Problem With Page... Repenting on a Previous Point

I must repent for some of my last blog. First, I was incredulous and somewhat miffed upon reading the Trouble With Tulip, and therefore some of my comments were supercilious. I must admit, I love Frank Page as a brother in Christ and as a capable leader of our Convention. He is , I am sure, a good scholar. The Trouble With Tulip was written on a popular level and is not a scholarly endeavor. However, I do stand by my critique of the message of the book. Page seems to suggest that all Calvinists are hypers. Church history is full of 5-point Calvinists who were not only evangelical, but were the cornerstones of frontier missions such as William Carey, Adoniram Judson, the Haldain brothers, John Patterson, etc. etc.

Secondly, I have been a student of reformed theology for 20 years and I have never heard the claim that Page makes on page 21 of The trouble with Tulip that "the image of God in human beings was totally destroyed" according to Calvin. It is interesting there is no footnote there, because I believe Page made that up. Here is what Calvin says regarding the image of God in man, "The concept of the image of God emerges clearly as we see the skills in which he excels, and which reflect God's glory. However, a more accurate assessment still comes from looking at God's remedy for sin. It is undeniable that when Adam fell from grace, he became alienated from God. So, although we know that the image of God was not completely wiped out, it was so damaged that what remains is an ugly deformity. Our salvation begins with that new start which we receive from Christ. This is why he is called the second Adam, because he restores us to wholeness." (Institutes, Abridged Edition, Baker, 1986). Again, this shows a total lack of what Calvinism represnts on the part of Dr. Page. According to Spurgeon, Calvinism was simply a nickname for the gospel itself (from a Defense of Calvinism by C.H. Spurgeon).

I am no advocate of double-predestination, but Dr. Page says " God never predestined a person to hell"(p.55) and suggests that he cannot find any reference to such in the Bible. I need to point out Judas. He is prophesied about clearly in the Old Testament. He was chosen by Christ as a disciple, and Jesus called him the Son of Perdition (hell). Blanket statements about what God can or can not do should be assessed in light of the Bible and should never be made hastily.

Dr. Page suggests that Calvin substituted absolute Sovereignty for grace through faith(p.16-17 Trouble With Tulip). Page dosent seem to understand that grace and faith as well as sovereignty are attributes of God. God is graceful, God is Faithful and God is Sovreign. Can we not see that all these work together. More later...

The Problem With Page and the Trouble With Tulip shall be continued...

The Problem with Page in the Trouble with Tulip, Part 1

I have just finished reading The Trouble With Tulip, by Dr. Frank Page. I must say that I am profoundly embarrassed that the best and the brightest the SBC has to offer seem to have lost their minds, as evidenced by this booklet from Dr. Page. The lack of good exegesis, sound logic, or solid historical research are apparent throughout this short treatise (which is astounding for someone who has a PhD). To boil it down the Trouble with Tulip has five fatal flaws. First, Dr. Page doesn't seem to understand the points in which he is trying to refute. Secondly, he espouses a universalist view of atonement; thirdly, he lacks a biblical understanding of faith. Fourth, Dr. Page's use of Acts 2:38 is misinterpreted. Fifth, and finally his acronym for grace is neither clear nor biblical. In the forthcoming critical review articles I will show the depth of these flaws and point out the scriptural, logical, and historical refutations of each.

Evangelists and Calvinists

I find it somewhat amusing that some SBC Evangelists are bemoning the rise of Calvinism in the SBC (see BP article from Jan. 11th). Don't they know that George Whitfield was one of the greatest evangelists ever and that he was a hard-core Calvinist? or how about the great "soul-winner" and baptist pastor C.H. Spurgeon? He was also a Calvinist. This reflects a larger debate in the SBC over this subject. The main points of Evangelical Calvinism are 1) man is unable to save himself. 2) God chooses to save sinners. 3) Christ attoned for the sins of all who have or will believe in Him by shedding His blood and dying on the cross in their place. 4) The Holy Spirit effectually draws men to Christ through the Gospel and 5) a true believer will be saved. These are all biblical truths concerning salvation. Most Baptist's hold to these tenets, so I don't see what all the fuss is about?

