Here is Is This Not the Land of Beulah? sung by Sandra Roberts with James Ray Brookins playing. Say what you will about new music, stuff like this is hard to beat.

Download: Is-This-Not-The-Land-of-Beulah.mp3

I am dwelling on the mountain,
Where the golden sunlight gleams
O’er a land whose wondrous beauty
Far exceeds my fondest dreams;
Where the air is pure, ethereal,
Laden with the breath of flow’rs,
They are blooming by the fountain,
’Neath the amaranthine bow’rs.

Refrain:
Is not this the land of Beulah?
Blessed, blessed land of light,
Where the flowers bloom forever,
And the sun is always bright!

I can see far down the mountain,
Where I wandered weary years,
Often hindered in my journey
By the ghosts of doubts and fears;
Broken vows and disappointments
Thickly sprinkled all the way,
But the Spirit led, unerring,
To the land I hold today. [Refrain]

I am drinking at the fountain,
Where I ever would abide;
For I’ve tasted life’s pure river,
And my soul is satisfied;
There’s no thirsting for life’s pleasures,
Nor adorning, rich and gay,
For I’ve found a richer treasure,
One that fadeth not away. [Refrain]

Tell me not of heavy crosses,
Nor of burdens hard to bear,
For I’ve found this great salvation
Makes each burden light appear;
And I love to follow Jesus,
Gladly counting all but dross,
Worldly honors all forsaking
For the glory of the cross. [Refrain]

Oh, the cross has wondrous glory!
Oft I’ve proved this to be true;
When I’m in the way so narrow,
I can see a pathway through;
And how sweetly Jesus whispers:
“Take the cross, thou need’st not fear,
For I’ve trod the way before thee,”
And the glory lingers near. [Refrain]

Like other Southern Baptists, our goal in the SBC is simple: to magnify the name of God and display the glory of God by building the saints through the ministry of the church and by reaching the lost with the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is our hope that SBC Focus will provide tools and discussions which help accomplish this goal. With that in mind, why not take some time to go visit SBC Focus! As this is a brand new site we don’t have much posted yet, but new content will roll out just about every day.

Ever since people realized that The Gospel Project was overseen by a group largely composed of Calvinists, there have been frequent accusations that the material would serve as little more than Calvinist propaganda. Claims were repeated frequently and loudly that the content would subtly indoctrinate the SBC with Calvinism. Now that people have the material in their hands, we can see that for now at least those claims are invalid. I have yet to see anyone post any evidence that The Gospel Project is teaching Calvinism to our people.

As a result, criticism has shifted from the content to the contributors. In the eyes of some, the material continues to remain suspect, not because of the message but because of the messenger. Some people are voicing a great deal of distrust over material dominated by Calvinist writers. The claim runs along the lines of, “Maybe this first quarter’s material isn’t teaching Calvinism, but how can I be sure that won’t change next quarter?” Despite the complete lack of evidence that Calvinists are trying to take over the convention, some remain convinced that The Gospel Project will eventually be used by Calvinists to win the hearts and minds of the SBC. This fits with the actions of some pastors, professors, and denominational leaders to warn Southern Baptists about the theology and influence of Calvinism.

There is one way that I hope The Gospel Project serves to win hearts and minds in the SBC: not by convincing people that Calvinism is true, but by convincing people that Calvinists can minister alongside non-Calvinists without our theology being a barrier for cooperation. It is even possible for non-Calvinists to learn from Calvinists without Calvinism ever being part of the discussion. I do hope that we will discuss Calvinism, and I would like to see more and more people become Calvinists, but these are not goals of my ministry, nor is it a goal of The Gospel Project. The curriculum seeks to point people to Christ, and it already shows that it can do so in a way which draws all Southern Baptists together. The contributors are Calvinists, but the content is not Calvinism. They have helped to show that Calvinists are fully capable of working alongside non-Calvinists without trying to push an agenda of Calvinism.

I pastor a church composed mostly of non-Calvinists. Most of the people have heard me say that I am a Calvinist. It has come up in a handful of sermons and conversations and I took the initiative to mention it to the search committee in our initial discussion. The people have heard me say that I am a Calvinist, but truth be told, most of them probably don’t really know what that means. I prefer preaching expository sermons through books of the Bible, and I have only “preached Calvinism” on two or three occasions in my almost four years here, doing so when it comes up in the text. When I address the issue, I acknowledge that even within the congregation there are differences of opinion. I let them know that I hold the position I do because I believe it is what the Bible teaches, but I stress that this is not an issue which divides us. We can disagree and still minister with one another. So far, that approach has worked. We have had zero conflicts over Calvinism.

I keep hearing horror stories about this or that church which had conflicts and splits over Calvinism. I have no doubt such situations exist, but I also realize that no situation is cut-and-dry. Perhaps the pastor was aggressive with his Calvinism, trying to push an agenda the church did not want. Perhaps the church was just ornery and used Calvinism as an excuse. Perhaps the church heard some of these warnings about Calvinist theology and pastors and raised the issue when they learned they had a Calvinist pastor, the real source of division thus coming from outside the church. I have no idea. I also have no idea how the number of Calvinist splits compares to the number of non-Calvinist splits. I do know that there are two Calvinist pastors in my association (including me) and that neither of us have had any issues related to Calvinism. I have a few Calvinist pastor friends who have also managed to avoid any conflicts due to Calvinism. Thus, in my personal experience, Calvinism accounts for 0% of church splits. I know some churches do have fights and splits over the issue, but I’ve never personally encountered one of them. They are the exception, not the rule.

The Gospel Project provides one opportunity for Southern Baptists to see that Calvinists are not the enemy. We are capable of producing a solid Sunday school curriculum that can be a source of blessing and edification for all Southern Baptists, no matter where they fall on the theological spectrum.

