Thoughts & Actions

Commit your actions to the Lord, and your thoughts will be established… Proverbs 16:3

Church Heroes Are Heretics, And Church Heretics Are Heroes

Several years ago, I had contacted a Southern Baptist local association in Southern California whose DOM was very interested in me for church planting. However, once he realized that I held to the doctrine of grace, he quickly dismissed me by saying, “This association is not in friendly cooperation with John MacArthur. Your theology is not welcome in this association as long as I’m the DOM.”

I then accepted a part-time associate pastor position where the senior pastor, a graduate of Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, was not familiar with Reformed theology, and during the interview he didn’t see any problems with it after I explained to him what it is doctrinally and what it looks like practically. One month later, some of the influential lay leaders (whom I seriously doubt if they are even saved in the first place but that’s a different subject) voiced concerns of my doctrine of grace, and the senior pastor fired me immediately with these words, “Calvinism is heresy!”

Then recently, I read Tom Ascol’s report of Jerry Falwell’s malposed opinion to an audience of about 2,000 high school juniors and seniors in April 2007, to whom he was promoting Liberty University as a consideration for higher education, “We don’t believe that Jesus Christ died for a select few, sometimes called ‘the elect.’”  He clearly demarcates where Liberty University stands on the issue of Limited Atonement, “We are not into particular love or limited atonement. As a matter of fact, we consider it heresy.”

The archive chapel message is available here. While the whole video is interesting to watch, the actual quote can be seen and heard by watching and listening to the section starting at 4 minutes:40 seconds.

If it is true that the doctrine of grace is heresy, then I wonder if at Liberty University:

  • Do they teach in their church history classes that Augustine was a heretic? After all, Calvinism isn’t rooted in John Calvin but in Augustine who was combating against the REAL heretic, Pelagius, and the REAL heresy, Pelagian.
  • Do they teach in their church history classes that Pelagius, who was branded a heretic by the early church, should now be seen as the real orthodox Christian hero?

It is obvious where Jerry Falwell, and some of the other leaders and pastors in the Southern Baptist Convention, stand: the historic church heretics are now the heroes and the historic church heroes are now the heretics!

May 10, 2007 - Posted by Will | 2007 Archive, Biography, Christian Living, Ecclesiology, History, Leadership, Southern Baptist Affairs, Theology | | 17 Comments

17 Comments »

  1. Howdy,
    I am aghast by the divisions that doctinal efficacy promotes. Doctorine divides and creates an elitism, that by nature keeps people standing at the gates of heaven scratching their heads. I have been involved with many different churches, fundamental, charismatic, full gospel, messianic, non-denominational, denominational, high church and low church congregations. I seldom have seen Psalm 133 reflected by the fellowship. As I have summed up my experience, I have determined to let the blind lead the blind. It makes little sense to argue in the face of ignorance and arrogance.

    Doctorine often creates exclusion, rather than inclusion. That is the sad reality of many churches. They maintain specific convictions, while shutting the door to those in need of the gospel or grace, mercy and love. It is the kindness of God that leads men to repentance… not doctrinal suppositions.

    I believe that it is God’s grace and mercy that triumphs over judgement. (Ephesian 2:8-9)

    Thank you for your post above. It does seem heretical that many in the church close the door to those who are in need, because of doctrine.

    Have a great day and keep the faith.

    Craig

    Comment by secondchancetolive | May 10, 2007 | Reply

  2. I just want to say, “Great Post!” Also, a word to Craig. Do you think Jesus or the Apostles taught no doctrine. If you want to talk about exclusion, what about Jesus saying “you do not believe because you are not part of my flock (John 10:26).
    That sounds pretty exclusive to me. Jesus said that only those who were given him by the Father would come to him, and that the Father would only accept those who came by the Son. Sounds pretty exclusive to me. What do you say? Did Jesus teach no doctrine. Do you even know what doctrine is. You sound nice enough. But then again, maybe you are just theologically weak. I will pray for you, and for forgiveness for sounding so harsh here. But I really am curious what you think.

