FBFI Annual Fellowship, Tuesday, June 16- A Liveblog Report
Reported by Matt Olmstead
Upon picking up my registration materials: a plastic bag full of conference “stuff” and my pin-type name tag (I prefer lanyards), I began to look around at the crowd. I noticed the usual attire— that being men in coats and ties…
After finding out that the only hotspot on campus is far away from the auditorium, I sat down and examined the contents of the plastic bag. It included: (1) a conference booklet, nicely spiral bound; (2) The May/June copy of Frontline magazine titled “Separatist, Baptist Fundamentalism;” and (3) various advertising materials.
The booklet is professionally printed and formatted well. The notes pages for the sessions and workshops are basic, with the name of the speaker and lines only. The resolutions are printed in the booklet. They are titled as follows:
- Regarding the Definition of the Gospel
- Regarding Fundamentalism and Culture
- Regarding Limited Participation
- Regarding Separatist Baptist Fundamentalism
- Regarding Personal Holiness
I’m sure the content of the resolutions will be posted individually later.
As I was typing in the last few moments the board members descended from their meeting on their way to dinner.
––––—
Reported by Greg Linscott
Two preaching sessions were scheduled for this evening. However, itinerant evangelist Will Galkin was unable to be here due to the waning health of his father-in-law, Dr. Ralph Roland. Prayer is requested for the family as this servant of the Lord nears death. Dr. Chuck Phelps, recently of Maranatha Baptist Bible College, was the sole speaker for the evening.
Notable service preliminaries included exchanging “rocks” (a fist bump) rather than the typical Fundamentalist “howdy time” handshakes. The music presented was prepared well, with the song selections, theatrical song-leading, and the rousing style of delivery typical of what one would expect of a Fundamentalist conference. The corresponding children’s program for the week is themed “When I Grow Up, I Want To Be A Fundamentalist.”
Phelps’ message was entitled “Living In The Grip of the Glorious Gospel.” The primary text referenced was John 6. In his introduction, Chuck listed several of what he termed growing “potholes” in the road traveled by today’s fundamentalists. Included were…
- Easy Believism- Pencostal-influenced Arminianism was raised as a significant factor here, as were the pragmatic methods of Billy Graham. This methodology resulted in “syncretism over separatism” and produced the “worldly evangelicals.”
- Lordship Salvation- This was painted as an (over)reaction to Easy Believism. Phelps provided this quote from John MacArthur’s Hard to Believe:
“Don’t believe anyone who says it’s easy to become a Christian. Salvation for sinners cost God His own Son; it cost God’s Son His life, and it’ll cost you the same thing (note: Phelps’ emphasis). Salvation isn’t gained by reciting mere words. Saving faith transforms the heart, and that in turn transforms behavior. Faith’s fruit is seen in actions, not intentions. There’s no room for passive spectators: words without actions are empty and futile. Remember that what John saw in his vision of judgment was a Book of Life, not a book of Words or Book of Intellectual Musings. The life we live, not the words we speak, reveals whether our faith is authentic.” Phelps reminded his Christian listeners that their only commission was to tell the lost to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. - The final pothole cited by Chuck was NeoCalvinism. A article recently published in Time listing NeoCalvinism was cited by the speaker, as was an awareness that raising the issue was already offending some in the audience. The fact that Time had commented on the article, however, meant “We have to talk about it in 2009.”
This led into Phelps’ main points, which he took from John 6.
- Salvation is a Gift- giving was demonstrated to be emphasized throughout the chapter (such as vs. 27).
- Salvation Received By Faith- there is no ordo salutis in John 6, only that one must believe. An anecdote of “Jesus died for all mankind” being understood by a neighbor as “Jesus died for Old Man Kleine” was shared.
- Salvation Is Eternally Secure
- Substitutionary Work of the Savior.
The last two points were not elaborated on as much (likely due to time). The content was an articulation of the position many would typically associate with the membership of the FBF. Noticeably absent in this message was any mention of the significance of repentance in salvation.
