Monthly Archives: July 2013

Calvinism, Arminianism & Hyper-Calvinism

Posted on by
Reply

tom-ascolTom Ascol, at the Founders blog writes:

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones once observed that “the ignorant Arminian does not know the difference between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism.” The good news is that not all Arminians are ignorant. The bad news, however, is that such ignorance is not limited to Arminians.

Throughout evangelical history, where evangelical Calvinism as spread among Bible believing Christians, charges of hyper-Calvinism inevitably arise from those who do not know the difference. That pattern is being repeated today both within and beyond the borders of the Southern Baptist Convention. Examples of such careless accusations are not hard to find.

One of the most recent and most egregious came in the exhibit hall during the recent Southern Baptist Convention in Houston, Texas. On Monday, June 10, 2013, the day before the convention actually began, Baptist21 interviewed the president of Louisiana College about the treatment of some Calvinistic professors whose contracts were not renewed by the administration. In the course of responding to questions that he had been sent in advance, Dr. Joe Aguillard (though he probably would not identify himself as an Arminian) proved Lloyd-Jones’ point.

That display of doctrinal misunderstanding reminded me of the present need to clarify repeatedly and rigorously difference between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism. Some writers and teachers seem to confuse them so often and so willingly that one must wonder if the practice is intentional. In one sense, hyper-Calvinism, like Arminianism, is a rationalistic perversion of true Calvinism. Whereas Arminianism destroys the sovereignty of God, hyper-Calvinism destroys the responsibility of man. The irony is that both Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism start from the same, erroneous rationalistic presupposition: Man’s ability and responsibility are coextensive. That is, they must match up exactly or else it is irrational. If a man is to be held responsible for something, then he must have the ability to do it. On the other hand, if a man does not have the ability to perform it, he cannot be obligated to do it.

The Arminian looks at this premise and says, “Agreed! We know that all men are held responsible to repent and believe the gospel [which is true, according to the Bible]; therefore we must conclude that all men have the ability in themselves to repent and believe [which is false, according to the Bible].” Thus, Arminians teach that unconverted people have within themselves the spiritual ability to repent and believe.

The hyper-Calvinist takes the same premise (that man’s ability and responsibility are coextensive) and says, “Agreed! We know that, in and of themselves, all men are without spiritual ability to repent and believe [which is true, according to the Bible]; therefore we must conclude that unconverted people are not under obligation to repent and believe the gospel [which is false, according to the Bible].”

In contrast to both of these, the Calvinist looks at the premise and says, “Wrong! While it looks reasonable, it is not biblical. The Bible teaches both that fallen man is without spiritual ability and that he is obligated to repent and believe. Only by the powerful, regenerating work of the Holy Spirit is man given the ability to fulfill his duty to repent and believe.” And though this may seem unreasonable to rationalistic minds, there is no contradiction, and it is precisely the position the Bible teaches.

Why are these things so important to our discussion? Baptists have been confronted with these theological issues throughout their history. The Arminianism–Calvinism–hyper-Calvinism debate has played a decisive role in shaping our identity as Baptists, and particularly our identity as Southern Baptists. The Southern Baptist Convention has never welcomed either Arminians or hyper-Calvinists within their ranks. It has, however, from its beginning been home to evangelical Calvinists. In fact, though we cannot say there were only Calvinists among the original generation of Southern Baptists, Calvinism was certainly the overwhelming doctrinal consensus among the delegates that met in 1845 to form the convention.

Qualified Male Eldership

Posted on by
3

Ligon-DuncanDr. Ligon Duncan and being a male is only one of them. So, it’s not just a male versus female thing. It’s qualified males to hold this particular office.

So let me say that one more time. God teaches in the Bible that He gives spiritual leadership in the church to qualified male elders and thus restricts the teaching office in the church to men who meet the range of qualifications He has established in the Word. Consequently, the ministry of preaching and teaching in the church is undelegatably vested in the men who serve as the elders of the church. And that’s my thesis.

