Calvinism, Arminianism, Southern Baptist Traditionalism, and Accusations of Theological Dishonesty

Below is a parable that was written in response to the post and subsequent comment thread that are found here:

https://soteriology101.wordpress.com/2017/06/07/calvinist-slight-of-hand-a-brief-arminian-interaction-with-wayne-grudems-arguments-against-the-compatibility-of-foreknowledge-and-conditional-election

That post was re-blogged from here:

https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2017/06/07/calvinist-sleight-of-hand-a-brief-arminian-interaction-with-wayne-grudems-arguments-against-the-compatibility-of-foreknowledge-and-conditional-election

As a side note: For some reason, the person who moderates the Arminian Perspectives site finds my comments unworthy of approving for publication, and has a long history of either denying my comments outright once the substantive points are on the table, or editing out the most important parts before publishing.

Those two posts raise some interesting issues that are worthy of discussion. However, we should take a far greater interest in the not-so-subtle accusations of theological dishonesty found in the posts, and then stated even more strongly in the comment threads. The reason for this should be obvious: any Christian who publicly accuses a fellow believer (or, in this case, an entire group of fellow believers) of a pattern of dishonesty may face dire spiritual consequences in the event that it was his own misunderstanding or confusion (and not a fellow believer's dishonesty) that led him to a false conclusion.

Scripture is clear on both sides of this point:

I Pet. 2:1 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander.
The person who accuses a brother of one of these evils (deceit) may in face be guilty of another (slander). Other Scriptures also apply:

James 4:11 Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge.

Gal. 5:15 But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.

II Cor. 12:20 For I fear that perhaps when I come I may find you not as I wish, and that you may find me not as you wish—that perhaps there may be quarreling, jealousy, anger, hostility, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder.

I attempted to post the parable below as a response at the Soteriology101 site and was not successful, most likely due to the length of the material. So, the comment I would have posted there is placed here for your consideration:

Friends, here is a little parable for your consideration, which may illustrate well the dynamic that is occurring on this comment thread (and many, many others across the internet, unfortunately).

Cal Venice and Amond Ian are little kids discussing their respective homes. Let's listen in . . .

Armond: I love my house, it is so great! It has a really solid foundation. You should come over and visit sometime. 
Cal: Cool. Sounds like fun! You might want to visit my house sometime, too. It is very unique and interesting.
Armond: What's so great about your house? Someone told me it isn't even a "real" house and has no foundation. Is that true??? Tell me about the foundation.
Cal: Well, that is partially true. My house does not have the kind of foundation you are used to seeing on a house, it's actually a---
Armond: Is it a foundation made of cement, and planted firmly into the ground, like my house's foundation?
Cal: No, it's not like that at all. It's actually--
Armond: Really? Is it even a house then?
Cal: Well, yes, it is actually a house, but it is much more than just a house. It's a hou--
Armond: That is the strangest thing I have ever heard. If it doesn't have a foundation, it can't be a house at all, right? LOL. 
Cal: If you say so. But my house has four bedrooms, one and a half baths, a living room, dining room, kitchen, family room, quality metal roof, plenty of windows, and lots of awesome closets. It is two stories tall and filled with all of the usual household furniture, like beds and couches and stuff. It has a great HVAC system, plumbing, electricity, and all of that. You'll be surprised when I tell you what kind of house it is.
Armond: You keep calling it a "house" when it obviously isn't one, since it clearly has no foundation. However, other than the odd lack of a foundation, that sounds just like my house! But how can a house not have a foundation? Are you trying to trick me? I'm getting very suspicious.
Cal: No, I assure you I am being completely honest with you. Let me explain further. Unlike your house, which sits permanently on one spot, my house was designed with flexibility in mind. It is able to move around and goes places where a house like yours could never even be built. It's called a--
Armond: Oh, I get it now, your house is nothing more than a two-story trailer!!!!!!! Why didn't you just say so in the first place?
Cal: Because it's not a trailer. It's-- 
Armond: Okay, let's stop playing games and just be upfront and honest about our houses. A house without a regular foundation that moves around to different places is just a trailer. Someone told me your family has been dishonestly acting like you don't live in a trailer for years. But everyone knows your family is a bunch of pretenders who can't admit that they live in a trailer. I even heard a famous architect, Willie Lame Cage, say people who live in trailers don't like to admit it. He's the smartest guy in the world, almost as smart as my dad, James. Or is it Jacob? I can't remember. In any case, you and your family are clearly disingenuous trailer dwellers. Let's fight now!
Cal: Okay, but before we start punching each other, I would like to ask you another question: out of curiosity, have you ever heard of a house boat? 
Armond: A house boat? LOL, what a stupid idea! A "house boat," if such a thing even exists, would be nothing more than a boat! I heard that somewhere, and my teacher, Lee Tin-Flowers, also read it on a website. He says a "house-boat" is just a boat--as much a "boat" as any other kind of boat! Boats are boats, and can't be houses, so there! If you say you live on a boat, then you can't possibly live in a house, and if you say you live in a house, you can't possibly live on a boat. Why aren't you getting this? I knew you were a liar from the moment I first saw you! After I get done beating you up, I'm going to start a podcast and a blog to tell the world how messed up you are. You and your family are clearly disingenuous trailer dwellers who pretend to be house-boaters!