The message ended with an observation that the problem we face is not one of dissection (implied were Calvinists are guilty of over analysis and lack of action) but of distribution. Phelps confessed that over the last two years while serving at MBBC, he had only personally led one soul to Christ. He subsequently invited people to stand if they had led someone personally that week… the last two weeks, month, and so on. An invitation was extended targeted to those who were convicted of their own gospel ineffectiveness in leading souls personally to Christ.
FBFI President John Vaughn expressed appreciation for the message and testified of his own sense of conviction from it. In his concluding remarks, he noted that though the FBFI board had not resolved all of the business before them, the board had agreed to the following statement:
“We are together with the gospel only with those who are separated unto the gospel.”
- 14 views
Reported by JP Hansen
It seemed evident from the outset of this year’s national meeting that the FBFI leadership is keenly aware of the blogging presence of SI and others blogs. FBFI president John Vaughn, offering a warm welcome to all, also welcomed bloggers at this year’s meeting, and publicly wished that others who were attending only vicariously could be present. He laid special emphasis upon the FBFI mission to seek personal revival and support one another in the uncompromising proclamation of the gospel. It also became clearer as the initial meeting unfolded that a key purpose of this year’s conference was to tackle the simmering Calvinism issue more directly. With evangelist Will Galkin, one of the two scheduled opening speakers, unable to preach due to needing to be with his ailing father, it fell upon Dr. Chuck Phelps to deliver the opening night’s only message.
Phelps’ opening remarks were based on Philippians 1, in which he affirmed the conference theme, “The Glorious Gospel of Christ.” He stated that “new allegiances are forming making it important to consider again the pertinent facts of the gospel.” He challenged all to consider “if we like Paul were gripped by the glory of the gospel, even analyzing our present circumstances in the light of the gospel.”
Then the introduction became more pointed: Phelps identified what he called “potholes” in the gospel road: “easy-believism,” which he credited to Arminian doctrine and “worldly evangelicalism;” and Lordship salvation, which he viewed as an attempt to counterbalance the former. Demonstrating that the pendulum had swung too far with this attempt, Phelps read a controversial portion from the 2003 edition of John MacArthur’s Hard to Believe, in which MacArthur asserts, “Don’t believe anyone who says it’s easy to become a Christian…salvation is the fruit of actions, not of intentions.” Phelps likened that statement to some that have come out of the Vatican.
Phelps acknowledged the paradox that salvation is simple, yet complex. Then noting the generally-acknowledged rise of “the New Calvinism,” he posed some pointed questions: Are you comfortable with Particular redemption/limited atonement? Or the Westminster Confession of Faith statement that supports predestination to damnation? Or Reformer Beza’s assertion that the unsaved in hell are there for the glory of God? In contrast, he recounted the story of how Ford Porter came to write the tract “God’s Simple Plan of Salvation,”—simply a small-town pastor’s attempt to evangelize the 1800 homes in his community—by reading some of the more plaintive exhortations to salvation found in it.
He then directed us to Christ’s “Bread of Life” discourse in John 6, from which the sermon’s points were drawn. He asserted that this was, in fact, the gospel that Jesus preached, identifiable with several basic conclusions:
1. SALVATION IS THE GIFT OF GOD, vv. 27, 33
2. SALVATION IS BY FAITH, vv. 28, 29, 35, 40, 47
3. SALVATION IS FREELY OFFERED TO ALL, vv. 37, 51
4. SALVATION IS THE SOVEREIGN WORK OF GOD, vv. 37, 39, 44
5. SALVATION IS ETERNALLY SECURE, vv. 39, 44, 51
6. SALVATION IS THE SUBSTITUTIONARY WORK OF THE SAVIOR
Liberally sprinkled with illustrations, Phelps sought to get across the point that the salvation presented by Christ was simple, yet rich and multi-layered. He slowed for emphasis at one point by saying, “No offense, but there is no ordo salutis in John 6; but there is ‘believe.’”