• Joshua Breland talks about Ralph Green’s Evidence of Calvinist Bias and Indoctrination in LifeWay’s Gospel Project.
• Mark Lamprecht offers various Observations on Ralph Green’s Criticisms of Lifeway’s Gospel Project.
• My own comments giving a Response to Ralph Green on The Gospel Project.
• Pastor Pitman gives us a lesson on Logical Fallacies as found in Green’s interview.

What other responses have you come across?

On August 1st, SBC Today posted an article by Ralph Green explaining why his church had decided to send back Lifeway’s The Gospel Project Sunday school curriculum. In his article, he claimed that the material is “biased in how it explains and interprets the study themes” and amounts to “indoctrination”. He says that Lifeway is “producing curriculum that promotes a flawed theological system to interpret Scripture”. He closes his comments with the hope that pastors will examine the material and “see the agenda within The Gospel Project curriculum” leading pastors to “send it back to LifeWay”.

Throughout this original article, no evidence was given. The material was never quoted. Specific concerns were not mentioned. The editors attached a footnote at the end reading, “Coming tomorrow: Interview with Pastor Green wherein he will cite specific concerns with TGP curriculum.” As I noted before, the next two days saw two notes announcing that the interview had been delayed due to circumstances that took up the time of the editors. In the interview now posted, Norm Miller cites some of the circumstances that necessitated the delay. I won’t say much on this except to note that in the nearly three weeks since the interview was promised, new content has been posted almost every day and Norm has continued to be active in the discussions as well as actively moderating (deleting) comments.

Today, August 21st, the interview has been posted and I believe it falls far short of its originally stated purpose of citing specific concerns with the curriculum. In fact, I believe the interview should help settle the issue that TGP is not Calvinist propaganda. If this is the best that can be offered against the curriculum, it demonstrates that no legitimate case can be made.

Before diving into my critique of the interview, let me first note that pastor Green and the folks at SBC Today are certainly entitled to their opinions and are under no obligation to use The Gospel Project. If they don’t like it, they are within their rights to send it back. If they have concerns with it, they are within their rights to voice those concerns to as many people as possible. By the same token, I am within my rights to respond to those concerns and give reasons why I think his concerns are at best invalid.

I recognize that Green is seeking to be a good shepherd to his people, but I believe what he has ended up doing is misleading people about Lifeway, about the new curriculum, and about the beliefs of Calvinists.

Overview

My main issue with Green’s original article was that it contained no references to The Gospel Project. He claims to have found “numerous subtle seeds of the Calvinistic approach to Scripture and many that are overtly obvious” yet he failed to cite a single one of those subtle or obvious seeds. We were told that the interview would address that, citing specific concerns with the material. In reality, the interview contains very little interaction with the substance of the curriculum. Despite the fact that Green claims to have “numerous” and “many” examples, in the interview he only gives two examples. As we will see, neither example has anything to do with Calvinism, and both places point to problems with Green’s theology and his understanding of what the curriculum is teaching.

Instead of focusing on the content of the curriculum, most of the interview deals with peripheral issues. The interview starts with his reaction to the comments on his original article and he says he was “shocked at some of the comments” he read. He is bothered that some “have offered so little grace” in response to the article. I am not sure what he means by this. Many (including me) voiced clear disagreement with his position as well as disappointment that he made such strong accusations without including evidence. Some who participated in the discussion seemed to be offended that we would doubt Green’s evidence. Perhaps Green agrees with them and sees our hesitation and desire for evidence as a shortage of grace.

Green also noted that “others have blogged about [the curriculum] and say they see no problem with [it]. But I have to wonder if they are not already Calvinists.” In other words, immediately after complaining about a lack of grace among his critics, Green casts suspicion on all who support the curriculum by saying they might be Calvinists. What is the implication? Calvinists cannot be trusted to offer a fair evaluation of the material, and only a Calvinist would like it. This overlooks the fact that many in the discussions have identified themselves as non-Calvinists and have voiced their support for the curriculum.

Early in the interview, Green includes a portion of text written by one of his deacons. In that text, the deacon makes several outrageous comments about the Calvinist view of God’s love. This deacon (and Green) claims that this view of God’s love distorts the curriculum, though he does not offer a single piece of evidence. The material is never cited, nor are any Calvinists cited. All we see is the deacon’s bad misunderstanding of Calvinism. His comments have nothing to do with the curriculum and seemed designed to offer cheap shots at Calvinism. I’ll have more to say about those comments at the end of this post.

A good bit of the interview focuses on Green’s concerns with those who were quoted by the material and those who contributed to the material. Green displays an intense tribalism, first opposing every voice coming from outside the SBC then opposing Calvinist voices from within the SBC, not because of what they say, but because they are Calvinists.

On Quotes and Contributors

While digging through the interview, I divided it into seven sections (with Norm’s introductory comments being the first section). By far, the largest section addressed his deep concern over the presence of non-Southern Baptists in the material. Green spends a bit of time running through various individuals who are quoted in the material and giving some of their background. He never interacts with what they have to say in the curriculum, his concern is their affiliation and theological persuasion. For the most part, he does not deal with the writers of the material but focuses on the authors of the brief quotations (called “voices from the church” or “voices from church history”) scattered throughout the material, such as the one pictured on the side. (The picture is taken from The Gospel Project on the iPad, an excellent way to browse the materials. The quotes are presented in a similar way in the printed material.)

In his comments on these voices from the church, Green notes that several of the men are either Calvinistic or not Southern Baptist. He twice voices his concern that we cannot trust these men: “Are Southern Baptists to believe that the contributions of these men to TGP will not also be influenced by that same ‘rich tradition of Reformed thought’?” and “…how can Southern Baptist pastors and church members know that these contributors to TGP aren’t filtering Scripture through their T.U.L.I.P. colored glasses?” When discussing his conversation with Trevin Wax, he adds: “Why must we quote so many Calvinistic professors from non-SBC seminaries when we have six SBC seminaries with theology departments full of professors who are paid with Cooperative Program dollars?”