    Will, great post again.

    Comment by Chris Gates | May 10, 2007 | Reply

  3. Hi Chris,
    Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate your heart in this matter. I am learning as I go through life. My theology has changed with my experience. God has not He is the same yesterday, today and forever. My main point is that Romans 1:16, Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23, Romans 5:8, Romans 10:9-10, Ephesians 2:8-9, John 1:12, John 1:14, John 3:16, John 10:10, and Revelations 3:20 make up the back bone of what I believe. That is the bottom line, I believe. Doctrine is established around scripture and theologians. No argument needed. Arguments are what create division. I think that is one of the things that breaks the heart of God.

    This is my opinion. You are entitled to yours. Neither makes us right or wrong. God will sort it out.

    God bless you Chris.

    Have a great day.

    Craig

    Comment by secondchancetolive | May 11, 2007 | Reply

  4. [...] Last month in April 2007, when addressing 2,000 high school students, he called the doctrine of Augustine heresy. [...]

    Pingback by Who Is Jerry Falwell « Thoughts & Actions | May 16, 2007 | Reply

  5. [...] looks like, once again, heroes of the faith are considered heretics (see blog article on May 10, [...]

    Pingback by Arbuckle Baptist Association Stands Against Reformed Theology « Thoughts & Actions | November 11, 2007 | Reply

  6. To make it short, the fruit of Calvinism is becoming visible. Calvinism means salvation by works. That’s it. Sola Fide? Saved by faith alone that is not alone? Just word games.

    Comment by Kehrhelm Kröger | June 30, 2008 | Reply

  7. Kehrhelm, sometimes making it short makes it incomprehensible. I’m not sure I understand what you are saying in “Calvinism means salvation by works.”

    But, Will, as to your article, it is incredible how so many people in positions of Christian leadership are so uninformed about church history. Although not firmly Reformed, I would find it embarrassing to say that I couldn’t work alongside one who is.

    And working together, Craig, does not mean you ignore doctrine. God wants us to read, know, and understand His Word in all aspects to the deepest level we can. The problem isn’t with doctrine; it is with arrogance, elitism, etc. Those are sins that may manifest themselves with doctrine, but are not caused by it. Don’t give up on the study of God somehow thinking that it will limit sin.

    And, Will, (back to the article) it is interesting that the point Falwell was making (although I don’t align myself with Falwell) about limited atonement sort of matches Calvin’s comments on I John 2:2. Here is the text– “Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men without distinction, His blood being shed not for a part of the world only, but for the whole human race; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet he holds out the propitiation to the whole world, since without exception He summons all to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than the door of hope.”

    Comment by Dan | June 30, 2008 | Reply

  8. You raise one of the very common passages that non-Calvinists lean on. I have heard it argued by the PCUSA theologians and pastors that Calvin was not a 5-point Calvinist. And they argue their position from sections such as this, where it appears that Calvin believes in universal atonement.

    But that is not the case. Calvin was not talking about universal atonement here, but was talking about the goodness of God now available to both Jews and Gentiles. So, it’s not every individual, but every race.

    Comment by Will | June 30, 2008 | Reply

  9. Ah, I can understand that point of view. Okay, I’ll not distance Dordt from Calvin.

    Tell me this– what do you see as the logical progression regarding faith, justification, and regeneration within the process of applied redemption? (I put them in alpha order so as not to signify my preference although you could probably guess.)

    My point in asking is that this is my main stumbling block with Calvinism. I am one of those who had been a Calvinist for 15 years of my life and then bumped up against some difficulties that I would have to leave unanswered or give one of those “we don’t know, but we trust God” answers (which is fine if really convinced that we don’t/can’t know). But my reasoning (possibly flawed) seems to circumvent the problem. But without getting ahead of myself, can I just ask you about the logical order of those three elements?
    Thanks.

