The Gospel: Now Available for Blasphemous Youtubers!--Why "The Blasphemy Challenge" is an Epic Fail for Atheists Trying to Avoid Salvation

I must confess that I'm a little late to the party on this one (by almost three years), but I was reminded by this humorous post from my pastor J.D. Greear's blog (if you're reading this note at my blog and not on the Facebook repost, you'll find a link to J.D.'s blog on the side of the page) of the phenomenon of atheists posting videos of themselves on Youtube proudly "blaspheming the Holy Spirit" (you can click around at the link above if you want to figure out how it reminded me of that). The Youtube blasphemy trend originated with a kind of game designed and proposed by a group of atheists (which these days appears to be mostly just one guy, Brian Sapient, but he does have some other folks posting here and there and working on the site) who call themselves the Rational Response Squad (WARNING: some harsh language--and very little rationality, despite the name--at that link). The game was called "The Blasphemy Challenge" and it involved getting atheists to post videos of themselves denying the Holy Spirit, because as everyone knows, that is the one sin that sends you straight to the fire and brimstone, according to no less of an authority than Jesus Himself in Mark 3:29. Basically, it was a chance for atheists to give a shout out and reveal how confident they are in the logic of the absolute negative. After all, if one is not afraid to commit the unforgiveable sin, that demonstrates pretty strongly that he or she is absolutely convinced there is no God, no heaven to gain nor hell to shun, and thus, nothing for any rational atheist to fear by risking "damnation."

But is that really what Jesus is talking about in Mark? Is denying the existence of the Holy Spirit or simply speaking ill of Him what Jesus meant by the blasphemy that was unforgivable? While it's hard to deny that much of what has been posted by atheists on the subject, both in print and on video, has certainly been blasphemous, to really understand what Jesus was talking about, we need to dig just a little deeper and look at the context of Mark 3:29 and consider it in the light of the full context of Scripture--the former because Jesus gave the statement at a certain place and time to a certain group of people in response to a certain situation (the details of which may shed some light on the nature of the infraction in question) and the latter because if one is going to use biblical teaching/Christian doctrine against itself, that one needs to make sure he's representing it properly (remember The Wizard of Oz: straw men don't have brains).

Let's start with the second issue first. To me, it's always seemed like there was a bit of discomfort among evangelicals surrounding the whole concept of the "unforgivable sin," and for good reason. After all, if God is either unable or unwilling to forgive any sin, that doesn't bode well for doctrines like total depravity and sole fide. It seems a little weird to confess that we are separated from God in our natural state and only saved by grace alone through faith alone and then follow that up by saying that if someone commits a certain sin he can never, ever be saved. Is that person somehow more separated from God than he would have been otherwise? Is salvation suddenly a matter of not committing the "wrong" sin (and aren't all sins "wrong" anyway)? That seems to be adding works to grace, doesn't it? Was John the Baptist wrong (or perhaps imprecise) when he said Jesus, "takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29)? What about John 3:16? Should it read, "...that whoever believes in Him--providing, of course that this one has not at some point spoken ill of the Holy Spirit and does not do so from this point on--shall not perish but have eternal life?" James 2:10 says that anyone who has ever broken any commandment is guilty just as if he'd broken them all. So if blaspheming the Holy Spirit is merely a case of one instance of committing one sin, does that mean that everyone who has ever sinned (which is everyone) is potentially guilty of the unforgivable sin already?

Well, that line of thinking could quickly get a little headier than I want to go, but the point is the notion that merely saying the Holy Spirit does not exist or that you've got some kind of a beef with Him is enough to keep someone from ever being saved doesn't seem to jell well with the whole of Scripture. But that just presents the problem. What's the solution? If blaspheming the Holy Spirit is not just the commission of a single sin, what is it? For that, we turn to the immediate context of Mark 3:

22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” 23 And he called them to him and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27 But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house.

28 “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— 30 for they had said, “He has an unclean spirit.”

Now, verse 22 tells us who the potential blasphemers were--"scribes... from Jerusalem." I think it's noteworthy that Mark lets you know their job description right up front. (The parallel passage in Matthew  calls them "Pharisees." Since many scribes--including almost certainly all of those mentioned in the Gospels--were members of the Pharisaical sect, it is safe to assume that Matthew gives their alignment, while Mark gives their position; these are then scribes of the Pharisees.) In the Gospels, all you really get about them is that they liked to challenge Jesus at every turn (in Mark alone, 2:6-7, 2:15-17, 7:1-6, and many more), but vocationally, the scribes were the guys who spent all day studying, copying and teaching the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament). In fact, the NIV translates the term rendered "scribes" here as "teachers of the law." They knew God's Word, and as such, you would think they would know better. The fact that they were from Jerusalem only heightens the idea that they were of the theological and religious elite, since Jerusalem was home to the temple and the holiest place in Judaism. They should definitely know not to blaspheme, and they should have some discernment of the things of God based on their knowledge.