As I noted before, Green expresses a deep tribalism that moves two directions. First, he is unhappy that there are so many quotes from outside the SBC. Second, he is unhappy that there are so many quotes from Calvinists. He displays an unwillingness to even consider what Calvinists might say, as demonstrated when he says, “when Trevin told me that he was a 4-point Calvinist – this only confirmed for me that I had made the right decision in returning the curriculum.” His issue is not primarily with what Trevin and others have said in the curriculum, it is with who they are or what they believe.

Green seems to forget that no matter what our numbers, Southern Baptists are not the only members of the church. Church history stretches back 2,000 years and includes many men and women of note. Even today, most Christians are not Southern Baptist. Are we to believe that Southern Baptists are the only people with something worth hearing? Certainly I believe the SBC gets a lot right, otherwise I would not be in the SBC. But despite disagreements with others on a variety of topics, I believe many Christians outside the SBC have things to say that we would do well to hear. God’s church is not limited to the SBC, and when we are told to use our gifts for the good of the church, that is not limited to one denomination.

Either way, Green’s criticisms amount to little when we remember that he is criticizing brief snippets of text. As the Voices from Church History quote above shows, we are not dealing with the primary material of the lesson. These are brief quotes that help to supplement the material.

One of Green’s concerns points to a very basic mistake on his part. Acknowledging that Adrian Rogers is included, he nonetheless observes, “I did find it curious that the late ‘Adrian Rogers’ was cited as a ‘Voice from Church History’ and not a ‘Voice from the Church.’ He was a prominent Southern Baptist, and not a Calvinist. Go figure.” Green seems to believe that the writers of TGP have diminished Rogers’ status by referring to him as a voice from church history rather than from the church. What Green has failed to note is that TGP makes a distinction between those still alive and those that have passed on. Although Green claims to have “spent literally hours and days digging through this curriculum” (original article), he managed to overlook the fact that Rogers is not the only one quoted as a voice from church history. Anyone quoted that had already died is a voice from history; those still living is a voice from the church. For instance, surely Green does not think a Calvinist would want to diminish the status of men like Charles Spurgeon or Herman Bavinck, yet compare the following:

Three Voices from Church History, rather than Voices from the Church. Two of them are Calvinists, one is not. All three are deceased. Green would have us believe that The Gospel Project cannot be trusted because it contains a Calvinistic bias, yet so far the only bias we have seen is Green’s, a bias which leads him to overlook some fairly basic features of the material and see those features as evidence of a Calvinist plot to diminish the significance of non-Calvinists.

I do think Green raises a valid issue with one of the individuals quoted, and yet that issue has nothing to do with Calvinism. Green points out that TGP at one point quotes a man named Andre Gide. I am not familiar with Gide, but if Green’s concerns about him are correct, then it was likely a mistake to include a quote from him. It is worth noting that is is not quoted as a Voice from the Church, his quote is simply set into the text. The quote itself is fine: “The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity.” A good word, a true word, yet for Sunday school material, I think Lifeway would be better off quoting Christians. Their actions are not unprecedented, even the Apostle Paul is found quoting pagan authors when teaching Christianity, and despite Green’s claim that “to cite Gide is to endorse Gide”, the quotation in no way serves as an endorsement of all that Gide said or did. Still, I wish Lifeway had left Gide out of the material. It’s a minor issue, and one that has nothing to do with Calvinism.

The Evidence for Calvinistic Teachings

Despite the fact that this interview was supposed to provide the evidence for the accusation that The Gospel Project is little more than Calvinistic propaganda, Green fails to offer a single quote that significantly supports his claim. He gives a grand total of two quotes from the material, and neither one really relate to the Calvinism debate.

God’s grace in self-revelation

Halfway through the interview, Green states, “From lesson one… is this statement that I believe is a problem: ‘It is also an act of grace that God would reveal Himself to us personally. God was under no obligation to pull back the curtain and let us see aspects of His character and evidences of His power. He could have spoken the world in existence and then never spoken again, leaving us in ignorance about our Creator and our purpose.’ On the side you can see that quote in its context from the TGP app (highlighted portions are a special feature of the app). This snippet comes from the learner’s guide whereas Green’s slightly longer quote is taken from the leader’s guide.

Green’s criticism of this quote is that it “dismisses a major aspect of God’s character, His love.” Green says that for God to hold back his revelation would contradict his loving character: “One thing God cannot do is to act in a manner contrary to His own nature. The Bible teaches that God’s love compelled Him to plan to reveal Himself to us to redeem us.” To a degree, I agree with Green. God will always act in ways that are consistent with his character and nature. Certainly, the writers of TGP would agree. Nonetheless, love does not require God to act in particular ways. Green seems to be saying that God’s grace is required by God’s love, that God gives us grace because he loves us and his love compels him to give us grace. In other words, Green seems to say that God has to give us grace, he has no choice in the matter.

Green goes on to say that “man did not obligate God to act in love. God obligated Himself to act in love and to reveal Himself…” but when he says this, he contradicts himself. Earlier he says that God is compelled to act certain ways on the basis of his character, but now he says that God is not compelled on the basis of his character to show us grace, God graciously chooses to show us grace. He obligates himself. He makes the decision to reveal himself to his creation. Instead of internal compulsion, God acts on the basis of his self-determination.

Either way, Green seems to miss the point. The section he quotes is trying to communicate the greatness of God’s grace. We are not worthy of the good God does for us. We are not even worthy of revelation. We don’t deserve good from God. When God reveals himself to us, it isn’t because he owes it to us to show himself. He owes us nothing. That he loves us and chooses to reveal himself to us is all of grace.

Whatever your take on this, I am hard pressed to see how this quote has anything to do with Calvinism. I understand that Green doesn’t like the quote, but how does the quote teach Calvinism? In what way would this quote contribute to Calvinist indoctrination when it has nothing to do with Calvinism?

