|
|
|
|
Home In This Section:
|
T.U.L.I.P. Deadly Flower or Royal Bloom of Heaven? by I was recently sent an article via e-mail entitled "The Deadly Flower - (T.U.L.I.P)," Written by Dr. Gregory O. Baker. You can read it in it's entirety if you click on the this link, TULIP. I found it to be little more than a quintessential, perfunctory, and capricious diatribe in which the author seems unwilling or ashamed to deal honestly with the facts. I will admit that he at least did not build the typical straw man, or create the simpleton's caricature so easily disposed of by many of the enemies of sovereign grace. He came close though. Maybe he goes into more detail in other articles about this subject. Maybe he has presented a fuller or more complete view of his understanding of the atonement, redemption, regeneration, and justification, etc. in other articles of which I have not been made aware. What I did read and comprehend of his positions within this article falls far short of what I would hope one would understand if he is a pastor and president of a Baptist church and college. I do not personally know Mr. Baker. Outside of the fact that he is listed as a pastor of a church called Baptist and president of a school called Baptist I know little else. I do not intend, nor desire, to be disrespectful to Mr. Baker, but to his views I find nothing but contempt. This is not intended to be a complete and exhaustive dissertation of the five points, but I believe we ought to take to heart the biblical call to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Jude 3. So, it is not with any animosity towards Mr. Baker that I write this article, but for the purpose of contending for the system of faith I believe was once delivered unto the saints which he clearly disputes. I claim that heritage unashamedly and stand ready to answer any challenges to this historic doctrine of grace. Mr. Baker, after quoting John 3:16, I Timothy 2:3-4, Titus 2:11, II Peter 3:9, I John 2:2, and emphasizing the words "all," "whosoever," and "the whole world," writes this statement:
I agree that the Bible makes sense and that we shouldn't try and complicate it. But complication of the facts is exactly what this article does. It begins with these five verses, emphasizes the words mentioned above, and then begins to talk about how some people teach total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and perseverance. Of course he doesn't use those terms in any of those five paragraphs. I teach all five points without reservation and as we go further you will see I also disagree with Mr. Baker on regeneration as well. These are not minor disagreements. I consider them to be essential points of doctrine and could no more join with him in any evangelistic effort anymore than I could with one who espouses baptismal regeneration. My problem with the above quoted paragraph is that I don't know how he explains these verses. Well, I think I do, but he doesn't say so except in his hint of using the phrase the "all-inclusiveness of God’s salvation." I'm sure I do explain these verses differently than Mr. Baker. I gather this from the information contained within the whole of his article. I'm assuming he takes the position that the word's "all," "every," and "whosoever," are never discriminating terms because of this phrase "all-inclusiveness." For some reason those who oppose sovereign grace seem to nearly gag, roll their eyes, and beg to leave the discussion when we begin to examine those words previously mentioned. Look at Mark 1:5, and the use of the word all. "And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins." Would you assume for a moment that every inhabitant of these regions went out to John the Baptist and that he baptized every single man, woman, and child? Look at Luke 2:1, "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed." Do we suppose that "all the world" is not used in a discriminatory way here also? Maybe we can gain some insight by looking at John 12:19, "The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him." Does this mean everyone alive at this time had gone after Christ? Certainly no one would subject themselves to such an ignorant conclusion considering those who said this had not "gone after him" and therefore must be excluded from the phrase "the world." Time nor space will permit me to discuss the use of the term world as used to discriminate between Jew and Gentile as in Romans 11:12 and 15. One who espouses the view that T.U.L.I.P is such a deadly doctrine ought to approach this "system" honestly and thoroughly rather than with minimal and careless statements as found in this article. At least you would think an explanation would be forthcoming on the meaning of world in John 3:16 as compared to John 17:9, "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine." It appears that the word "world" is used in John 17:9 in a discriminatory sense and does not include those given to Christ. It would appear only the obstinate man would be unwilling to admit the term "world" is used with some discrimination when again we compare John 3:16 and I John 2:15 where we read "love not the world." There are further reasons for understanding that John 3:16 and the host of verses Mr. Baker uses does not and cannot mean "all men" without exception. This is not a new definition of the word "world," but it is attempting to understand whether or not it means the whole human race without exception by comparing scripture with scripture and within the context. Moving on, Mr. Baker begins the next paragraph stating:
This is another example of what I meant by an unwillingness to deal with the facts outlined in my introductory paragraph. The words he uses to describe what the Bible teaches about the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and man's inherent depravity is that a man will not come to the Lord unless God "somehow revives or arouses him." This seems to me to be sadly lacking if he is honestly presenting the views he seems to oppose so strongly. I don't know anyone who holds to and teaches sovereign grace that would use such inadequate and inconclusive language to describe the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit and it's necessity. It would appear that Mr. Baker's theology would have us translating ourselves into the kingdom of God rather than the Biblical truth we find in Colossians 1:13, "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:" There is no ambiguity in what historic Baptist have taught about regeneration which would cause us to use "somehow." The fullness of that work may be mysterious, but the work itself is not. And, according to John 3:8, this is the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit. Though he uses this verse in a latter paragraph I want to bring it up now. "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44. Why would we understand and teach that God must draw any man that will be saved as he stated? Because we also learn that "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God." Romans 3:11. From I Corinthians 2:14 we learn that man in his natural unregenerate state cannot know (or even perceive) the things of the Spirit of God and that he will not even receive them. Why? Because they are foolishness unto him. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." I Corinthians 2:14. Yes, even the most studied religious leaders of Jesus' day asked, "how can these things be" (John 3:9) when confronted with the truth of man's total inability, depravity, and necessity of regeneration. These truths are absurd to the lost and in speaking of the natural men's perception of divine truth, John Gill says they are: "contrary to reason; they do not agree with his taste, he disrelishes and rejects them as things insipid and distasteful; he regards them as the effects of a crazy brain, and the reveries of a distempered head, and are with him the subject of banter and ridicule:" But brethren these things ought not to be so among those who profess to be God's people. In a later paragraph he clearly teaches the exact opposite of the biblical order of regeneration, repentance and faith.
Of course we find no scripture to go along with this statement. Where is "thus saith the Lord?" Where does the Bible say that God never gives anybody anything until he first repents? This is a clear departure from the historic faith once delivered unto the saints. Read the articles of faith written and presented by Baptists on our Articles of Faith page. In particular see articles 7, 8 and 9 of the New Hampshire Confession of Faith. Clearly these articles teach that repentance, faith, and newness of life are a result of being quickened. W.E. Best said it well when he said, "unregenerate people are spiritually blind, deaf, dumb, and dead." What Mr. Baker has in the above statement is a spiritually deaf and dumb man hearing and understanding the gospel. Then he has this spiritually dead man then repenting. Only afterwards does God then regenerate him. (I wonder what Mr. Baker would do with John 14:17 which uses the word "world" again, in a discriminatory way, and denies this world's ability to receive the Spirit of truth.) Therefore we have salvation dependent upon the will of man. John 1:13 states that the new birth is a sovereign act of God not man. "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Mr. Baker, along with all the other Arminian crowd, has created an inconsistency for himself and his followers. He quotes the very verses that tell us that repentance is "granted" or a gift of grace from God. What is being advocated here is self-procreation. According to this theology Lazarus first must have chosen to come forth from the grave and then Christ granted him life. Regeneration throughout scripture is illustrated by terms that should help us understand that this is a Divine creative work. You see it in John 3:8 as the new birth (not delivery). You see it in John 5:24, 25, as a resurrection. And you see it in II Corinthians 5:17 as a new creation. John 6:60-66 tells us what happens when truth is preached without compromise. Some go away. And why? John 5:65 states, "And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." Some yet would teach otherwise. George Bishop wrote in "The Doctrines of Grace" when he said: "Can blindness make itself to see? Can deafness unstop it's own ears? Dumbness its own lips? Can palsy leap and leprosy exude its loathsome virus? Then may the Will work backward, revolutionize itself, fling off contagion wander through our crooked veins, and tearing from itself the poisoned shirt of Nessus, speak the emancipating edict - 'I Will! Self, be clean!" I move now to his section entitled "Calvinism is not Bible doctrine." I certainly am not about to defend John Calvin or Augustine. I am often amazed how some men can be right about certain things and yet be so blind about other truths that should be equally clear. Too often the purpose of associating doctrines with some particular name has the intended purpose of discrediting/accrediting the doctrine by the use of that person's name. If you like them or know they are in agreement with much of your doctrine it has a positive weight. If you don't like them or you know they are in serious error it has a negative affect. I could use the same cursory argument about the trinity and Roman Catholicism as He did with Augustine below.