With emotion surfacing throughout the message, Phelps became “confessional” in his conclusion, admitting to the “barrenness of busy-ness” over the last two years as a Bible college president, with the result that he had led only one soul to Christ over that time. He then invited people to stand who had a testimony of leading someone to Christ over the last week, month, two months, six months, or past year, not counting those who had responded in services. Many stood, while others remained seated. While this was no doubt uncomfortable for many, we were reminded that this was a small preview of the account we all must give at the Bema of Christ. Many responded in the invitation to devote themselves more passionately to the gospel.
It seemed evident from the outset of this year’s national meeting that the FBFI leadership is keenly aware of the blogging presence of SI and others blogs. FBFI president John Vaughn, offering a warm welcome to all, also welcomed bloggers at this year’s meeting, and publicly wished that others who were attending only vicariously could be present. He laid special emphasis upon the FBFI mission to seek personal revival and support one another in the uncompromising proclamation of the gospel. It also became clearer as the initial meeting unfolded that a key purpose of this year’s conference was to tackle the simmering Calvinism issue more directly. With evangelist Will Galkin, one of the two scheduled opening speakers, unable to preach due to needing to be with his ailing father, it fell upon Dr. Chuck Phelps to deliver the opening night’s only message.
Phelps’ opening remarks were based on Philippians 1, in which he affirmed the conference theme, “The Glorious Gospel of Christ.” He stated that “new allegiances are forming making it important to consider again the pertinent facts of the gospel.” He challenged all to consider “if we like Paul were gripped by the glory of the gospel, even analyzing our present circumstances in the light of the gospel.”
Then the introduction became more pointed: Phelps identified what he called “potholes” in the gospel road: “easy-believism,” which he credited to Arminian doctrine and “worldly evangelicalism;” and Lordship salvation, which he viewed as an attempt to counterbalance the former. Demonstrating that the pendulum had swung too far with this attempt, Phelps read a controversial portion from the 2003 edition of John MacArthur’s Hard to Believe, in which MacArthur asserts, “Don’t believe anyone who says it’s easy to become a Christian…salvation is the fruit of actions, not of intentions.” Phelps likened that statement to some that have come out of the Vatican.
Phelps acknowledged the paradox that salvation is simple, yet complex. Then noting the generally-acknowledged rise of “the New Calvinism,” he posed some pointed questions: Are you comfortable with Particular redemption/limited atonement? Or the Westminster Confession of Faith statement that supports predestination to damnation? Or Reformer Beza’s assertion that the unsaved in hell are there for the glory of God? In contrast, he recounted the story of how Ford Porter came to write the tract “God’s Simple Plan of Salvation,”—simply a small-town pastor’s attempt to evangelize the 1800 homes in his community—by reading some of the more plaintive exhortations to salvation found in it.
He then directed us to Christ’s “Bread of Life” discourse in John 6, from which the sermon’s points were drawn. He asserted that this was, in fact, the gospel that Jesus preached, identifiable with several basic conclusions:
1. SALVATION IS THE GIFT OF GOD, vv. 27, 33
2. SALVATION IS BY FAITH, vv. 28, 29, 35, 40, 47
3. SALVATION IS FREELY OFFERED TO ALL, vv. 37, 51
4. SALVATION IS THE SOVEREIGN WORK OF GOD, vv. 37, 39, 44
5. SALVATION IS ETERNALLY SECURE, vv. 39, 44, 51
6. SALVATION IS THE SUBSTITUTIONARY WORK OF THE SAVIOR
Liberally sprinkled with illustrations, Phelps sought to get across the point that the salvation presented by Christ was simple, yet rich and multi-layered. He slowed for emphasis at one point by saying, “No offense, but there is no ordo salutis in John 6; but there is ‘believe.’”