The poison of sin

Green’s second quote has even less to do with Calvinism and represents an even greater misunderstanding. He quotes: “The point of the story is not about the type of fruit, as if the fruit juices would poison the minds of Adam and Eve. No, the poison of sin coursed through their veins before the fruit entered their mouths. ‘It was the not the nature of the tree that made it dangerous, the bearer of covenant curse and death, but what it stood for, obedience to the word of God.’” This quote is in the leader’s guide, not the learner’s guide. It is presented in the app as extra content, as shown to the right. Green says that this quote and similar statements “make God the author of evil”. He does not explain how it makes God the author of evil. It seems that he thinks the author is saying that Adam and Eve were created with sin in their veins, so when they ate the fruit they were doing what they were created to do. What he fails to understand is the author is pointing out that the sin began as soon as they chose to disobey. The sin wasn’t simply the action, the sin was the will that was willing to do the action. I don’t believe Adam and Eve would have been guilty of sin had Satan plucked the fruit from the tree and forced it down their throats. They were guilty because they decided to disobey God. They committed the sin of disobedience before the fruit touched their lips. Once they decided to disobey – even though they had not yet acted – they were guilty of sin. This teaching is solid and biblical, it has nothing to do with Calvinism, and it certainly doesn’t make God out to be the author of evil.

Green adds an additional brief criticism of this quote: “the tree as the bearer of the covenant curse? That sounds like Calvinistic theology to me.” What he has in mind is covenant theology, which sees God’s relationship with Adam and Eve in the garden as a covenant relationship. Covenant theology is usually held by Calvinists, hence Green’s connection. Green might have a point if anything of covenant theology were being taught in this quote, but the presence of one word implies neither subtle nor overt indoctrination. The point is clear: their sin brought curse and death, and the sin was in their rebellion, not in the tree. As for whether or not we should see God’s relationship with Adam and Eve as a covenant relationship, I think so, even if one is not a covenant theologian. But that is a discussion for another time.

Two quotes. That’s all we get. Lots of criticism, lots of concern, high level accusations against Lifeway, and Green gives us two quotes to demonstrate the presence of subtle and overt Calvinism within The Gospel Project.

The significance of this issue for Calvinists

Some have claimed that the Calvinist support and defense of this curriculum is evidence that it really is Calvinist propaganda. Green himself says, “I know others have blogged about this and say they see no problem with the curriculum. But I have to wonder if they are not already Calvinists. If I were a Calvinist, I’d have nothing but positive things to say about the curriculum, too.” Why are Calvinists so fired up about this issue? Speaking for myself, I’ll give two reasons.

First, because the material is good. I have often been critical of Lifeway’s material, feeling it to be too shallow and superficial. One can only do so much when trying to cover large chunks of the Bible, but even with space and time limitations, much of the material thus far has been very, very weak. I am excited about The Gospel Project because I believe it adds some much needed meat. I am convinced that the contributors are not interested in using the material to convince people of Calvinism but are trying to help all Baptists grow deeper in God’s Word. They have shied away from areas of disagreement but have done an outstanding job of helping build the saints, both Calvinists and non-Calvinists, in the Word of God.

Second, because we are being slandered. Green, SBC Today, and a handful of others are claiming that there is a conspiracy to Calvinize the SBC. Green has grossly misrepresented Calvinist beliefs and, not content with that, slanders the character of Calvinists by claiming that we, along with Lifeway, are deceiving people. One reason I am so vehement in my defense of The Gospel Project is to help people see that the accusations are fabrications. Too many pastors, professors, even state executives are warning their churches about the dangers of Calvinism and the problems of Calvinist theology, but they are not doing so honestly and fairly. Criticisms of The Gospel Project represent more of the same. I want to help make sure that people see through these claims. Whatever good intentions Green may have, he nonetheless slanders Lifeway and Calvinists with his false, unsubstantiated accusations. Given how shallow this interview is, I hope others will also see that there is nothing to his claims. The Calvinist bogey man does not exist.

Calvinism Misrepresented

I could point to several places in the interview where Green mangles Calvinism, but let me focus on two.

Getting Folks to Witness

In the last question of the interview, Green was asked: “What kind of problems did you envision if you had decided to use the curriculum?” In the second part to his answer he says, “…it’s hard enough to get folks to witness. They come up with every excuse as to why they can’t. If we add to that the thought that God saves who He wishes, then we think we’re excused from witnessing, but are still acceptable to God for our lack of obedience to His Great Commission.” Once again, he does not cite TGP. He gives no reason for thinking that The Gospel Project will make it more difficult to motivate people to be witnesses. Instead, he is drawing from a common caricature that Calvinism hinders missions. This overlooks the frequent Calvinist call to missions. It overlooks the Calvinist defense of the biblical responsibility for Christian witness. It overlooks the many Calvinists who have served on the mission field across the centuries. I don’t know of any Calvinist who teaches anything remotely resembling what Green says, and such teaching is certainly not present in The Gospel Project.

The Love of God

The greater misrepresentation is what Green says about the Calvinist view of God’s love. Offering a quote from one of his deacons, Green says that “[God’s] love is the Achilles heel of Calvinism. The Calvinists cannot explain it or fit it into their philosophical system. Therefore, they ignore it and substitute erudition, eisegesis and the like for it.” He believes that “Calvinists do not know what to do with the love of God and the restraints it places on God.” Once again, in this section there are no references to the curriculum, nothing to show that this claim is reflected in the material. Green (more specifically, his deacon) presents an outrageously flawed view of Calvinism and criticizes TGP on the basis of that view, not on the basis of what the material says.

In the future I may offer a more substantial response to Green’s claims in this section. As I say, it is outrageous, both because of the way it misrepresents Calvinists, and because of the way it misrepresents God. Green attributes some things to Calvinists that no Calvinist would support, but he then turns around says things about God that are completely unsubstantiated by the Bible. Since this post is already some 10 pages long, I’ll save a more detailed response for another time (if ever). Suffice it to say, this section demonstrates that Green seeks to criticize Calvinism without having any sort of reasonable understanding of Calvinism.