[After this, there is a very long pause, during which Cal ponders whether he should try to explain the compatibility of "house" and "boat." They look at one another suspiciously, considering whether they should start throwing punches, then back away slowly. At last, both boys go home for dinner and then listen to some of their favorite podcasts.]

Lee Tin-Flowers: Am I wrong for questioning what the "house-boaters" say? Am I wrong for saying I see it another way? Here on the podcast, I always like to point out how I once had a part time job as a speed boat driver. I quit that job because I never could understand how boats can be houses. No one in their right mind would try to live on a speed boat, right? I try to tell these so-called "house-boat" people that they actually just live on a boat and can't possibly live in a house, and they never seem to be able to admit it, even though I quote their own favorite website, house-boats-r-us dot com, which clearly states: "A house boat is no less a boat than any other boat." So, as you can see, no matter how many times they try to tell you they live in a house, or a "house-boat" (whatever that is), they just refuse to admit they are actually nothing more than casual boat people without real houses. They also contradict themselves constantly, trying to say they actually do live in houses, which is obviously not true since houses have foundations, and they admit their so-called houses don't have foundations, which means they must actually live in trailers. None of this ever made any sense to me when I was a speed boat driver. It is all just casual boater double speak, as I explain on my website, HouseFoundations101. Go there to read the five best reasons why house-boats don't exist, and why I quit my job as a speed boat driver. Here is a quote from A.W. Tow-boat that proves my point . . .
Armond: Aha! I just knew Cal Venice was a liar, and this confirms it! I'm going to go around telling everyone how he lies! Liar, Liar Liar!!!!!

[Meanwhile, Cal Venice reads a few good books on architecture, engineering and boating, then goes to volunteer at an agency that builds houses for the homeless. Later, he goes to the mission field and gives his life for the cause.]

[Armond and his friend, Trey DeShaun Alice, more firmly convinced than ever of their views on the utter incompatibility of houses and boats, continue to slander Cal and his friends as dishonest liars. They later find themselves standing before a rather concerned Judge who solemnly calls them to account for every word they have ever spoken or written.] 

THE END.  

Hopefully the tie-ins with determinism, compatibilism, freedom of will, divine sovereignty and human responsibility are clear to all readers.

While we are on the topic of house boats and conversations that miss the point, you might enjoy this video on YouTube:

https://youtu.be/pXUcmVibTUI

One of my favorites.

May you know the blessings of godly fellowship with grace, mercy, and peace in Christ, dear friends!

The Things Children Say . . .

So I've been sitting here watching a series of YouTube videos showing a panel discussion by some leading open theists, in which they respond to their critics and attempt to explain their theology. I have to say I found their reasoning rather unimpressive. After about fifteen minutes of loopy arguments and obvious fallacies, my 10-year old son looked over at me and said, "Instead of watching 'Dude Dumb,' let's watch some 'Dude Perfect!'"

So, here is my alternative to open theism:



Feel free to read into this whatever connections and analogies you might want to make.

Sinners and the Savior - Encouragements and Exhortations

A healthy Christian is never far from the knowledge that he is a sinner. We often pass through the trials, struggles and frustrations of Romans 7. This is normal. The more closely we walk with the Lord, and the longer we live under the light of His Word, the more our sin will be exposed. However, if we are going to progress in sanctification we need to continuously apply and re-apply the principles of Romans 6 and the promises of Romans 8.