With emotion surfacing throughout the message, Phelps became “confessional” in his conclusion, admitting to the “barrenness of busy-ness” over the last two years as a Bible college president, with the result that he had led only one soul to Christ over that time. He then invited people to stand who had a testimony of leading someone to Christ over the last week, month, two months, six months, or past year, not counting those who had responded in services. Many stood, while others remained seated. While this was no doubt uncomfortable for many, we were reminded that this was a small preview of the account we all must give at the Bema of Christ. Many responded in the invitation to devote themselves more passionately to the gospel.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Thanks guys. I look forward to continue reading.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
Thanks, Greg, Matt & Joe!
Maybe somebody can help me out here, though. I’ve seen a few references to “New Calvinism” lately but didn’t have time to explore the topic. So, perhaps someone can catch me up on what exactly is “new” on that front?
Maybe somebody can help me out here, though. I’ve seen a few references to “New Calvinism” lately but didn’t have time to explore the topic. So, perhaps someone can catch me up on what exactly is “new” on that front?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The article Phelps referenced is here:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1884779_1884…
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1884779_1884…
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
What kind of attendance would you say is at this years meeting?
BTW Thanks for keeping us that are not able to attend updated on the meeting!!
BTW Thanks for keeping us that are not able to attend updated on the meeting!!
JimD
[Greg Linscott]
The message ended with an observation that the problem we face is not one of dissection (implied were Calvinists are guilty of over analysis and lack of action) but of distribution. Phelps confessed that over the last two years while serving at MBBC, he had only personally led one soul to Christ. He subsequently invited people to stand if they had led someone personally that week… the last two weeks, month, and so on. An invitation was extended targeted to those who were convicted of their own gospel ineffectiveness in leading souls personally to Christ.
[Greg Linscott]I would appreciate some clarification on the close of the message. From what I can piece together from these posts is that he is implying that the measure of evangelistic faithfulness is whether you have lead someone to the Lord recently. Is that accurate?
With emotion surfacing throughout the message, Phelps became “confessional” in his conclusion, admitting to the “barrenness of busy-ness” over the last two years as a Bible college president, with the result that he had led only one soul to Christ over that time. He then invited people to stand who had a testimony of leading someone to Christ over the last week, month, two months, six months, or past year, not counting those who had responded in services. Many stood, while others remained seated. While this was no doubt uncomfortable for many, we were reminded that this was a small preview of the account we all must give at the Bema of Christ. Many responded in the invitation to devote themselves more passionately to the gospel.
The corresponding children’s program for the week is themed “When I Grow Up, I Want To Be A Fundamentalist.”
Is this the actual theme for the program or is it a jest? A friend in presence states that it was a joke made by Shrock.
Is this the actual theme for the program or is it a jest? A friend in presence states that it was a joke made by Shrock.
I posted the following on a blog titled “BIBLICIST CHRISTIAN TRUTH” on April 12, 2006. http://biblicistchristian.blogspot.com/
“What is Neo Calvinism?
It is an emerging emphasis on 5 point Calvinism that is highly argumentative, has a tendency to bash Dispensationalism, and has a temperament of pseudo intellectualism. Their time and efforts have little place for evangelism much to say about those who do.
Some will deny that there is such a thing. However, it is my impression that not only does it exist, but it is perpetuated by some in Pastoral ministry who endeavor to make this the great “sine qua non” of their ministry. Like the “old light” European Calvinism of the Puritans of New England, it is critical of many evangelistic efforts as having undesirable methodology and presenting an easy believism no Lordship Gospel. There is often some truth to criticism. There is some truth to their criticism. However, there is often the presentation of those they criticize with exaggeration and misstatement of facts.
To the Neo Calvinist all scripture can be exegeted to fit into the wonderful world of the “5 points box.” To them, 1Tim. 2:4 does not mean “all men” but rather “all kinds of men.” Many other passages that do not quite fit into the 5 point box are given this insightful exegetical methodology. Actually, this is the same kind of methodology that is used by liberals to find monogamous homosexual relationships as approved in scripture. Approach the passage with a truth that you perceive as being true and find a way of explaining the passage according to that truth.