Moving Forward

By all accounts, The Gospel Project is selling by leaps and bounds. Churches have been snatching it up, and the last I heard, the material was already in its third printing. Churches like what they see. If there is any latent Calvinism in the material, surely some of these churches will spot it. One hopes that they will bother to provide actual evidence. In the meantime, may God use this material to build the saints in churches near and far.

Update 2: My response to Ralph Green has been posted.

Two weeks ago today, SBC Today offered a post criticizing Lifeway’s new Sunday school curriculum, The Gospel Project. Many people have voiced concerns with this material due to the majority of its contributors being Calvinists. The criticism has been that with writers of this sort, the material can’t help but be Calvinist in nature and is most likely an attempt by Calvinists to covertly indoctrinate and convert the SBC to Calvinism.

The post presented two weeks ago was titled, “The Gospel Project: Not for Calvary Baptist Church” and contained a report from pastor Ralph Green who said that after his church received the material, they scrutinized it for Calvinistic teachings and “found it to be biased in how it explains and interprets the study themes. There are numerous subtle seeds of the Calvinistic approach to Scripture and many that are overtly obvious.” Throughout this post, Green offers no evidence of the subtle or overt Calvinistic teachings contained in the material. He never quotes it, never so much as hints at what is being taught other than claiming that the material is Calvinistic. He does take the time to take several swipes at Calvinism, though he uses no Scripture to back up his arguments and quotes no Calvinists when he says what Calvinists believe, in the process badly misrepresenting Calvinism (an all-too-common feature of anti-Calvinistic writings).

At the close of his post, Green adds his own response to the curriculum: “Honestly, I was in shock for several days as I wrestled with this curriculum. I feel as though the sacred trust has been violated because the publishing arm of my Convention seems to be embracing Reformed Calvinistic theology.” Keep in mind that he has offered no evidence of the material’s Calvinistic teachings, yet he goes on to claim that there is an “agenda within The Gospel Project curriculum.” Not only has he made an accusation without evidence and misrepresented Calvinism, now he claims the existence of an agenda within Calvinism which one assumes is an agenda to Calvinize the Southern Baptist Convention. Once again, he offers no evidence beyond his claim.

It does not surprise me to see something like this posted on SBC Today. What does surprise me is how they concluded this post, and how they have followed up since then. At the end of Green’s comments, the editors of SBC Today added the following note:

“Coming tomorrow: Interview with Pastor Green wherein he will cite specific concerns with TGP curriculum.”

My response was that the original post was meaningless without the evidence. No accusation should be accepted without evidence (see, for instance, 2 Corinthians 13:1), so Green’s accusations carried no weight without his specific concerns.

The next day, instead of posting an interview, SBC Today offered this:

“The interview portion of Pastor Ralph Green’s post will be delayed one day due to unforeseen and urgent responsibilities of SBCToday staff. We appreciate your patience in this regard, and we hope you will enjoy today’s post.”

The following day:

“SBCToday personnel remain indisposed with matters out-of-state. However, we want to reassure our readers that the interview with Pastor Ralph Green regarding his impressions of the Gospel Project curriculum will be posted at our earliest convenience.”

Since then: Nothing. Silence. Well, not exactly silence – the website continues to be active with additional attacks being launched against Calvinism almost every day. The editor responsible for content, Norm Miller, has remained active, offering a post of his own, interacting in the comments, and even deleting comments. The initial claim was that they were too busy to post the interview due to external responsibilities. Given all the activity since then, that claim rings hollow.

In the last two weeks, multiple people have asked about the interview. Some of those comments have been allowed to stand, some have been deleted. Two of my comments were removed and I was banned from commenting when I pointed out all the activity that had taken place when SBC Today was supposedly too busy to post the interview. When I sent an email to Norm Miller asking him about this, he accused me of badgering him via email. I know of at least two other individuals who have had comments deleted when they asked about the interview.

SBC Today, your silence speaks volumes. You posted an article making serious accusations against Lifeway, yet you provided no evidence. You promised that evidence would be forthcoming, then you never delivered it. You have since maintained absolute silence on the issue.

Here is my take.

You heard about Ralph Green’s concerns with The Gospel Project and were thrilled to see yet another pastor highly critical of Calvinism in the SBC. You accepted at face value his claim that The Gospel Project taught Calvinism and posted the article without knowing what evidence he had. When you saw his evidence, you realized he had nothing. There is no subtle or overt Calvinism in the material. You knew the evidence wouldn’t hold up, so you didn’t post it. Perhaps you hoped to buy time with your initial delays, giving yourself a chance to dig through the material and get the evidence for yourself, only – surprise! – you discovered there is no subtle or overt Calvinism, thus there is no evidence to back the accusation. Rather than admit your mistake, you changed the subject and hoped no one would notice.

I admit this is all speculative. I could well be wrong. But we clearly see that two weeks later we still have not seen the evidence which supports the accusations made on your website. I cannot imagine that SBC Today would refrain from publishing real evidence if it exists, which leads to the conclusion that such evidence must not exist.

SBC Today, I welcome the opportunity for you to prove me wrong by posting the evidence of the subtle and overt Calvinism contained in The Gospel Project.

Fables aside, in the last few years there have been a number of people in Baptist life who have raised an alarm over the encroachment of Calvinism in Southern Baptist churches. Pamphlets have gone out to warn pulpit committees how to spot a Calvinist, even if they don’t claim the label. Calls have been issued for Calvinists to come public and identify themselves for what they are. Anyone who holds a theology similar to Calvinism yet rejects the label is accused of subterfuge and deception. It is not enough for such people to call themselves Baptists, they must wear the scarlet C or they are pointed to as evidence of a Calvinist takeover plot.