We must never allow our own sinfulness to become the focus of our faith. That is a sure path to trouble. Instead, we must focus intently on Christ as Savior - particularly in relation to these questions:

• How Christ saves
• Why Christ saves
• When Christ saves
• Where Christ saves
• Whom Christ saves
• What Christ saves us from
• What Christ saves us to
• What Christ saves us for

Focus on these things. Consider each one in detail. The questions appear simple, but the answers are gloriously complex (and totally encouraging). Explore them. Chew on them. Revel in them. Each will lead you to the Gospel as the power of God for all who believe!

Bavinck on the Limits of Theology and Philosophy

The will of God is, and from the nature of the case must be, the deepest cause of the entire world and of all the varietas and diversitas found in it. There is no more ultimate ground for this than the absconditum Dei consilium (the hidden counsel of God). The unfathomable mystery of the world compels the intellect and the heart, theology and philosophy alike to fall back upon the will of God and seek rest in it.


It frequently happens, however, that theology and philosophy are not contented with this. They then endeavor, after the manner of Plato and Hegel, to offer a rational explanation of the world. Or, while falling back upon the will of God, they make out of this will a Βυθός άγνωστος (deep unknown), as is done by Gnosticism, or a blind, irrational and unhappy will, as is done by Schopenhauer, or an unconscious and unknowable power, as is done by von Hartmann and Spencer. By his Christian faith Calvin was kept from these different forms of pantheism. It is true, Calvin upholds with the utmost energy the sovereignty of the divine will over and against all human reasoning. Predestination belongs to the divinae sapientiae adyta (shrine of the divine wisdom) which man may not enter and in regard to which his curiosity must remain unsatisfied; for they form a labyrinth from which no one can find the exit. Man may not even investigate with impunity the things God meant to keep secret. God wants us to adore, not to comprehend, the majesty of His wisdom.

Excerpted from Herman Bavinck's article, "Calvin and Common Grace"
Source: The Princeton Theological Review, Vol. 7, No. 3 (1909), p. 450, the parenthetical translations of Latin and Greek terms are mine.

Damned Theologians

I'm not trying to be "cute" or shocking here. The post title is based on the words of a great Reformer:

"A theologian is born by living, nay dying and being damned, not by thinking, reading, or speculating."

~Martin Luther

I saw this quoted in an article about "The Theology of the Cross" in the ever popular IVP New Dictionary of Theology (which isn't "new" anymore). According to the author of the article, Luther's point here is not merely that theology ought to be practical. Rather, this is a reflection of Luther's radical cross-centeredness. Certainly Luther isn't saying a theologian doesn't read, study and think deeply. But the difference between a godly theologian and a mere worldly philosopher is the starting point. Christian theologians find their experiential foundation at the foot of the cross. Like the pilgrim in Bunyan's allegory, they arrive there loaded down with an overwhelming burden and fully aware of their desperate plight. 


Right thinking about God - the goal of every true theologian - depends on the cross. Although the majestic shout of creation reveals some truth to us, it doesn't tell us enough. "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made . . ." (Rom. 1:20). The created world tells us there is a great God, but it doesn't say we are sinners. It doesn't tell us how bad our sin is. It doesn't say that we are out of fellowship with this God, or that we are bent against Him in our very nature. It doesn't say He has become a man and died in our place. It doesn't tell us He has entered into our suffering and felt our temptations. Only the cross tells us those things. 


An encounter with the cross produces damned theologians. Until a man has faced himself at the cross, he cannot know his standing (or his falling!) in relation to God. Although we find forgiveness, grace and sanctification in Christ, the experience of being damned leaves a permanent mark. Although we are raised with Christ, we are still (apart from grace) worthy of condemnation. Saints are saved sinners.

Damned theologians realize they aren't worthy of the Truth they apprehend.

Damned theologians don't see their sins as "little mistakes," but as evidence of the inner depravity from which they have been miraculously saved.

Damned theologians recognize they are error prone, and rely on divine revelation more than their own thinking.

Damned theologians aren't proud of their knowledge, but grateful for every bit of Truth that has been revealed to them.

Damned theologians view suffering as part of the privilege of identifying with Christ, not an evidence of failure or unbelief.

Damned theologians don't just pursue the Truth, they rejoice in it because their life depends on it.

Damned theologians don't just study God, they know Him and worship Him.

Damned theologians don't answer the taunts of Satan with cries of their own innocence - they point to the cross and cry, "Redeemed! Redeemed! My soul is redeemed by His blood!"

Damned theologians find no righteousness in themselves, but depend on the righteousness of Christ alone.