Neo Calvinism is not just Calvinism. Many historians do not find limited or particular atonement as that which Calvin advocated. Some would call it Hyper Calvinism because of that. But it is not just 5 point (or hyper) Calvinism. It is a mood or spirit that aggressively advocates the view against even a moderate Calvinism. American Evangelicalism (Gospel believers) have included many who would call themselves “moderate Calvinists.” They believe that Calvin said much that was right about the Sovereignty of God. They also would agree with regard to the depravity of man. However, they declared the intent and sufficiency of Christ to die for the sins of all men. However, it was only applied to all who believed and were placed into Christ. They also saw in scripture a human accountability that made men accountable for behavior and choices. They were real choices. They realized that there were some inconsistent philosophical collisions in their position. However, they saw this as consistent with what God had revealed. Many good Bible teachers and Theologians of the past and of the present were and are comfortable with that presentation of Scriptural truth. The Neo Calvinist often seeks to present the moderate Calvinist as not understanding Calvinism and simply a Pelagian heretic or a universalist. They view them as philosophically ignorant because all that the moderate Calvinist states cannot be squeezed into the 5 point box.
Neo Calvinism is also a hazard to balanced Christian living and evangelism. They will show up anywhere with their “five shooters” ready for the quick draw debate. They have no time for the evangelism effort.
Neo Calvinism is not just 5 point Calvinism. It is 5 point Calvinism with an attitude! It harks back to the spirit of the last effort for a theocratic Christian government on this earth by New England Puritans. Most do not advocate a theocracy, but their spirit reflects the old lights Calvinism of those who did.
America needs another great awakening. Neo Calvinism presents a mood and spirit moving in the opposite direction.”
I appreciate the blogging from the FBFI meeting. The message by Chuck Phelps appears to be on the mark.
“What is Neo Calvinism?
It is an emerging emphasis on 5 point Calvinism that is highly argumentative, has a tendency to bash Dispensationalism, and has a temperament of pseudo intellectualism. Their time and efforts have little place for evangelism much to say about those who do.
Some will deny that there is such a thing. However, it is my impression that not only does it exist, but it is perpetuated by some in Pastoral ministry who endeavor to make this the great “sine qua non” of their ministry. Like the “old light” European Calvinism of the Puritans of New England, it is critical of many evangelistic efforts as having undesirable methodology and presenting an easy believism no Lordship Gospel. There is often some truth to criticism. There is some truth to their criticism. However, there is often the presentation of those they criticize with exaggeration and misstatement of facts.
To the Neo Calvinist all scripture can be exegeted to fit into the wonderful world of the “5 points box.” To them, 1Tim. 2:4 does not mean “all men” but rather “all kinds of men.” Many other passages that do not quite fit into the 5 point box are given this insightful exegetical methodology. Actually, this is the same kind of methodology that is used by liberals to find monogamous homosexual relationships as approved in scripture. Approach the passage with a truth that you perceive as being true and find a way of explaining the passage according to that truth.
Neo Calvinism is not just Calvinism. Many historians do not find limited or particular atonement as that which Calvin advocated. Some would call it Hyper Calvinism because of that. But it is not just 5 point (or hyper) Calvinism. It is a mood or spirit that aggressively advocates the view against even a moderate Calvinism. American Evangelicalism (Gospel believers) have included many who would call themselves “moderate Calvinists.” They believe that Calvin said much that was right about the Sovereignty of God. They also would agree with regard to the depravity of man. However, they declared the intent and sufficiency of Christ to die for the sins of all men. However, it was only applied to all who believed and were placed into Christ. They also saw in scripture a human accountability that made men accountable for behavior and choices. They were real choices. They realized that there were some inconsistent philosophical collisions in their position. However, they saw this as consistent with what God had revealed. Many good Bible teachers and Theologians of the past and of the present were and are comfortable with that presentation of Scriptural truth. The Neo Calvinist often seeks to present the moderate Calvinist as not understanding Calvinism and simply a Pelagian heretic or a universalist. They view them as philosophically ignorant because all that the moderate Calvinist states cannot be squeezed into the 5 point box.