    Comment by Dan | June 30, 2008 | Reply

  10. Dan,

    Some religions for example Allahism have a logic of “salvation” that is like this:

    faith + works => justification

    In Calvinism it is

    justification => faith + sanctification
    sanctification => works

    Or short:
    Justification => Faith + works

    So, if there are no good works in your christian life (=you don’t do good works), then you have no sanctification and thus no justification in the first place. In the end, Sola Fide remains a mere lip confession, empty words, a word game.

    Do you know what’s really the difference between a “classical” works-based religion, like Allahism and Calvinism? The Allahist must work and can boast – the Calvinist must also work – but simply cannot boast.

    That’s the only difference.

    Comment by Kehrhelm Kröger | July 2, 2008 | Reply

  11. I’m sorry, Kehrhelm. I’m still not understanding.
    I assume your sign => means “results in.” Therefore, the Allahist believes that faith + works => (results in) justification. But according to classical Calvinism, justification does not result in saving faith. Regeneration logically precedes faith which precedes justification. Faith does, however, continue on after justification. But that continuing faith in conjunction with resultant works of a regenerated life does not really have anything to do with Sola Fide which speaks of the salvific faith preceding justification.

    Here’s an analogy. I breathe in some germ. That germ becomes a disease in me, attacking my brain and causing me to perform wild, unnatural actions. Although I continue to have the germ within and I am acting wildly, I say it was the germ alone that entered me, that diseased me, and that caused the action. I don’t say “disease => germ + wild actions” even though both the germ and actions are evident afterwards. The germ alone caused the disease. Just so, Sola Fide means that faith alone caused the justification. But that justification resulted in continued faith plus works.

    My problem with Calvinism is in understanding the logical progression from faith to justification. Romans 5:9 says we are “justified by his blood,” or in other words by the atonement. So, this verse concludes that justification logically flows from regeneration. But Romans 3:28 and 5:1 say that justification is by faith. The only way I can see these verses fit in logical sequence is if Faith => Regeneration => Justification. Thus, justification is by faith as it logically proceeds through regeneration.

    But this sequence, of course, is problematic because spiritually dead people can’t engender faith (an intellectual assent to spiritual goodness) on their own. Therefore, (and based on Romans 1) I see God providing grace in different measure to different people opening eyes for spiritual understanding so that faith can ensue (or be rejected), resulting in regeneration and justification. I know this sounds a lot like some version of prevenient grace, but I believe it is much more intricate than that. Redemption is all of God. And the application of redemption is all of God in His revelatory work to produce the faith. Faith is not a meritorious activity–it is simply intellectual assent. It is God’s salvation, sovereignly controlled by God to result in His will of glory through relationship with His creation.

    Comment by Dan | July 2, 2008 | Reply

  12. Dan,

    yes => shall mean “results in” or “yields”. Okay, it’s like this:

    regeneration => faith => justification => sanctification => works

    Thus, no works = no sanctification = no justification.

    So one thing should be very clear: no works = no salvation!

    But, aren’t works the RESULT of justification, and are really BY THE GRACE of God? Well, here is the real problem: This is a mental conception, a way how to regard works, how to interpret them. The attitude towards works, is different to “classical” works-systems, that’s correct.

    But that doesn’t change the fact that in reality, in fact, the calvinist must do works in order to be saved. It’s just a matter of whether you put the cart before the horse or vice versa. There is no salvation apart from works. Calvinistic “sola fide” is just a word game.

    The attitude towards works is just altered so that they cannot boast. Calvinism is salvation by works and nevertheless you cannot boast!

    Suppose a calvinist never shows any good works (whatever they might be). Then his fellows would doubt the reality of his faith, wouldn’t they? So calvinism must introduce the concept of “genuine” or “saving” or “true” faith as opposed to “false” faith, that doesn’t save. And what is genuine faith? It’s false faith + works. This is how it appears to other people. And that simply yields salvation = faith + works, just like in the classical works religions.
    So the difference is really just the attitude towards works, their role in the salvation process. That’s it. In the final analysis, Calvinism is salvation BY works, just as Allahism and others. Consider typical calvinistic sermons by Paul Washer and the calvinistic revival leaders from old times. They were focussing on what? works, works, works.