We're also told, right from that first verse, that what these scribes are doing is in reaction to the miracles (particularly the exorcisms) Jesus is performing, and that they are claiming that He was only accomplishing them by demonic power. They even go so far to accuse Jesus Himself of being the tool of the lord of the demons, Beelzebul (or "Beelzebub," from "Baal Zebub"--a Philistine god whose name meant "lord of flies" and came to be used by the Jews to refer to Satan as the lord of demons). Jesus responds with parables, basically taking the tact that, if Satan is war with himself, he won't last long (and thus, it doesn't make much sense for him to be breaking up his own demons' parties; vv. 23-26). Moreover, anyone effectively opposing demons and taking what they had claimed would have to be able to restrain their lord (v. 27), not work for him. It is at this point that he makes the pronouncement against blaspheming the Spirit. Verse 30 states explicitly that the scribes' claims that Jesus worked His miracles by satanic power was what led to Jesus' denouncement of blasphemy against the Spirit; in effect, they were actually calling the Holy Spirit Satan by saying Jesus was possessed by, "an unclean spirit." The obvious implication is that the scribes are in fact blaspheming the Holy Spirit by making such a charge--or at the very least that they are in imminent danger of being found guilty of such.

When Luke relates these events (Luke 11:14-23; the account does not include the injunction against Holy Spirit blasphemy, although Luke--who often tends to group Jesus' teachings thematically--includes that as one of a series of teachings that Jesus gives in 12:10, following this scene and a couple of other Pharisaical encounters) he includes a hint that the scribes were well aware that they were distorting the truth. Jesus asks them in Luke 11:19, "If I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore," He says, "they will be your judges." He is implying, of course, that the scribes are being hypocritical. They can recognize easily enough the difference between the works of God and the works of the devil when those of their own order ("your sons") claim to cast out demons by the power of God, so they cannot honestly claim that Jesus is doing the same thing demonically. So the scribes, by condemning Jesus, are really condemning themselves, Jesus says. The implication is pretty clear that not only should the scribes know better, but in fact they do know better. They recognize the truth of God's power being worked out through Jesus (based on their knowledge of the Scripture), and yet they deny it anyway and even call it satanic!

So, based on what we've looked at so far, what can we say are the distinctive features of the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? I have noted seven points:

1) Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit involves a recognition of the reality of the supernatural. The scribes, in their response to the exorcisms performed by Jesus, do not deny but rather affirm that real supernatural power had been used to real supernatural effect.

2) Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit involves a recognition of the reality of the devil and/or evil powers. Not only did the scribes note the reality of the supernatural in general. They pointed toward the existence of a real devil and real demons by claiming such as the source of Jesus' power.

3) Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit essentially involves equating the true God and his works with a real evil power, such as the devil. The scribes' statements in verse 23 that the Jesus was, "possessed by Beelzebul" and, in verse 30, that He, "had an unclean spirit," amount to a confession by them that the Spirit of God in Christ was actually the spirit of Satan.

4) Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is more than just speaking the wrong thing. Jesus states that all blasphemies uttered may be forgiven, along with all other sins (Mark 3:28).

5) Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not a single act of sin that condemns a man. The testimony of the whole of Scripture is that men are saved not by avoiding certain sins but by faith in Christ alone (cf. Ephesians 2:8-9) and as noted in the above point, that all sins may be forgiven.

6) Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit involves a continual rejection of God and the things of God. This is a corollary to the previous point. The fact that--as referenced above--the scribes directy challenged Jesus' ministry, teaching and authority on numerous occasions confirms that this was not just a statement made in the heat of a moment but their consistent position, which they are merely affirming by their statements.

7) Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an intentional distortion of the truth. As shown from the Luke passage, the scribes were not merely confused about what was true or disagreeing with the truth; they were intentionally lying about Jesus and His ministry.

So good news, atheists! Just because you make a Youtube video swearing about the Holy Spirt or saying He doesn't exist, it doesn't mean you can't be saved, because blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is much more than just saying some harsh words. And it's impossible for a true atheist to actually blaspheme the Holy Spirit, anyway, since he would have to actually recognize God's existence and then knowingly and intentionally attribute the works of God to the devil, something you can't do if you don't actually believe in the existence of God or the supernatural. Now, that is good news. And I pray that same Holy Spirit you were attempting to blaspheme opens your heart to see that it really is good news and to believe the message of Christ, so that I may one day truly call you "brother."