Neo Calvinism is also a hazard to balanced Christian living and evangelism. They will show up anywhere with their “five shooters” ready for the quick draw debate. They have no time for the evangelism effort.
Neo Calvinism is not just 5 point Calvinism. It is 5 point Calvinism with an attitude! It harks back to the spirit of the last effort for a theocratic Christian government on this earth by New England Puritans. Most do not advocate a theocracy, but their spirit reflects the old lights Calvinism of those who did.
America needs another great awakening. Neo Calvinism presents a mood and spirit moving in the opposite direction.”
I appreciate the blogging from the FBFI meeting. The message by Chuck Phelps appears to be on the mark.
From what I can piece together from these posts is that he is implying that the measure of evangelistic faithfulness is whether you have lead someone to the Lord recently. Is that accurate?Yes.
Is this the actual theme for the program or is it a jest? A friend in presence states that it was a joke made by Shrock.It is no joke- the theme was announced and promoted in Bethel’s services preceding the conference.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
You wrote: “Noticeably absent in this message was any mention of the significance of repentance in salvation.”
Where is repentance mentioned in John 6? (For that matter, where is it mentioned at all in the Gospel of John?) If Dr. Phelps’ sermon was drawn from that text, where do you think he should have included it?
I do believe in the importance of repentance, and I’m not at all saying that it should be devalued a la Hyles and Hutson. But this seems like a strange critique of a sermon from someone like you who strongly promotes expository preaching. Are you not implying that some truths should be brought into passages where they are not written?
Where is repentance mentioned in John 6? (For that matter, where is it mentioned at all in the Gospel of John?) If Dr. Phelps’ sermon was drawn from that text, where do you think he should have included it?
I do believe in the importance of repentance, and I’m not at all saying that it should be devalued a la Hyles and Hutson. But this seems like a strange critique of a sermon from someone like you who strongly promotes expository preaching. Are you not implying that some truths should be brought into passages where they are not written?
John Vaughn told me yesterday that there were around 450 registered. The downstairs of the auditorium, the capacity of which I do not know, was about 90% full.
Father of three, husband of one, servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. I blog at mattolmstead.com.
[wdlowry] I would appreciate some clarification on the close of the message. From what I can piece together from these posts is that he is implying that the measure of evangelistic faithfulness is whether you have lead someone to the Lord recently. Is that accurate?I would concur with Greg. Yes, that is the implication I came away with last night.
Father of three, husband of one, servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. I blog at mattolmstead.com.
Robert,
Not much time to comment now, but while the word “repentance” may not be listed in your concordance, there is certainly elements of the response of repentance (or lack of it) included in John 6 and elsewhere in the Gospel. Jesus calls for men to follow, and yet at the conclusion of the chapter, many leave and follow him no more- unrepentant hearts manifest by their action.
As far as inserting things not in the text, “effectiveness” of having “closed the deal” certainly isn’t found in John 6. In fact, John 6, as noted earlier, closes with a mass departure from Jesus.
Well, on to Bauder’s session.
Not much time to comment now, but while the word “repentance” may not be listed in your concordance, there is certainly elements of the response of repentance (or lack of it) included in John 6 and elsewhere in the Gospel. Jesus calls for men to follow, and yet at the conclusion of the chapter, many leave and follow him no more- unrepentant hearts manifest by their action.
As far as inserting things not in the text, “effectiveness” of having “closed the deal” certainly isn’t found in John 6. In fact, John 6, as noted earlier, closes with a mass departure from Jesus.
Well, on to Bauder’s session.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Nikku] The corresponding children’s program for the week is themed “When I Grow Up, I Want To Be A Fundamentalist.”I was hoping it was a joke…
Is this the actual theme for the program or is it a jest? A friend in presence states that it was a joke made by Shrock.