Personally, I’m sympathetic to those who think Calvinists should be clear about what they believe (though I recognize most people who oppose Calvinism don’t understand what they oppose, leading some people to be reluctant to use such a misunderstood name). I believe in the value of labels to identify historic theological categories. No label fits anyone perfectly, yet we recognize general beliefs identified by any given label. In the case of Calvinism, people know we are typically not speaking about baptism but about soteriology. The same is the case when using the label Arminian. The term is rarely used with reference to anything except the soteriological position that runs contrary to Calvinism. When someone is called an Arminian, it means nothing more than their beliefs about salvation match or are quite close to the Arminian view. Thus, just as I think those whose soteriology is consistent with Calvinism should be willing to call themselves Calvinists, I think those whose soteriology is consistent with Arminianism should be willing to call themselves Arminians. In either case, I think it is fair for a third party to look at their views and say, “You know, that person’s views are (Calvinistic/Arminian/Whatever other historical label applies)…”

I ask for consistency. Either allow all Baptists the freedom to reject labels no matter how well they fit, or grant all Baptists the freedom to use labels that fit even when we don’t like them.

Bob,

I commend you in this article for your focus on Scripture. Of all the posts offered thus far, this one may make the most use of Scripture. I disagree with your conclusions, but I appreciate that you have based your conclusions on the Bible. That said, I think you have misunderstood both Calvinism and the Bible on this issue.

Calvinists do not believe that salvation is a single, monolithic event. There is more than one aspect to being saved. Regeneration is the first step, but it is not the only step. Regeneration starts the process, but it is not the fullness of salvation. I think this point addresses a fundamental misunderstanding in your post: all of salvation is not accomplished in an individual when he is born again. By that point his salvation is a certainty (and was already certain because of God’s election), but there must still be the response of faith and the work of justification. Even beyond those, salvation includes the ongoing work of sanctification and the ultimate experience of glorification. The work of justification begins at regeneration, continues in my response of faith, and is completed when God justifies the believing sinner. Thus Paul says “we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (Romans 3:28).

Part of what you say about Calvinism is correct. We are regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit through a sovereign work of God. Regeneration does not take place as a response to gospel preaching, though it may be connected with gospel preaching, but regeneration is not a work of preaching, it is a work of the Spirit.

I am surprised that in your discussion you never went to John 3:1-15, perhaps the most significant passage on the new birth. In Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus he says that no one can see the kingdom (verse 3) or enter the kingdom (verse 5) unless he is born again. Jesus also separates physical and spiritual realities: the flesh cannot give birth to the things of the Spirit (verse 6). This is key to seeing where regeneration begins: the flesh only begets flesh and only produces works of the flesh. Thus Jesus says in John 6:63, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all.” The flesh is not a little help, the flesh is not a small facilitator, the flesh cannot be the source of believing – Jesus speaks in absolute terms: the flesh is of no help at all. None whatsoever. It contributes nothing to our being made alive – which means it contributes nothing to our regeneration. My mind, my heart, my spirit are not capable of responding to the gospel unless I am first made alive by the Spirit, a work the Spirit does in regeneration.

There is a degree of mystery to the Spirit’s work, a mystery affirmed by Jesus himself in John 3:8: “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Where will the Spirit blow? Where will he go next? Who will be born again by the Spirit, and why? Why did the Spirit blow his regenerating wind on this person, and who else will be born again? We do not know, God has not told us. This verse ought to leave non-Calvinists scratching their heads, since you believe you know why the Spirit works regeneration in someone’s life: the Spirit blew his wind my way because of my faith. But Jesus says the Spirit’s moving is a mystery.

In your post, your main focus was on the many passages which demonstrate there must be a response of faith which comes in response to the preaching of the Word. I agree completely, as should every Calvinist. We must believe. We must trust. We must have faith. We must believe in order to be saved.

What Calvinists recognize is that this belief, trust, and faith come not from ourselves but from God. This is demonstrated in multiple passages, including the infamous Ephesians 2:8-9. This is perhaps most clearly demonstrated in Jesus’ words in John 10:25-28: “Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.”

Don’t miss what Jesus is saying: (1) I spoke truth to you, but you did not believe. (2) My words and my works are a sufficient witness of who I am and the truth of what I say. You cannot claim ignorance as the cause of your disbelief. (3) You do not believe because you are not my sheep. (4) If you were my sheep, you would hear me and be known by me and you would follow me. (5) If you were my sheep and responded to my voice, I would give you eternal life.

In other words, what brings the believing is not natural human ability, since the flesh does not offer one iota of help to our salvation, but believing comes as a result of being God’s sheep. We usually put this the other way around: believe, so that you can be his sheep. Jesus says you are my sheep, therefore you believe. He does not hear speak of regeneration, per se, but he does make a distinction: if you are not my sheep, you will not believe. If you are my sheep first, then you will believe, then I will give you eternal life. The work begins with God, continues with God through us, and ends with God.

This picture becomes clearer when we also consider a passage like Philippians 2:12b-13: “…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” Work out your salvation. But why would you ever will to work for your salvation? Why would you want to be saved? Where does this power, this desire comes from? It comes from God who is at work in you. And because God has begun this work in you, we are confident of your salvation, because of Philippians 1:6: “And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”

God begins this work through regeneration, a gift given not in response to our belief but through the sovereign gift of God. Thus John 1:12-13 says, “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” Thus 1 Peter 1:3 says, “According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope…” Thus Jesus says that the Spirit blows where he will, not where we will (John 3:8).

Calvinism, which affirms the Bible’s teaching of the Spirit’s initiating work of regeneration and continued work of giving and growing faith in us, proclaims the glorious good news of God’s grace to save sinners who were completely unable to desire, will, think, or act in any way toward salvation. This theology needs to be affirmed by all who love the truth of God’s Word.