    Concerning the logical relationship between faith, justifaction, being dead and alive etc. as proclaimed by Calvinism, I do not rack my head on that. Why? Because I think the premises, the foundation of the calvinistic system are false altogether, so that it doesn’t make any sense to bother with that. For example, if the cat were a horse, could you then ride up trees? One can discuss endlessly about whether one could ride onto trees if cats were horses, but it would be a bit silly, because the premise is simply wrong :) Even the theoretical wrenches about “Supralapsarianism” and “infralapsarianism” show that people are leaning out of the window too far.

    The foundation is not convincing. Further Calvinsm, I think, is clearly, most clearly, a religion of works!

    What is most weird about Calvinism is in my opinion, that they do not realize that they are in fact embracing a “salvation by works” belief. It is disguised as Sola Fide, yes,but that’s just due to a twisted attitude towards works, they still are dependend on their own performance, aren’t they? Don’t they do introspection or self-examination to detect the work of God in them? Aren’t they really looking into themselves rather than on Christ? Doesen’t calvinism really boil down to a Check-if-you-are-saved-ism? Well some Calvinists nowadays go so far as to admit that justification is by faith alone, but sanctification is of works. This of course is a new concept since old calvinism holds that Salvation is all of grace, from beginning to end, and not on any part of the sinner himself.

    I think Calvinists argue “we cannot boast, can we? So it’s not by works” — however the problem is: it is by works and nevertheless you cannot boast. Does God perform the works for you? No, you must do them! But you must think they “flow from grace” and therefore you cannot boast. Sola Fide? – a delusion and a word game.

    Comment by Kehrhelm Kröger | July 6, 2008 | Reply

  13. Dan,
    I fully understand you analogy of the germ. But you do not know whether you have got the germ. However, if you have it, that will inevitably induce some visible results. If there are no results, you must conclude that you do not have the germ (no regeneration). So regeneration remains a mere theoretical concept, it leads to a theology where you can believe in salvation by works without the possibility to boast. You “detect” God’s work in you. From an outer point of view it looks the same as “faith only + works”. Only the calvinist’s own awareness is different, his own attitude, his beliefs. He must work yet does not merit anything by it. Strange indeed.

    Comment by Kehrhelm Kröger | July 6, 2008 | Reply

  14. Well, Kehrhelm, two things–
    1. I still have a problem with your logic of a result being the basis for the cause. I think all Christians would agree that eventually proof of redemption will be the sinless righteousness of the believer in a state of glorification with Christ. That is a result. Do I then say that salvation is BY sinless righteousness in glorification? No, I don’t. I don’t say that the result caused the event, because that is making the action (and cause) dependent on the result. No proponent of the “first cause” cosmological argument for the existence of God would say that the action (creation) is BY the result (existence). That would make God’s action dependent on the result–making God dependent on the result. And, of course, (as the ontological argument tells us) God is necessary, not dependent. All that to say that arguing for a result such as works to be a cause of salvation violates the flow of cause-action-result.

    2. The point of crying Sola Fide is to argue faith alone in the process of redemption. It is not meant as a cry for the results of redemption.

    3. If you read Calvinists such as John Frame, the argument is made that even the good works following salvation are caused by God.

    Comment by Dan | July 6, 2008 | Reply

  15. Sorry–I said “two things” in the last post, and it was three. I also sent that post before I saw Kehrhelm’s second reply about the germ.
    Kehrhelm, I’m still struggling with your concept. But maybe I’m beginning to see a little more of what you are saying…maybe.
    Tell me this–Do you mean that since, to the Calvinist, faith follows regeneration (along with works following regeneration), that you cannot say sola fide since both the faith and the works result from regeneration? I think I can see that point. However, I might still have a problem with it in that the faith following regeneration is just a logical (not chronological) ordering of applied redemption, whereas works following regeneration is a chronological as well as logical ordering. Therefore, although to a Calvinist, faith follows regeneration logically, they both still pertain to the receiving of redemption. Works is a result of the whole redemptive process.
    But, correct me if I misunderstood your reasoning.
    Thanks.

