The following is the comment that Tom Ascol left for my on the Founders blog together with my reply to him and to the blog.
Stephen:
"The Gospel that needs to be recovered is the one that works; the one that results in sinners being saved. Whatever "Gospel" has resulted in populating Southern Baptist churches with a vast majority of members who show no signs of spiritual life needs to be jettisoned. Wouldn't you agree? This is not a Calvinism issue. It is a salvation issue. If you are content to preach a "Gospel" that apparently only converts at a 25-35% rate of "professions," you can have it. I want the real deal, and I believe that most serious, thinking Southern Baptist pastors do, too."
Here is my reply:
Dear Brother Tom:
"Thanks for your reply. I will attempt an answer to your questions.
First, I think we have a great example in “what works” in the life and ministry of Charles Spurgeon. Would you not agree? Spurgeon had a great deal more fear of the damage done by Hyper Calvinism than any done by the semi Calvinists among the Baptists.
Second, I don’t see how the type of evangelistic preaching that is characteristic of the “Reformed Baptist” Calvinist are going to help increase the percentage of truly regenerate members in the Baptist church. When they spend their preaching time criticizing certain kinds of gospel invitations and alter calls, I don’t see how this is going to increase converts.
Third, I would be interested in knowing how you judge the state of a church relative to how many of its members are regenerated. What is your criteria? Is it church attendance?
Fourth, I would be interested in knowing if Founders Friendly churches, or “Reformed” churches, have a higher percentage of regenerated members? Are there statistics on that also? It seems we would need both sets of data to judge, don’t you think?
Fifth, I would be interested to know why you think that the reason why Southern Baptists have so many unregenerated members is due to them not preaching the gospel. Could it be for another reason? Surely there are other possible reasons. Why do you think it is the basic gospel message that is wrong, instead of discipleship training or other factors?
Sixth, you say that this is not a Calvinism issue and then say it is a salvation issue. This seems to contradict the numerous other writings of the Founders who equate the gospel with Calvinism. Is that not true now? If Calvinism is the gospel, then Calvinism IS the issue, is it not?
Seventh, you say that you believe that “most serious, thinking Southern Baptist pastors” also believe that the reason for the low percentage of regenerate church membership is due to the fact that the basic gospel has not been preached. Where did you get those statistics?
Finally, I wished you had also answered my other questions. I can only assume why you did not choose to answer those questions.
And also, it seems to me that Jesus taught us in the parable of the sower and the seed to expect a low percentage to receive the word with an honest heart and to real salvation."
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Stephen M. Garrett
5 comments:
Brother,
I fully recognize you were trying to pick a fight with Dr. Ascol, but do you not see that your multi-pointed response really had nothing to do with what he was talking about.
I'm not Ascol, but I'd be willing to respond to your points...but please understand you are picking fights with an imaginary foe when making the points you are making.
JG
JG,
I was not picking a fight with Tom. What did I say to make you think that?
I was responding to what Tom wrote. If anyone is picking a fight it seems it is brethren who are promoting the "Reformist" agenda and who charge Southern Baptists with not preaching the gospel. It seems that Tom should have known that many Southern Baptists would see his comments as an attack, would they not?
In Christ,
Stephen
Dear Stephen,
I am obviously not Dr. Ascol. I am not writing to defend his comments so much as I am writing because you r points seem to have a few problems.
Your first point is wrong. Spurgeon saw Hyper Calvinist as well as inconsistent theological views such as semi Calvinism an equal threat. Semi Calvinism would be better termed inconsistent arminianism because the view has more in common with arminianism than with Calvinism. It simply does not take some points about its won theology very serious.
Now I shall consider your second point. The Calvinist doctrine of concurrence makes more sense out of the necessity and actuality of perseverance of the saints. (Also the Calvinist doctrine of the atonement make more sense out of this.) This is something that semi-Arminianism cannot deliver. Full blown Arminians do not have to worry about that due to the fact that they take their doctrine of libertarian free will much more consistently than do the Southern Baptist non-Calvinist.
Now I will take on your third point. Attendance is one good place to start. This is especially true do to the fact that the scripture tells us not to forsake meeting together. Thus we should worry about the spiritual health of those disobeying scripture on a regular basis.
Fourth point: I do not know of any official statistics. However becoming a member at a reformed baptist church is very different from becoming a member in a typical Baptist church. Moreover in my experience the reformed baptist churches require members to actually attend. This is unheard of in most non-calvinist baptist churches.