Well, it seems "The Blasphemy Challenge" may not be quite blasphemous enough to be a real challenge. So yeah, epic fail there. But the gospel?

Total win.

Always.

"These Are a Few of My Least Favorite Things" OR "Everything I Needed to Know About Christmas I Learned from the Carpenters"

Okay, right up front I will admit it: I'm THAT guy. I'm the guy that changes his entire listening habits while driving in the car this time of year and tunes in...

dunh-dunh--DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNNHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! (*Suspenseful music*--in case you were wondering)

...the Christmas songs.

Yeah, I know. I know. I've heard it all before: "It's too early for Christmas music." (You hear that one up until December 24th at 10:30pm, sometimes.) "It's so boring hearing the same songs over and over." (You hear that one from many fans of Top 40 music.) "It cheapens the true meaning of Christmas and the Incarnation to hear Britney Spears sing 'Silent Night.'" (Okay, you got a point with that last one.) But I just can't help it. I love to hear the music and I love to sing along. I like the fun secular stuff like "Rudolph, the Red Nosed Reindeer" (Dean Martin's version is a hoot--although I can't figure out why Santa gets a German accent on the refrain; you think maybe Dean-o was a little...you know...drunk? Yeah, me neither). I love the carols like "O, Holy Night" (Josh Groban's version is about the only one that's really any good there; I mean, really, there are so many singers that don't need to sing that song--I want to say something funny here but there are too many options...um, how about a Kid Rock/Ozzy Osborne duet for that one? Yeah, that makes the point pretty well). And I love the unique new songs that pull the heart strings just right (although I am officially sick to death of "The Christmas Shoes;" sorry, Newsong; I love you guys, but if it hadn't gotten played a thousand too many times for it to actually leave any kind of emotional impression already, the Rob Lowe movies put it way over the top--Rob Lowe? Really? And "movies?" PLURAL?). I still can't wait to hear that song about Maria and the bird in the cage this year. That one makes my eyes all misty every time I hear it (that's not even a joke--I'm like a teenage girl or something; maybe if Rob Lowe made a movie about that one, it would cure me of it). I even like the funny songs.


(Nope, no parenthetical aside for that last one; they're funny already, right?)


But there's one thing that really bugs me about the whole Christmas music thing (although, if I counted that LeAnn Rimes/Elvis Presley duet of "Santa Claus is Comin' to Town," there would be several; seriously, have you heard that thing? It's just the Elvis version with LeAnn Rimes inserted in very awkwardly--like she heard the Nat King Cole/Natalie Cole version of "Unforgettable" and decided that--as the the true musical heir of Elvis--she needed to beat Lisa Marie to the punch, so she just found the first Elvis song she could lay hands on and recorded and mixed it over lunch one Tuesday--but maybe that's just me [EDIT 12/7/09: To be fair to LeAnn, it's actually "Here Comes Santa Claus (Santa Claus Comes Tonight)" not "Santa Claus is Comin' to Town" (the backup singers do actually sing "Santa Claus is comin' to town" in the song though, so I guess I can be forgiven for my mistake; I forgive myself). And no, that doesn't make the song any better.] ): It's all the Christmas songs that not only aren't about the Incarnation or the true meaning of Christmas; they aren't about Christmas AT ALL.

There's this one category of "Songs About Winter That Just Become Songs About Christmas By Default No Matter What The Song Is Actually Talking About" (or "SAWTJBSACBDNMWTSIATA" for the net-savvy). I mean, I guess the "birthday party at the home of Farmer Gray" from "Sleigh Ride" could be for the Christ Child, but I kind of doubt it (the fact that that one version--it might be the one by the Carpenters; I don't know--sometimes it seems like all the really sappy Christmas songs are by the Carpenters--changes the lyric to "Christmas party at the home..." seems to indicate that, whoever did that version--Carpenter or not--thinks the birthday in question was not of the virginal variety and needed to be altered). And while it's lovely to imagine two young lovers walking along and pretending a snow man is the minister they want to marry them (okay, maybe "lovely" isn't the right word at all), what does that have to do with Christmas? I mean, I've never even seen it snow on Christmas Day around here! I think it came close once when I was maybe six or something but there hasn't been anything even near it for years now (must be a global warming thing; Al Gore totally needs to write us some new Christmas songs--they would certainly be inconvenient, if not entirely true). I will say that I give "Frosty the Snowman" a pass here, because "Frosty" got that greatest of all validations of true Christmas-ocity from my youth... a Rankin/Bass TV special.