    Comment by Dan | July 6, 2008 | Reply

  16. Dan,
    in calvinistic thought you are saved by a faith that works or a working faith. If there are no works then this shows that your faith is not working and then you do not have justification in the first place, but only have a “false faith”. And who must do the works? The believer. In the final analysis there is no salvation apart from works.

    I am not playing some game of logic here, about the relationship between regeneration, faith and works, in classical systems and calvinism.

    You are making considerations about the chronological order, the logical order, what’s the cause, what’s the result, etc. Okay.
    But those are just mental affirmations, this is just THEORY!! You have certain beliefs, certain concepts that convince you, that it is the faith alone that saves, and the works surely follow. You elaborated on this above. But this is just gray theory! You may say that regeneration must be the cause and the cause must be before the result and therefore faith must precede works and then works cannot be the cause of justification or something like this. All this is just theory – in REALITY you must work just as every believer in a “classical works religion”! Why? Because if your faith is without works, you do not have faith! It’s absurd, but that’s what calvinistic Sola Fide is really about. In the final analysis it all boils down to works. Self-examination, or introspection is really a look at your worthiness, your works, your performance. Exactly what the Mormons and JW do. Calvinists interpret their works as a result of their justification, as something that flows from the grace of God. It’s just a different interpretation, the calvinist regards this as detecting God’s working in him. “Is God working in me?” – he might as well ask “Am I good enough?”.

    If you have no works, you have no faith. So this is why Calvinism introduces the concept of genuine faith in opposition to false faith. Genuine faith is nothing else than faith + works. It is faith THAT works, okay. But faith that works is actually faith + works. And genuine faith includes the mental affirmation that the faith alone saves – just theory!

    Comment by Kehrhelm Kröger | July 7, 2008 | Reply

  17. Okay. Obviously we don’t agree.
    1. You seem to want to set up theory v. reality when every reality is based on theory. So it’s not theory v. reality, but rather which theory fits reality.

    2. I also don’t understand why you say that “those are just mental affirmations.” Mental affirmation means affirming propositional truth. Your idea of Calvinism as a works-based application of redemption is a mental affirmation you are making. Mental affirmations are not just mental games. You could be wrong or right, but it is your mental affirmation of what you believe to be propositional truth (or the truth of reality, if you prefer).

    3. As a noun, faith may be used to mean a system of belief (like a religion) or specific intellectual assent to a specific idea. When Christians say “faith that works,” by the word faith they usually mean their system of beliefs known as Christianity as that which produces works. When we say Sola Fide, we are not speaking of a system of beliefs, but rather a specific intellectual assent of the person/redemption of Christ. It is that specific faith by which redemption is applied without works. It is no mind manipulation game to say that although works necessarily result from my position/relationship as a Christian, the specific faith in God’s application of His redemption to me is not based on works.
    Another analogy– I swing the bat at the ball, hit it, it rolls into the outfield, and I run to first base. You can review the situation from a backwards perspective and legitimately say that the result of running got me to first base. But you cannot say, then, that running caused me to hit the ball. You can’t dismiss the logical and chronological elements by saying they are all just theory and playing at logic games. There is sequence; there is cause-effect-result. I refer to the whole sequence of what happened as “getting a hit.” And that whole episode of “getting a hit” partially involved my running and arriving at first base. But the specific hit (contact of bat on ball) had nothing to do with running (although that was a result).

    I guess we’re just beating a dead horse now. Again, I am not a Calvinist, but I don’t think the Calvinistic system is just playing logic or mind games to insist on sola fide. Anyway, thanks for the conversation.

    Comment by Dan | July 8, 2008 | Reply


Leave a comment

« Previous | Next »