Semi-Pelagianism is a belief that came out of the early controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. A monk named John Cassian disagreed with both Pelagius and Augustine and proposed another option. While Pelagius believed that man was capable of living righteous under his own power and Augustine believed that man was completely unable to do or desire anything of God’s righteousness, Cassian proposed that man retains some ability to seek the grace of God. Grace is essential for the life and salvation of a believer, but sin has not completely destroyed human ability to desire that which is good. We must have grace, but man remains able to seek and pursue God’s grace. For Augustine, God must first change the heart before any person would ever desire God’s grace. For Cassian, people are able to desire grace through natural ability, without God first changing the heart.

Semi-Pelagianism was condemned at the Second Council of Orange in 529 BC. You can find the Canons of this council at the Historic Church Documents site. Of these canons, some are clearly directed at Pelagianism, others at semi-Pelagianism, and others touch on general issues of God’s grace to mankind. The canons close with a concluding statement summarizing the position taken by that council. I believe these canons and the conclusion make the definition of semi-Pelagianism clear, and make it clear that the Statement fits. Read the Canons for yourself, read the Statement (neither are long), then come back for my discussion.

The Statement and the picture of salvation

Throughout the Statement’s ten articles of affirmation and denial, a fairly clear picture emerges about man’s natural condition and the obligation that God has placed on man. All of the following portions in quotation marks come from the Statement.

In the Statement, we are told that “every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin”. We are not born in a neutral condition, we are born corrupted by sin’s effects. Because of our condition, we can be sure that “every person who is capable of moral action will sin.” The Statement recognizes and affirms that all people will sin and as such stand in need of salvation.

Despite sin’s corrupting influence, it has not completely destroyed man’s ability to will that which is good. The Statement denies that “Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will”. The Statement defines free will as “the ability to choose between two options” and says that God “endows each person with actual free will”. We are corrupt, but our free will is not destroyed. We retain the ability to choose between two options. Set before us one choice for evil and another choice for good, and fallen man has the natural ability to choose either one. Sin’s corrosive influence has not rendered him incapable of choosing that which is good.

Because we retain the free will ability to choose between two options, we thereby retain the ability to choose or reject God’s offer of salvation. God has offered us saving grace in Jesus Christ, and because God has created us with a will that is not incapacitated by the fall, that will “must be exercised in accepting or rejecting God’s gracious call to salvation”. When the Statement denies that “only a select few are capable of responding to the Gospel”, I take it to mean that the Statement affirms that all people retain the natural ability to respond to the Gospel.

Salvation is granted to individuals in response to their exercise of the will. God makes an offer, but it remains only an offer until each individual exercises his will to accept or reject that offer. Thus the Statement denies that “God imposes or withholds this atonement without respect to an act of the person’s free will.”

God’s role in salvation is one of calling or drawing. By grace, God made the “generous decision to provide salvation”. The Statement says that God takes the initiative in salvation in three areas: 1. “in providing the atonement” – God took the initiative by sending Christ to die for us; 2. “in freely offering the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit” – God took the initiative by offering salvation to all people; and 3. “in uniting the believer to Christ through the Holy Spirit by faith” – God will take a new believer and unite him to Christ not on the basis of works but on the basis of faith (in truth I’m not sure how this item reflects God’s initiative in salvation since it refers to something following salvation; hence, it is what God does to a believer, not what God does to one who is not yet a believer).

Furthermore, salvation does not come apart from “the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel”. The Statement does not explain the nature of the Holy Spirit’s drawing, though it does deny “that there is an ‘effectual call’ for certain people that is different from a ‘general call’ to any person”. In other words, the Spirit’s work is essentially the same in all people. Though he may work in different ways, he is doing the same thing for all, providing the same sort of drawing in all people. Based on other conversations with those who defend the Statement, I believe they see the Holy Spirit’s drawing as being his calling, his wooing, his summoning people to come and be saved. They do not believe that the Spirit must first change a person to enable a response; we retain the natural ability to turn and be saved. The Spirit’s drawing is extended to all people and it summons but the drawing itself does not save.

Finally, the Statement denies that “the decision of faith is an act of God rather than a response of the person.” Faith comes from within, not from without. Faith is something that comes from us through our free will, it is not something God implants within us, gives us, creates in us, etc, faith comes through our will and is shown in our response to God.

The picture of salvation that emerges is that God holds out his hand with the gospel, calling us and beckoning us and wooing us but not taking hold of us or changing us. It remains for us to respond “in faith to the Gospel” after which “God promises to complete the process of salvation”. God extends the offer of the gospel, we reach out in response, he takes hold of us and saves us. As the preacher man says, “God is pleading with you to come to him. He is beckoning for you, he is calling you over, he wants you to be with him, and if you will take the first step in response to God, Jesus will take the other 99 steps to take hold of you and save you.”

The initiative belongs to God in that God provides the gospel in Christ then extends the gospel to all, yet the actual accomplishment of our individual salvation begins with us as we must move toward Christ, exercising faith by our own will and choosing to receive for ourselves that which God has offered to all.

Even though the Statement denies that “the response of faith is a meritorious work that earns salvation”, it still leaves the response of faith as a necessary work for our salvation. If we do not choose, if we do not respond, if we do not reach out, if we do not create faith in ourselves by the working of our wills, then we will not be saved. This is the classic synergistic position in which man cooperates with God in accomplishing our salvation. There is a part for God to do by his power, and there is a part for man to do by his power, and if either part is missing, we will not be saved. Based on the Statement, one cannot escape the conclusion that salvation is not all of God but is a lot of God and a little of man.

Semi-Pelagianism and the Canons of the Second Council of Orange

This summary, drawing directly from the Statement, doubles as a picture-perfect presentation of the semi-Pelagian position. It would be difficult to make it more overtly semi-Pelagian than by, perhaps, adding semi-Pelagian somewhere in the title. Adding to all that I have said in previous posts about the semi-Pelagian nature of the Statement, let me summarize what the Canons of the Second Council of Orange have to say, showing just what it was that they were opposing. Along the way, I will contrast the Canons with portions of the Statement.