I need to digress for a moment here and speak of the wonder of the Christmas TV special (a species not entirely removed from the Christmas song and just as curious). Rankin and Bass (presumably they had first names too) were the masters of the art. Most of their specials were pretty poorly stop-motion animated features of about an hour (they were not "claymation," by the way; they used wood puppets--I'm here to educate as well as entertain). The most famous of this variety is Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. However, they also did some cel animated shows like the aforementioned Frosty the Snowman (a few years ago they made a sequel...FAIL...but I'll still watch it if it's on though, and yes, I am a bit of a sap; thanks for noticing). Now you may notice a theme with those two (and the not quite as well-known Santa Claus is Comin' to Town for that matter) of basing an entire hour of children's entertainment on a 2-3 minute (even shorter in "Rudolph"'s case) song. That meant there had to be a LOT of padding (it's the padding that gives "Frosty the Snowman" its legitimacy as a Christmas song, in my mind, since, in the cartoon, Santa Claus shows up for a little deux ex machina action, explaining that, since the recently melted Frosty was made with magical "Christmas Snow"--again with the snow!--a winter wind will reform him completely, leading Frosty to take off with Santa but promise--slightly twisting the actual lyrics of the song--"I'll be back on Christmas Day!" And yes, all of that is from memory; told you I was a sap). Also these specials featured the strange custom of adding in a narrator by animating in a fairly washed-up celebrity. While Frosty got the weirdest celeb pick--in the form of the Snoz himself, Jimmy Durante--Rudolph did the weirdest thing to its celebrity by representing Burl Ives as a kind of creepy-looking snowman (seriously, was I the only one that found him creepy?! He has these, like, dead eyes). Santa Claus featured Fred Astaire (thought it was Bing Crosby but Wikipedia says otherwise; also Mickey Rooney played Santa in that one!) as a mailman (better than Durante, who appears just to be some old guy following the kids around and talking about them). The celebrity always had to sing the song on which the special was based and tell the story. Later on, they kind of overstayed their welcome with a bunch of spinoffs (like Rudolph's Shiny New Year, Rudolph and Frosty's Christmas in July and Santa Claus is Comin' for Kwanzaa...Okay, I made the last one up, but the others are all too real).

Still, the greatest Christmas special of all was not by Rankin/Bass. That would be the one and only A Charlie Brown Christmas. And while I will never understand how they made that scrawny little tree fill out its branches just by putting decorations on it (that really bugged me as a kid, and it still does; in any other Christmas special, that would be an epic fail, but nothing can ruin Charlie Brown...NOTHING!), how can you not love the sweet story and the weird repetitive dancing. It is also the only time all year you're likely to hear Scripture quoted on network TV (Linus is the MAN) and for that, it gets the mega-props.

Okay, where was I? Oh yeah, Christmas music that isn't even about Christmas! I could talk about "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch" (I know it was from a Christmas special--about the only truly classic one I didn't mention above, by the way--but the song is all a bunch of metaphors for how bad the Grinch is and, while it's funny, it ain't about Christmas; and yes, I realize that I just said "Frosty the Snowman" got a pass as a Christmas song because of its place in a Christmas special, and I know that's hypocritical, but it's my blog and I can contradict myself if I want to...Anyway, I like hearing "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch" this time of year, so I don't know what I'm complaining about in the first place...so...um, you might want to forget you read this whole parenthetical remark altogether--in fact, you probably already want to forget it...sorry), but it's probably best that I don't say a single word about it, so I won't. For the song that really bugs me, the one that just isn't a Christmas song and never should have been accepted as such, I have to turn to that great duo of the movie musical (no, not Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye; that was an actual Christmas musical, and a great one at that! Oh and you'll notice that all the songs from White Christmas didn't just suddenly become Christmas songs because they were in a Christmas musical--no, just the actual song about Christmas; Irving Berlin FTW). I'm talking about Rogers and Hammerstein (unlike Rankin and Bass, I'm not sure they actually had first names) and the song "My Favorite Things."

To understand my disdain for counting this song as a Christmas song, you need to go back into my childhood. You see, my sister's favorite movie growing up was The Sound of Music (a film that avoids being a total loss by throwing in a chase by Nazis at the end; I kid! I kid! It's actually pretty good and a somewhat true story, although I don't know if the real Maria Von Trapp broke out into song all the time; if she did, I bet the Captain was pretty sick of it before the honeymoon was even over), and she watched it ALL THE TIME. As such, I can sing (sadly) every song from it by memory. "My Favorite Things" is one of those songs. Is it sung at some big Christmas party? Are the children eagerly awaiting the coming of whoever the Austrian version of Santa Claus is? Is Maria, the former nun, telling them about the Christ Child? No, no and no. Maria sings the song to the kids when they all crowd in her room (are you ready for this?) when they're frightened by a thunderstorm. "What does that have to do with Christmas?," I hear you asking. Uh... well, it mentions "brown paper packages tied up with string." Oh, what's that you say? You don't use brown paper to wrap Christmas presents usually? Oh well, I guess maybe "MY FAVORITE THINGS" DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH CHRISTMAS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM!