Fifth point: The thing that is gotten wrong often times is an easy believeism message. That is, there is no necessity of fruits. It very well may be other issues also. However, fundamentally we have watered the Gospel down so much that we are missing basic Lordship issues. Our theology of Church and our Gospel ought to be related.
Now I will deal with your sixth point. Calvinism and the Gospel are not Synonyms. However Calvinist theology provides more clarity to the Gospel. Also, Calvinism makes the Gospel more consistent. For instance, the belief in an absolute sovereign libertarian free will is incompatible with a theology of eternal security. That is why we have a denomination of Baptist called the Free Will baptist. They get it and I thank them for their consistency.
I have nothing to say about the seventh point because I did not write the comment.
To SS & SG
No sir, I am not wrong on Spurgeon. He had far more criticism of Hyper Calvinists than of semi Calvinists like D.L. Moody. In fact, I do not think that Spurgeon ever invited any Hyper Calvinist to preach in the Tabernacle. Also, I do not recall Spurgeon being critical of “evangelistic appeals” of any kind, unless it would be against the extreme Pelagian way. But, I do recall numerous sermons where he attacked those who would not give an invitation. I am sure that my friend Bob Ross, an expert on Spurgeon (more than I am) who could help set the record straight for you on this point, if you like.
On your second point, I will say that the preaching of limited atonement is not necessary to bring one to faith in Christ. I agree that it is proper to teach people correctly about “free will” but I don’t see how this should be a “hobby horse” and presented in such a way as to hinder sinners from being called to decision.
On your next point, I will simply say that non-attendance in itself is not a sign of one not being born again. How much church attendance? But, I also worry about the spiritual health of those who lose evangelistic zeal.
As far as excluding members for non-attendance, I will say that the “Primitive Baptists” practice this frequently. If many in the Southern Baptists go to one extreme in not disciplining non attending members, then the Hardshells have go to the other extreme! You miss one meeting and you could be excluded! But, this ought to be left up to each church. Certainly some churches should do a better job of looking after the members of their churches! Also, if there are no statistics to compare Calvinistic “reformed” churches with non Calvinistic and “reformed” churches, then we are just guessing at the cause(s) of the problem, are we not?
Next, your reference to what you call “easy believism” is an example of the kind of “anti invitation” palabber I am talking about. Do you think it is wrong to tell people that all they need to do is to believe in Jesus to be saved? As did Spurgeon? You might to check an article that brother Ross wrote about “easy believism” and Spurgeon in the Calvinist Flyswatter. Salvation is in believing in Christ. This is impossible when men think they can do this in their own power. But, it is easy when the Spirit of God attends the gospel invitations. What do you believe in my brother? In “difficult believism”?
About Calvinism being the gospel. I think Spurgeon correctly stated that they were the same (If Calvinism is properly understood). Preaching Calvinism is none other than preaching salvation by the grace of God. I do not think that most Southern Baptists, even those who are free will, are denying this. They may be inconsistent in it, but they are at least telling sinners that they must trust in Christ alone, are they not?
I'm not Brother Tom either...but I do have some comments.
1. Charles Spurgeon did blast hyper-Calvinists. But once again, you r error of equating Founders churches with Primitives is where you go wrong. I know of ZERO hyper-Calvinists in the SBC. Your equation of evangelism with the altar call is your second huge error, and unfortunately it ruins your entire "argument" because you have misclassified people from the beginning.
2. I don't believe you know what type of evangelistic preaching is characteristic of Reformed Baptists. Your continual misrepresentation proves you do not know AT ALL what is preached and how.
3. Is church attendance not indicative of regeneration? John thought so (see 1 John). I'm not saying it is the end all be all indicator, but it definitely shines a light on some things. Nor is that the ONLY indicator.
4. It would be interesting, but hard to know, eh?
5.I think it is because of a watered down Gospel. I do not see this as a need to return to Calvinism, but a return to the Gospel. When what is being taught at many churches is pop-psychology and Warren/Hybels/Osteen material then, yes, we have not been preaching the Gospel. Is that not obvious?
6. It is a Gospel issue. But of course those that are Calvinists believe that we understand the Gospel. Even your beloved Spurgeon said as much.
7. That has been the discussion of SBC leaders for a while. But the seeker-driven model has run downhill and those that know and preach the gospel but use that philosophy have muddled it enough so that the guy who is untrained and does not know the gospel well just does the techniques and not the ground of the gospel in his church. (I could name several churches in my city.)
Hope that helps.
JG
Post a Comment