Now, with that thesis, I have two goals. My first goal is to prove from Scripture what I’ve just stated. I want to go to five New Testament passages that do not beat around the bush; they just say these things bluntly. So I want to suggest that it is not difficult to prove from Scripture what I’ve just stated since there is copious, clear, and explicit New Testament evidence for all male ruling elder, teaching eldership in the church. And I’ve given you the examples on the outline of the passages we’re going to go through. I even underlined the salient words in the verses for you to look at.

There are at least five NT passages that explicitly establish an all-male teaching office in the Church.

Let’ start with 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Look especially at verses 11 and 12.

“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”

Then in verses 13-15, Paul gives his rationale for that. Now, in the context of 1 Timothy 2, Paul is talking about the way he wants the church to behave, especially in its corporate gathering. Paul is saying that he wants an all male teaching office in the church. He wants the women to receive that teaching; he wants them to be disciples-that was revolutionary in and of itself in his own day and time – but, he wants the eldership to be the ones who are responsible for doing that teaching. That becomes clear not only from what he says earlier in chapter two, but what he’s going to go on to say in 1 Timothy 3. I’m going to come back to that passage and look at it in a little more detail, but that’s just in general a very direct assertion. “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.” That’s very clear. Continue reading →

Rome’s claim to be the infallible guide

Posted on by
Reply

GerstybabyDr. John Gerstner, in his “Primer on Roman Catholicism” writes:

Rome denies that the Bible is a self-interpreting revelation. The Bible declares itself to be self-explanatory. This is called the doctrine of the perspicuity of the Scriptures (the see-through-ableness of the Scripture). It may be understood in its own light. What is obscure in one passage will be clearer in another. What is incomplete here is completed there. What is a figure in one place is a commentary in another.

Rome has substituted for the doctrine of the perspicuity of the Scriptures the doctrine of the audacity of the Church. The Bible says that those who run may read; Rome says that those who run to her may read. The Bible says of the Bereans who searched the Scriptures that they were noble; Rome says of the Reformers who searched the Scriptures that they were heretics. The Scriptures say, “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth,” 2 Timothy 2:15. Rome says, “Study to show thyself a slave obediently accepting the word of Rome.”

“But,” the Roman Catholic church maintains, “the Word of God needs an interpreter.”

“If so,” replies the Protestant church, “the word of the pope also requires an interpreter.” If the Bible must be interpreted by the Church in order to render its meaning certain, then the interpretation of the Church will have to be interpreted by another authority to make its meaning certain, and then there will need to be an interpreter of the interpreter, and so on ad infinitum.

Now if the Romanist replies, “Where there are divergent views on the Bible teaching there must be some authoritative decision,” we will agree. Nor do we only agree. Our various Protestant church courts actually provide authoritative interpretations on most points when such decisions are necessary. But there is a difference between authoritative and infallible decisions. Compare, for example, the necessity for an authoritative interpretation of the Constitution. A Supreme Court performs that task. Yet what American believes the Supreme Court is infallible? Still, its decisions prevail as a matter of necessity. On occasions the Court may be “stacked” and its interpretations biased. In the long run, however, the people of this land believe an authoritative interpreter necessary, but never do they regard it as infallible. The Constitution remains the law of the land, not the Supreme Court. Likewise, the Bible remains the law of the Christian, not the Church.

The Roman Catholic church proclaims itself to be “the pillar and ground of the truth,” since 1 Timothy 3:15 says that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. But that verse does not say that the Roman Catholic church is the pillar and ground of the truth; in fact, the Roman Catholic church did not even exist when this verse was penned. Additionally, where did the Church get the idea that it is the pillar and ground of the truth? From the Bible! It is the Bible which is the basis of the church’s authority, not the church which is the basis for the Bible’s authority. The Bible is the pillar on which the church rests; the church is not the pillar on which the Bible rests. Incidentally, the expression that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth does not point to a pillar on which truth rests, but to a pillar on which truth was posted for public announcement in antiquity. In other words, it refers to the church as witness to the truth and not the basis of it.

The Protestant church has provided for authority so that decisions can be rendered when necessary, but has avoided the error of investing this authority with infallibility. The Protestant church, not being infallible, can err, has erred, will err. There is one error, however, which it has not made and that is the greatest of them all—the error of thinking it cannot err.