Now if only I could convince someone in radio of that, there'd be one more slot for a real Christmas song...probably something by the Carpenters...something involving fireplaces, maybe...

Yeah, suddenly that doesn't sound like such a good idea after all...

"What would Whitefield do?": Are Calvinists Turning Good Theology Into Bad Rhetoric?

In the last few days, I've had some contact online with a friend of a friend, a fellow believer and fellow Calvinist (and while I would much rather call myself a "Biblicist" or some other equally less divisive, totally self-righteous, and ultimately useless term--since I didn't really get my views from Calvin and especially since I don't like the concept of filtering my hermeneutics through any system, no matter how good--I would have to admit that I too fall humbly into that camp). I fear this brother has taken his arguments a bit too far with regard to the infamous debate over the sovereignty of God versus the moral freedom of man (or, if we must, "Calvinism vs. Arminianism"). I have read a fair amount of his writings (far more prolific than my own, to be sure) and find him to be a very well-read, sincere and intelligent brother and defender of the faith, so I do not mean him any harm. For that reason, I will leave him anonymous and not link his website here (even though he has a lot of fine teaching and thinking there). If he should read this and feel I've done him a disservice by not linking to his arguments, I'll be happy to edit in a link to his site and the two recent posts in question, asking only that he would do me the same honor and link from his website to this post. At any rate, this particular brother's identity is not nearly so important as is the issue at hand, and I have certainly encountered other Reformed brothers who have made similar comments and have been similarly concerned by them.

The primary question at hand is this: Is what is commonly referred to among Calvinist Southern Baptists as "Arminianism" (the variety of watered-down Calvinism/partial Arminianism espoused by most Southern Baptists) really "another gospel" (cf. Galatians 1:6-8)?  My brother's answer is a firm and confident, "Yes!," and he argues that the only way anyone could possibly claim to believe the Scripture and yet deny the tenets of Calvinism is to do so insincerely based on one's own presumptions, ignoring passages such as John 3:8 and Romans 9-11 completely and only offering other passages (such as John 3:16) as proof-texts in response.

On this point, I have to correct my brother that many of these "Arminians" (and likely, even true Arminians, although I would suspect less so) have in fact dealt with these passages and others at length (in fact I heard a professor on the radio yesterday doing just that; I feel no obligation to point to their arguments, because I don't agree with their conclusions, but I do try to remain aware of them so as to refine my own thinking and to keep me honest). Also, I have dealt with many intelligent and apparently spiritually mature non-Calvinists whose reading of the Scripture tends to lead them away, not toward Reformed theology--at least by their own testimony (again, this professor and radio host noted how he was a Calvinist for several years, but his study of the Scripture led him away from it). My respect for many of these believers and others who teach the same is too great for me to presume, as my brother does, that the only reason they reject Calvinism is a denial of the Scripture based on their own a priori assumptions. And I am also fully aware that Calvinists can make bad biblical arguments and use proof-texts based on their assumptions too (e.g., stating that Ephesians 2:8 says plainly that faith is a gift of God, while ignoring the fact that the words "faith"--pisteos, Gk.--and "that" in the NASB at the link--touto, Gk.--are not even the same gender, or acting as if the critical phrase in John 3:8 is "where it wishes," when a straightforward reading of that verse makes it pretty clear that the unseen nature of true Spirit birth--as opposed to physical birth--is what Jesus is pointing to in the verse), so could it be that "Arminians"--even the well-educated ones and teachers--have just honestly missed the point without missing or denying the gospel itself?

