, just as folks today have the opportunity to “accept and call upon” the Lord and many reject, some of these folks do the same. “although they claimed to be wise they became fools and their hearts were darkened. It is the same now as it was then.
Psalms 19:1-4 is also very strong about God’s natural world declaring His Glory and “speaking” to mankind. It ties in so wonderfully to John 1 about Jesus being the Word.
I admitted that I don’t have all the answers, and I don’t understand everything in this wonderful book of life. But I am so thankful that as a small boy I called out for the Lord to save me, I wasn’t forced to, there was no irrestible grace, I could just as easily turned and not responded just as thousands have done and are doing today, but I didn’t harden my heart I called out in faith and Jesus Christ wondrously saved me, and I’m thankful for that today.
Interesting discussion Greg and Greg! Personally, I don’t have a problem with John 1 being universal in scope since the light is going to not include everything one needs to receive Christ, because after all Rom. 10:14 requires a preacher and by extension, the preaching of the gospel of Christ, before one can truly be saved.
As for John 12, I think to understand John 12 one must go back to John 6:44: “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (KJV)”
In John 6:44 the argument goes like this:
1- One cannot come to Christ, unless he is DRAWN by the Father.
2- Additionally, all who are DRAWN, will be raised at the last day (i.e., raised to life everlasting, since if you aren’t drawn you won’t be raised up).
In John 12:32 the argument is as follows:
1- If Jesus is lifted up, all men will be DRAWN to him.
So, if you take John 12:32 to be universal, then the drawing in chapter 12 is different than the drawing in chapter 6. Why? Because chapter 6 plainly says the drawing is limited to one group of people – those who actually come to Christ (which we know is not everyone in the world). If you take John 12:32 in the sense G.N. Barkman does above, all kinds of people, or all peoples, then the drawing can be the same as what’s mentioned in chapter 6.
At least that’s my reading of it, which seems supported by 6:65 when Jesus uses a different phrase to refer to the drawing mentioned in 6:44, there He says: “Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.” So the ability to come is “given” to some and not others, as the context there emphasizes.
Just my two cents here.
Bob
Bob,
Thanks for your two cents, which are exactly right, according to my understanding.
Greg, do I understand you to be saying that Romans 1 teaches that all men in the world have a knowledge of Christ and the Gospel, even though no one has preached it to them?
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
G.N. – It does appear that Romans 1:18-23 teaches that quite an extensive understanding about God is available to mankind here. v-19 what may be know about God is plain to them, because God made it plain v-20 God’s invisible qualities, eternal power, divine nature being understood by what was made (men) so that we are w/out excuse. Then you have “some” men rejecting this light, as did Adam and Eve,(did anyone ever have as much light as these two?) as did the Israelites in the desert would not look and live, just as people in 2010 are given light and are drawn and yet reject that drawing power and go their own way. I really don’t understand how that works, but I believe it, why? because it is exactly what the scripture says.
The light of nature shines upon every man because we were all made in the image of God. The light of the gospel shined when when the gospel is preached (Ro 10:14), but the darkness did not comprehend it (John 1:5), because they were blind (Lk 6:39, Jn 9:39, etc). They hate the light because they love their evil deeds and will not come to the light to be reproved (John 3:19-21). Blessed rather are those whose eyes have been opened so that they may see and believe and be converted (Mt 13:9-16).
Exactly so, Andrew. Thanks.
it seems to me bob that those who turn from being bible believers to being calvanist ie reformed position are seeking to escape the authority of the Word of God and trade it for at best,a philosophical position that would relieve them of all responsibility commanded by the savior.Most of those that i know personally who have been led to the Lord by soul winning baptists,and then reject the sound teachings that brought them life,have not only discarded sound doctrine,but also left purity and holiness to then justify all manor of ungodly living….what say ye?
I would read my explanation of the five points of Calvinism first (click “Calvinism” tab above). Charles Spurgeon and other great evangelists of the past were Calvinist. George Whitfield too. I don’t think your argument is sound.
Thankyou Bob, I will read your explanation of the five points of calvanism and look forward to continuing this conversation…If I may make a short comment or two…most Bible believers would think it somewhat disingenuous for you to use Mr.Spurgeon the way you do, knowing very well how critical the calvanists of his day felt about his invitations to “all” and “whosoever will”, and other oppositions to the Reformed philosophy. Otherwise you seem to be a genuine guy,and are honestly representing what you believe..and a gentleman at that,which is very much appreciated. side note #two..(sorry Bob)…rather than argument,it has been my EXPERIENCE that those who accept this philosophy not only leave sound Churches but their lives,especially their personal conduct drastically changes.I’m not speaking of the “Emergent” departed Bob,but particularly the conservative reformed….I wonder if you have noticed this?
Thank you Dante for giving us a great example of the cultic thinking of the IFB. You are unable to examine your own traditions in the light of God’s Word because you fail to acknowledge them, and instead assume your own clouded thinking is the “bible believing” position.
IFB attempts to appropriate Spurgeon are disengenuous. Spurgeon was a solid Calvinist affirming unconditional election and limited atonement.
By the way, we do not “win” souls. The Holy Spirit brings men to faith and repentance. We proclaim the Gospel because it is Christ’s command.