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas!
Celebrating the birth of Christ is a good thing. I know some of our puritan brothers from the past didn't do it, but I believe it provides a great oportunity to say to the world: Jesus the Messiah has come and He is coming again (soon)! People will dispute the date, but Edershiem in The LIfe and Times of Jesus the Messiah
has a great explanation of this; I believe silencing the critics. Another thing some Christians rail about is the so called pagan origins of Christmas. Certainly that may be valid, but does anyone think of that today when putting up trees, etc. and after all isn't that what the Gospel is all about: making things new in Christ. My best advice... celebrate Christ at Christmas; exchange gifts in memory of the greatest gift Jesus Christ, put up a Christmas trees remembering the evergreen as a symbol of eternal life in Christ Jesus, and light-up candles or Christmas lights (or down here in New Mexico- luminarios)because the Light of Christ has come into the world, and above all prepare your hearts for His coming again.
Merry Christmas!

Mormons Embarrased by Their Own Doctrine

Recently, Mike Huckabee made a remark in an interview: "Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers, don't they?" This unleeshed a firestorm of attacks against him. The Mormons put out an official statement saying that anti-mormons always use this type of retoric to bash them. Mitt Romney flat out said that the idea of Jesus and Satan being brothers in Mormon theology was not true. Problem is...
it is true. Mormons teach that Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers, both son's of one of the Mormon gods, Elohim. I say one of the Mormon gods because they believe that there are many gods:"In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it" (from a sermon by Joseph Smith Journal of Discourses Vol.VI, pg.5). However, Mormons, as seen by the reaction of Romney and his church don't seem to want to admit these doctrines. Are they embarrassed by them? Mormonism is not a Christian denomination. It is a non-Christian cult. Pointing out the doctrines of mormons is not an attack unless you feel the doctrines are so crazy you don't want to admit to anyone you believe them.
If that's the case you should repent and leave the Mormon church. If not admit your doctrines and defend them; do not lie about them or try to hide them, as the Mormon Church and Romney seem to be doing.

Politics

I do not like to talk about political campaigns from the pulpit, but I feel free to express my personal opinions in this open forum. God is not democrat or republican. God is sovriegn over all. It is He who establishes governments and likewise it is He who brings them down; all for His glorious purposes. However, we as American citizins should use our right to vote while we still can. That said I freely admit that I am a citizen of the Kingdom of God before I am an American. I have one King and one Lord who I am to obey and it is the Lord Jesus. So, when it comes to my vote I will not knowingly support anyone for office who is pro-abortion, I will not knowingly support anyone for office who is not a Christian (that is an evangelical, Bible believing, Christ-follower). If no candate fits my litmus test: I will not vote. Now some will say, you should support your party or at least support someone who has the same moral values. I say nuts! Enough of my rambling... suffice it to say that I am glad that God is in control. and Mike Huckabee can win if we will support him and if God wills it!

High Church Baptist?

Sunday evening I participated in an ecuminical thanksgiving service. I was asked to lead the responsive reading, and this I did from Psalm 118. We had a grand entrance, the congregation singing 'We Gather Together" and the respective clergy all processing in their finery. Not to be out done, I donned an alb and borrowed a stole. I think this is about the funniest thing one could see: a baptist in an alb and stole. Some might think that was a compromise of baptist principles or flirting with popish traditions; it was neither, I just like to dress up. It is part of my make-up, it is the way I was wired. Since I was a child, I dressed up: I had a costume for everything. If I was watching a war movie on the Saturday matinee, I would drag out my army suit and plastic tommy gun. If I were playing cowboys and indians in the backyard, I could select from my closet a cowboy hat, boots and capguns, or a feather headress and bow and arrow as the mood might suit me. Sundays at our house was a formal occassion. My mother believed in the saying, Sunday best". I was always dressed in a suit and tie, or nickers and a bow tie. I loved it. It has never changed: when I ride my motorcycle-leathers, when I go to my cousin's ranch-cowboy hat and boots, when I play the bagpipes- kilt, when I preach- sometimes a suit and tie, sometimes a frock coat, sometimes a zoot-suit, sometimes a button up shirt with blue jeans (which Christianity Today calls the new dress for the post-modern pastor), sometimes my doctoral gown and hood, and last Sunday evening an alb and stole. You can call me a high church baptist, you could call me crazy but just don't call me late for supper.