I'm not saying this isn't an important issue. And I certainly agree with my brother that a lot of the language we use with regard to preaching the gospel is poor and confuses the gospel and further that Arminian influence is a major cause for such poor language (although I do know plenty of "Arminians" who agree that the gospel has not truly been preached apart from a call to repentance and thus have difficulties with many popular gospel presentations, just as I know Calvinists who talk about "accepting Jesus into your heart"), but if it is truly "another gospel" then it's more than heretical; it's damnable. The worst my brother seems willing to point toward is that this is serious enough for Paul to say he wishes the Judaizers would castrate themselves (Galatians 5:12) but Paul had already said far worse about their teachings in the first chapter of Galatians:

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

Paul says those Judaizers who are preaching something other than the true gospel should "be accursed." The Greek is anathema and refers to something that is to be given as an offering (and thus to be destroyed). It ultimately came to have the meaning of someone or something that was cursed of God. With regard to a person spiritually, the obvious meaning is that he or she would be condemned to damnation (Paul explicitly uses the same word to mean that in Romans 9:3 when he says he might wish himself, "accursed and cut off for the sake of [his Hebrew] kinsmen"). The fact that Paul is calling for them to be condemned asserts clearly that they in fact stood condemned, since he would certainly not make such a pronouncement lightly or without cause. And Paul doesn't just say it was true in this particular case but in any case of those who preach that a requirement be added to the true gospel and thus draw people from the truth.

But on that basis alone, is it safe for us as believers to say that those who teach something other than five-point Calvinism are really preaching "another gospel" and thus, under condemnation of God? Obviously most Calvinists (particularly Calvinistic Southern Baptists) don't seem to make any such assertion. Even so prominent a Calvinist as Albert Mohler was content to have the non-Calvinist Danny Akin as a VP and Dean of Students at Southern Seminary before Dr. Akin was called to be president at Southeastern. And more to the point is it safe even to imply that Billy Graham, Paige Patterson, Alvin Reid, Johnny Hunt and any number of others who have done so much and are doing so much in Southern Baptist life and for the gospel currently stand condemned themselves? Should we ask whether our dearly departed (Adrian Rogers, W.A. Criswell) are before the throne of God today or rather...? Well, you get the idea. It is a very hard thing to accept, at least. But if "Arminianism" is truly "another gospel" it seems hard to conclude that it could be otherwise.

In a debate over whether or not Calvinists and Arminians (or even Southern Baptist "Arminians") are really teaching the same gospel and preaching the same Jesus, I'm reminded of George Whitefield and John Wesley. Wesley and Whitefield were friends from their college days and two of the key leaders of the First Great Awakening, in both England and the United States. Whitefield was a Calvinist. Wesley was an Arminian (a real one, not the Southern Baptist variety). Even though he was becoming aware of Wesley's rejection of Calvinism, Whitefield was at first reluctant to even speak out against his friend's error. He apparently feared that the work that both were doing for the gospel would be harmed and their opponents strengthened against them if their disagreement should become known. Finally, it was Wesley who broke the silence in a sermon entitled "Free Grace," in which he detailed his disagreements with Calvinism.

At this point, Whitefield felt he could no longer be silent on the issue. He wrote a letter to Wesley to try to correct his views. Whitefield's reproof is sublime, gentle and loving but very, very firm. At no point does he question the validity of his friend's salvation (the end of his letter makes this abundantly clear) or the sincerity of his biblical views, but at no point does he back down on the doctrines of grace either. The two were ultimately reunited in friendship even though their debate raged on. In fact, when Whitefield published the letter (as seen at the link above) he did so with the inclusion of a letter from Wesley, who wrote:

There are bigots both for predestination and against it. God is sending a message to those on either side. But neither will receive it, unless from one who is of their own opinion. Therefore, for a time you are suffered to be of one opinion, and I of another. But when his time is come, God will do what man cannot, namely, make us both of one mind.

Whitefield, for his part, agreed (with the distinction that Wesley would be brought ultimately to Whitefield's way of thinking). He stated in his prologue:

Known unto God are all his ways from the beginning of the world. The great day will discover why the Lord permits dear Mr. Wesley and me to be of a different way of thinking. At present, I shall make no enquiry into that matter, beyond the account which he has given of it himself in [his] letter, which I lately received from his own dear hands...

In the end, it would be in heaven, not on earth, where their debate was settled, but their bond was enough for Wesley to preach the funeral of his friend George Whitefield. Neither gave ground on their positions, but their love and respect for one another was strong enough that when Wesley was asked if he would see Mr. Whitefield in heaven, he could only reply, "I fear not, for George will be so much nearer the throne of grace." Can we not be thankful for the labors of brothers we disagree with as Whitefield was? I would hope we could.