At the cross we discover ourselves dead, and in the cross we see ourselves damned. Good theology can develop from this starting point, and no other. We must see our human condition in its entirety, gazing down the stretch of time and eternity to see what could have been - if Christ had not saved us - and say "but for the grace of God, there go I!" Certainly Christians aren't actually damned, but the knowledge of God's perfect justice and our pervasive depravity is our actual starting point. One cannot be saved until he knows he is lost. One cannot be a Christian theologian until he has lived and died and been damned to hell.


Romans 8:10  If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 
 2 Corinthians 1:9  Indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead. 
Colossians 3:5  Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.


Are you dead yet? _____________________________________________________________________ 
NOTES: I've run across other versions of this quote. Although I can't say which is most accurate, the point seems to be clear. Here are some alternate translations:

"Not understanding, reading, or speculation, but living—nay, dying and being damned—make a theologian."

“One becomes a theologian not by reading, studying, learning but by living and dying and being damned!”

“By living, no—more —by dying and being damned to hell does a man become a theologian, not by knowing, reading, or speculation."

“For one becomes a theologian by living, by dying, by being damned: not by mere intellectualizing, reading, and speculating.”

“By living, even by dying and being damned one becomes a theologian, not by intellectual understanding, reading and speculating”

“By living – no, much more still by dying and being damned to hell – doth a man become a theologian, not by knowing, reading or speculation”

And for my scholarly friends, here it is in Latin . . .

“Vivendo, immomoriendo etdamnando fit theologus, non intelligendo, legendo aut speculando.”

The Servant Who Suffered to Save Sinners - Introduction

It's always interesting to speak abstractly and philosophically about Calvinism and theology. That's something I've done extensively of late. But I sense a need to get my focus back on the simple truth of the Gospel through a study of the Word in a more devotional/exegetical manner.

Even the best theological systems and philosophies cannot feed the soul. For that purpose, God has given us His Living Word and His Precious Spirit. This is why some of God's dear children can be theologically off the mark, but are still full of the life and love of God. Strange as it may seem, some who are steeped in egregious philosophical errors that are obviously unbiblical have nonetheless fed on the Word and received abundant grace from it. They walk in the Spirit, and love God with all their hearts. His Word is powerful and often works secretly within us, even when we miss the point (philosophically speaking). This is also why some of those who seem to be most theologically right can be dry wells, with little love or joy to offer. They've abandoned their pure devotion to the Word and run after every obscure question for which their heart craves an answer. It's the idolatry of philosophy, which can even exist in theologically grounded philosophy. It's easy to treat the Bible like an encyclopedia for reference and information gathering. Yet God gave His Word to us as an endless fountain of water, and daily bread to our souls - rich, refreshing, nutritious, and life-sustaining. It's not that deeper theological pondering is bad (it's not), but it has to be kept in balance. We don't want to have our "head in the clouds" (at least not all the time).

With that in mind, this post begins a new series called "The Servant Who Suffered to Save Sinners." Several years ago (at a time when, by God's grace, I began to grieve over a perceived hardening of my heart), I sensed a stirring from the Lord to pursue a study of Christ's work on the cross. It was as if He said, "Look to the cross, for in seeing My brokenness you will be broken again." For weeks thereafter, I meditated upon the words of Isaiah 53. The fruit of those meditations continues to feed Gospel truth to my soul to this day. Now, dear friend, I pray that these studies will feed your soul as we look to the cross together.

Isaiah 53 is a remarkable passage of Scripture for many reasons. Here are a few of them.

1. It was written more than 700 years prior to the birth of Christ, and yet it predicts His sufferings with undeniable accuracy.

2. It serves as a key link between the Old and New Testaments, being one of the clearest Old Testament passages which unambiguously states doctrines related to the Gospel. Thus, it demonstrates the unity of the Bible's message.

3. It sets forth divine sovereignty and human responsibility; describes key facets of the incarnation; affirms the total depravity and universal guilt of mankind; offers some explanation of human suffering; shows the humility, obedience and sinless innocence of Christ; reveals Christ's ministry as a sin-bearing sacrifice; implies substitutionary atonement; promises lost sinners a way of reconciliation with God; predicts Christ's suffering, death, burial, resurrection and glorification; and it unveils the justification of sinners through faith in God's Own righteousness.

We'll explore these things more deeply as we examine the text theme by theme, concept by concept, line by line, phrase by phrase, and word by word. Join me as we fix our gaze lovingly on the Lord Jesus Christ . . .

THE SERVANT WHO SUFFERED TO SAVE SINNERS