First, a quick run-down of the canons: there are twenty-five canons (or articles) and a concluding statement. Each of the Canons addresses a particular issue brought before the council. The first two canons seem specifically aimed at the original Pelagian controversy while canons 3-8 address the semi-Pelagian controversy (I’m not sure what canon 3 is in response to, though part of it has a clear implication for semi-Pelagianism). Canons 9-25 touch on a variety of issues relevant to the controversy. Canons 1-8 condemn specific views and arguments while canons 9-25 present the position of the council.

What the Council condemned

In the first eight canons, the Council made clear their belief that humans are completely unable to “believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock” apart from “the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us” (Canon 5). We retain absolutely no natural ability to respond in any way to God’s work of salvation. We will not seek, desire, or reach out for the gospel. Grace is given to us by God’s free and sovereign work and does not depend on human seeking: “if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle…” (Canon 6) God does not wait for us to reach out. The Statement claims that “when a person responds in faith to the Gospel, God promises to complete the process of salvation in the believer…” This directly opposes the teaching of Canon 6 that our obedience of faith is itself a gift of God’s grace.

Of faith itself, the Statement denies that “the decision of faith is an act of God rather than a response of the person”, a view condemned in the Canons when it says that “if anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginnings and the very desire for faith… belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles” (Canon 5). The Council clearly believed that no man can have faith in God unless God first changes our wills by “turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness.” Whereas the Statement claims that “God… endows each person with actual free will… which must be exercised in accepting or rejecting… salvation”, canon 5 says that our natural will must be changed before it will ever seek God. We do not retain the natural ability to exercise our wills in God’s direction. What we need is not simply a drawing or wooing, our wills must be changed.

In the Statement, salvation comes down to the natural, unchanged free will choice of the believer responding to the drawing and wooing of God. In canon 7 the Council condemned the view that “we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life… through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth…” The signers of the Statement would certainly affirm that God must be active in “illumination and inspiration” so that we can receive knowledge of the gospel, but that this illumination and inspiration take place by the Holy Spirit’s inspiring the Word of God. They do not believe that God must first open man’s eyes to make him able to see. Contrary to that, the Council said that the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit is his work to make “all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth”. It is the Spirit, not our natural will, who makes men assent and believe.

Canon 8 presents a clear denial of the ability of free will. Over and over again the Statement upholds the ability of man’s will to come to God with saving faith, yet the canon says that “if anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he… holds that [the will] has been affected in such a way that they still have the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God.” Understand what the Council means by “without the revelation of God” – they mean what they meant by the work of the Spirit in “illumination and inspiration” in canon7 and the Spirit’s work in canon 5, namely, that the Spirit must be “amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness”. By our own free will, no one will be saved. Only if the Spirit changes our hearts and wills can we be changed. The Statement’s claims about the role of our will in salvation is clearly and strongly denied by these Canons.

Because “the freedom of the will… was destroyed in the first man” (Canon 13), because “the sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God’s sake”, because “grace is not to be found in the free will of all who desire to be baptized, but is bestowed by the kindness of Christ,” salvation is from end to end a matter of God’s grace. God does not wait for our response, he does not “await our will to be cleansed from sin,” but he gives us the will, the desire to be clean “through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit” (Canon 4). Contrary to the Statement, God’s work is not simply a drawing, a calling, an offering, he must turn us and change us and give us faith and a will to seek him or we will never be saved.

For the sake of time, I did not present much from Canons 9-25 which do not oppose error so much as affirm what the Council believed to be true. Had I more time I would look closer at statements like “None would make any true prayer to the Lord had he not received from him the object of his prayer”; “Adam was changed for the worse, through his own iniquity from what God made him. Through the grace of God the believer is changed, but for the better, from what his iniquity has done for him”; “the love of God which ‘has been poured into our hearts’ not by freedom of the will from our own side but ‘through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us’”.

There are a few that I want to point out specifically: “…grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done” (Canon 18) This one is particularly important since it shows what they mean when they speak of grace preceding our response: the grace they speak of is God’s grace which enables our response, not simply grace to draw us or woo us or offer us the gospel. This is grace which changes us and brings us to salvation. In all of this discussion on semi-Pelagianism, many people have pointed to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church which says that semi-Pelagians believed that “the first steps towards the Christian life were ordinarily taken by the human will and that grace supervened only later”. Semi-Pelagians did not deny that God must first offer the gospel, nor did they deny that God wooed, drew, called, etc. But when the Council speaks of grace in salvation, they mean grace which changes us and enables us to believe. Semi-Pelagians did not deny that there must be grace before we believe. Of course they believed that Jesus first had to come and die, and that his death must be proclaimed to all and that God is calling sinners everywhere to repent. But they did not believe that enabling or transforming grace must precede man’s response. Since they believed man retained the natural ability to choose God, enabling grace was not necessary. The Canons make it clear that the Council disagreed and condemned the view that did not believe that God must first turn the will “from unbelief to faith”, etc, etc.

“…a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it” (Canon 20) This one clearly states that God is responsible for any good we perform. It is good for people to call out for salvation. It is good for people to have faith. It is good for people to realize they are sinners and to turn to God in repentance. And this good comes not from themselves but from God.

“Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed.” (Canon 23) This is the clincher. Whenever we disobey God, we are following our own wills. But any time we do that which is pleasing to God, we are doing what he has caused us to do. It does not matter how much we believe ourselves in control over our willful actions (“however willingly they do so”), anything we do that conforms with the will of God “is his will”. When a person calls out for salvation, he does it not by the power of his will but by the will of God.

In the closing lines of the Council’s conclusions, they state that “we must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise… was not a natural endowment but a gift of God’s kindness.” Faith is a gift of God, not a work of our will.

The Canons were written to oppose semi-Pelagianism and on point after point we find that it opposes the Statement. It does so because the Statement is semi-Pelagian. It is time for the signers of the Statement to stop trying to redefine semi-Pelagianism, stop denying that the Statement is what it is, and recognize that their position has already been defined in history by John Cassian and his followers.