So what does he do with the ministry of Isaiah or Jeremiah? Neither of them led many to the Lord. Jesus himself only finished w/ 11 converts.From what I can piece together from these posts is that he is implying that the measure of evangelistic faithfulness is whether you have lead someone to the Lord recently. Is that accurate?Yes.
Are they going to be releasing MP3’s of the messages? I’d like to get them, if they do.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Regarding Chuck’s questions: “Are you comfortable with Particular redemption/limited atonement? Or the Westminster Confession of Faith statement that supports predestination to damnation? Or Reformer Beza’s assertion that the unsaved in hell are there for the glory of God?”
What if an independent fundamentalist Baptist pastor answers those questions with a “Yes”? Is Chuck implying that there will be no evangelism by said pastor? Is he implying that he’s an enemy…a wolf in sheep’s clothing…? Frankly, I don’t know anyone who would affirm those three ideas—at least not in those ways. I’m almost getting the impression that Chuck’s bordering on the errors of D. Sweatt, but perhaps with a little more polish…maybe a little less abrasiveness? Incidentally, I don’t believe that a lack of evangelism in our churches is due to Calvinistic influence. I was on staff at a very large (by FBFI standards) IFB church that drove hard the duty of every Christian to evangelize, go soulwinning, knock on doors, etc. Yet at officially designated times for such endeavors, the non-staff participants (ALL staff HAD to attend) was a very small percentage of the Sunday morning crowd. My point is that the lack of evangelistic effort is a CHRISTIAN problem—relatively few are engaged regardless of their theology (if they even know what it is).
I would also question the idea that “there is no ordo salutis in John 6.” Doesn’t v. 37 state, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” Seems to be a clear giving of the Father before a coming to the Son.
And, frankly, I don’t really see what’s wrong with the quote from MacArthur. Sounds like he’s echoing some of the emphases in James and 1 John.
So maybe Chuck & the attendees would’ve been better served had he really addressed the stated topic, “Living in the Grip of the Glorious Gospel.” Such a message could easily have been developed that would leave the Calvinists, Arminians, Calminians, and “biblicists” motivated to love the Lord their God with all their heart, soul, mind, & strength and their neighbor—who is outside of Christ—as themselves.
What if an independent fundamentalist Baptist pastor answers those questions with a “Yes”? Is Chuck implying that there will be no evangelism by said pastor? Is he implying that he’s an enemy…a wolf in sheep’s clothing…? Frankly, I don’t know anyone who would affirm those three ideas—at least not in those ways. I’m almost getting the impression that Chuck’s bordering on the errors of D. Sweatt, but perhaps with a little more polish…maybe a little less abrasiveness? Incidentally, I don’t believe that a lack of evangelism in our churches is due to Calvinistic influence. I was on staff at a very large (by FBFI standards) IFB church that drove hard the duty of every Christian to evangelize, go soulwinning, knock on doors, etc. Yet at officially designated times for such endeavors, the non-staff participants (ALL staff HAD to attend) was a very small percentage of the Sunday morning crowd. My point is that the lack of evangelistic effort is a CHRISTIAN problem—relatively few are engaged regardless of their theology (if they even know what it is).
I would also question the idea that “there is no ordo salutis in John 6.” Doesn’t v. 37 state, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” Seems to be a clear giving of the Father before a coming to the Son.
And, frankly, I don’t really see what’s wrong with the quote from MacArthur. Sounds like he’s echoing some of the emphases in James and 1 John.
So maybe Chuck & the attendees would’ve been better served had he really addressed the stated topic, “Living in the Grip of the Glorious Gospel.” Such a message could easily have been developed that would leave the Calvinists, Arminians, Calminians, and “biblicists” motivated to love the Lord their God with all their heart, soul, mind, & strength and their neighbor—who is outside of Christ—as themselves.
Discussion