I am also reminded of my own early days at Southeastern Seminary, some 11 years ago. In those days, the biggest thing on campus was a student-led evangelism group known as Doulos (Greek for "bondservant"). Every Friday night, we would go out to share the gospel, and any believer was welcomed and encouraged to come and join together to share the gospel with all in the area surrounding the seminary. What would likely surprise my brother is that this endeavor was started and maintained by many Calvinists and some who were not Calvinists. In fact, as teams were assembled, Calvinists and non-Calvinists would actually take turns presenting the same gospel! (And yes, I know the gospel is more than the presentation.) My brother has said that such laboring together is improper and has stated that even Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons could preach, "in the name of Jesus," if that is the standard. I will say that, if there is anything in his argument that proves its folly, it is that statement, which is offensive not only toward brothers in Christ with whom we disagree but toward His name as well (though it is not my desire to be offensive to my brother in saying so). The Watchtower and LDS folks may indeed preach in a name of a Jesus, but they most certainly cannot preach, "in the name of Jesus," since His name is more than just a mere word but the authority of an ambassador of the Only Begotten God that goes with it, and the "Jesuses" preached by Mormons or Witnesses are certainly not on par with the true Jesus of the Bible, whether He be preached by a Calvinist, an Arminian, or some other. All untrue gospels fail on who Jesus is, yet Calvinism and Arminianism agree on this point.

But if they preach the same Jesus, do they still preach the same gospel? Is Arminianism (either true or cut with Calvinism) "another gospel," per Galatians 1? I fear those who argue so do what so many like to do with the Scripture and read its words apart from its context. In the first chapter of Galatians, where Paul pronounces that anyone bringing another gospel is cursed, he is dealing with a specific situation, to which I've already alluded--the heresy of the Judaizers being brought to bear on the Galatian believers. The gist of the Judaizers' teaching was that the Gentile believers in Galatia needed to add to their simple faith the act of circumcision and the keeping of the Old Testament law or their faith was not genuine. Paul responds with offense not only for their minimizing and outright denying the true gospel for one that requires more than faith for salvation but also for their denial of the validity of the simple faith of these Gentile believers. That is the thrust of his statement about those who preach another gospel being accursed, that they have both added a requirement to the gospel and invalidated the faith of others.

Have Arminians done this? Are they, "placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples," as Peter states, "that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear" (Acts 15:10)? Are Arminians denying the truth of the simple faith of others because they lack a certain work? Is there an Arminian who would say of a Calvinist that his faith is not yet genuine or complete, because he needs to add will to it? If there is, I'd say he might be accused of, "placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples," and of preaching a different gospel. But what Arminian is saying that? I certainly don't know of any "Arminian" Southern Baptist who would make such a ridiculous claim (I can't think of any true Arminian who would either). So has the non-Calvinist really added to the gospel or merely differed on his understanding of how faith is applied to the believer? Paul tells the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 that what he holds of primary importance is Christ's death, burial and resurrection for our sins as revealed in Scripture (in verse 1, he calls it "the gospel").

If both Arminians and Calvinists believe Christ's death is sufficient to save (and the fact is that they do), why is one the gospel and the other not because they differ merely on the application of that salvation? Is it not enough to just say they are in error without questioning their motives or the condition of their souls when many of them have done far more for the sake of the gospel than either of us is likely to do? And since we have no ability to read the motives of these (as my brother sadly pretends to do) it doesn't seem safe to me to say otherwise. After all, if the Judaizers were condemned for denying the simple faith of the Galatians as insufficient, might we not also fear the same for implying that only a correct understanding of the Scripture without interpretational error (which none of us can attain in this fallen world anyway) is true saving faith? I ask then, who is truly the one who is, "placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?"

Well, I trust I've said enough toward this case with that. If I have in any way miscast my brothers' views, I pray he would correct me on it. I don't wish to slander him or any brother. But, if I have been correct in revealing his views (which, in the main, I think I have) I would offer two final points of conclusion for him (or anyone else who argues the same) to consider:

1) I'll speak more about it when I post about my ministry in Maine as a Summer interim pastor (way back in 2004), but I don't want any minister to wind up disillusioned, bitter, fatalistic, nihilistic and entirely irrelevant, as I have seen those who would argue that anything other than Calvinism is "another gospel" become. In the end, there will be much that God is doing in the world that you will be forced to deny is of Him to keep your viewpoint in tact, and few there will be whom you can agree are worthy to labor beside (I suspect, even as a Calvinist, my views on this particular issue leave you wary), cutting you off from much blessing and effectiveness for the gospel and hurting the unity of the Bride. Both arrogance and irrelevancy are found at the end of that path. God might allow you to escape that fate even if you do continue in your arguments, but He might not. I wouldn't wish that destiny on anyone. It's not pretty, and many other believers who want to be used of God in this world have been hurt along the way by it--not to mention the damage it does to the one who has followed that road to its conclusion.

2) From what I've seen, I don't really understand why you are a Southern Baptist. Your beliefs on what is primary or secondary (or tertiary) doctrine seem more in line with the distinctives of a Bible-believing Presbyterian denomination than with those of the SBC. I'm not trying to push you out of the Convention (in fact, I would much rather you remain here) but I question whether you can continue in good conscience. Again, I'm not asking you to leave at all. I just want you to be true to your beliefs. I confess that I certainly do not know everything you believe, and a fuller picture of your beliefs might clarify the issue. But from what I've seen, I think it's worth considering prayerfully if you really are where you belong (and I suspect that you've been doing so already). While Calvinism is on the rise in the SBC, there are still many who disagree, and that's not likely to change. The mode (and, far more importantly, the candidacy--believers only) of baptism will likely continue to be more of a distinctive to the SBC than Calvinism.

I pray I haven't offended with my post. I just don't want us to divide unnecessarily or slander others. As Whitefield quoted Wesley to say, "There are bigots both for predestination and against it. God is sending a message to those on either side. But neither will receive it, unless from one who is of their own opinion." I write as one of the same "opinion" as my brother to caution against any bigotry and to argue for humility and unity among believers, that we might correct our brothers as Whitefield did--without questioning other believers' faith or motives--and serve together to fulfill the Great Commission. God is still doing great things, and I believe we can still join hands even with those with whom we do not entirely agree for His great work. Blessings to all who took the time to read all this (including the numerous parenthetical parts--even those set off by dashes--:) ) and to all who trust in Christ alone for salvation. Any feedback is more than welcome.

Been a long time...

Well it's obviously been a very long time since my last post. Most of those reading this blog will probably know what's happened with me in the time since I last posted in January. I lost my position as youth director at the little church in Louisburg back in February and haven't really had much to write about since (well, not much of anything that was very edifying anyway).

But I think now, months later, it's time to get back to it. I'd like to say I've learned a lot in the last ten months, but the fact of the matter is I feel like I know a whole lot less now than I thought I knew back then. (But then again, I guess that's one lesson learned, huh?) So, hopefully I'll be posting more regularly here in the weeks and months to come. As far as the details of what I've been up to and going through in the last several months, that will have to wait. Some of it may come up in posts about various topics along the way but, for now, that will have to wait.

I'll only tease with this slightly troubling question that's been going through my mind as I've thought about finally returning to this blog:

"What happens when the guy who wants to change the world starts to fear that it's the world who has changed him?"

More to come...

I wonder...

Does Superman sigh when he puts his glasses back on, knowing that it means he's back to being "just plain old Clark" and no one (particularly Lois) can see the true hero within?

Who'd win in a fight between Mr. Clean and The Rock?

What noise does a cuckoo make when it sneezes? That's gotta be hilarious!

Do geese see God?

If you put a kaleidoscope up to a mirror, what do you see? And more importantly, how bored are you?

Where would Dr. John Nash have been without Alicia?

Where would Bulwinkle have been without Rocky?

Can Batman ever truly be happy? (I mean really, who would want to read that? "It's the happy-go-lucky Batman! Watch him give a 'thumbs-up' for justice!")

If Godzilla went to Washington, D.C., would he stomp the White House or the Capitol building first?

If you were riding down a narrow road on the side of a cliff and a dog darted out, leaving you no other option but to either hit the dog or run your car off the cliff, how would you clean the blood and hair off your bumper afterward? (Oh, lighten up, dog lovers!)

Where could that dog have possibly darted out from? (I mean, it's the side of a cliff! Even for a hypothetical, that's a little far-fetched.)

If Christians actually took the Bible seriously, would they be recognizable as anything like what we call "Christians" today?

Is it possible to have a relevant traditional church?

Are we not men? (We are Devo.)

Has anyone actually bothered to read this far?

Why am I typing this when I can barely stay awake?

Did you laugh even once while reading this? (I hope it was on one of the comedic ones.)

What does it say about me that I thought it was worth the time to think all these up and write them?

What does it say about you that you're still reading them?

Who'll be the last one to exercise his right to testify to his faith if we lose the right of free speech in the public square?

Will we even know his name?

Will I die in bed or on my feet?

Is it possible that I've already bought the last pair of shoes I'll ever own?

If not, when I buy the last pair of shoes I'll ever own, will I in fact suspect that they are the last ones?

If I tried really hard could I stop my heart with my mind?

If I did, would it start again?

Should I try anyway?

What will be the first thing you do when you find out that I've died?

Why am I asking so many questions about my own death?

Is that morbid?

Who came up with the idea of painting police cars black on the front and back and white around the doors? What about that screams "law enforcement?"

Does Bo still know after all these years?

How long did I doze between writing the last question and this one?

Think maybe I should go to bed now?

Yeah, me too. :)