Okay, but you were not talking about Augustinian doctrine or Calvinism. You were introducing whether or not T.U.L.I.P. is a Bible doctrine. I suggest the purpose of this portion of Mr. Baker's article is to associate T.U.I.L.P. with the reformation to show it is of recent origin, and with Augustine to show a connection with the heresy of the Roman Catholic church. (This famous acrostic actually was developed around 1618 in response to the five points, or charges, of James Arminius followers against the church of Holland.) No real substantive argument is presented at all under this section. No details from the scriptures are given to show the error of the total depravity of man. How about taking the scriptures used by those who teach sovereign grace and giving your own exegesis? I weary of the abject way in which opponents of the historic Baptist faith of sovereign grace attempt to bring them into disrepute. The only argument that seemed to be presented within this article is the one earlier mentioned, an attempt to make the words world, all, every, and whosoever to mean "all men everywhere without exception." That seems to fall rather effortlessly and absolutely by a simple search of the scriptures and in comparing scripture with scripture. If you read Mr. Baker's entire article you may have just now thought of his use of I John 1:9, "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." Again we encounter his "every man without distinction" definition, which is a forced definition. His next section is entitled "Calvinism is a deadly doctrine." I happen to agree with this statement if we are referring to T.U.L.I.P., that deadly flower. I just don't agree with the good Doctor on the rest of what he writes. He tells us about some poor soul's ignorant concept of sovereign grace and it's practical application to their prayer life. I suppose that he is attempting to show how sovereign grace is dangerous (deadly) to a proper prayer life. Maybe we ought to read about the prayer life of men like Jonathon Edwards, John Gill, B.H. Carroll, J.R. Graves, Hanserd Knollys, Charles Spurgeon, John Bunyan, John Spilsbury, or George Whitfield, just to name a few Baptist of some historical significance, and show us their poor attempts at praying for lost souls. These men are among only a small number of sovereign grace Baptists who held to what Mr. Baker calls T.U.L.I.P.. I wouldn't say this "system" of faith was deadly to these men or their prayer life. I think a biblical understanding of the five points will put a fire in our belly and drive us to our knees with such humility, and yet confidence that God alone saves, that we can preach and witness with excitement, enjoyment and expectation. Now why would I say I agree that a biblical understanding of sovereign grace is deadly and dangerous? Because I believe it is deadly to humanistic evangelism. It will crush the life out of legalism, formalism, ceremonialism and easy-believism. It will uproot apathy and laziness. If rightly understood we can preach that those who have been elected to be clothed with the garments of salvation are certain to be saved. Mr. Baker, I'd rather trust in my sovereign God to save His elect than to trust in the fickle and fallen will of man to make an empty profession of Christ. We can preach with confidence and boldness and we can endure heartache and hardships knowing that God will save sinners because of His eternal purpose. Wasn't that the Apostle Paul's attitude? "Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." II Timothy 2:10. It is a deadly doctrine to the churches that fill their pews with the unregenerate. I will now come to the last portion of his article under the heading "The Tulip is a deadly flower." I find it to be the most sorrowful of all. Here is what he states:
I would again agree that I use the term total depravity differently than Mr. Baker uses it. I understand it the way our Baptist forefathers and the scriptures present it. That sounds a bit bold or it may even seem to have an arrogant appearance. That is not the case at all. I believe in those five "deadly" points because they are biblical, else I would abandon them as quickly as I could. Our appeal is not to human reason or emotion but to the word of God. I would only say here what H. C. Hoeksema said. "You do not have to bow before me and my word; but you must bow with me before the Word of God!" I won't rehearse what I have already written on total depravity above. What I do want to point out is at the heart of the problem with the type of theology that would make such a statement. Responsibility and accountability seem to be the culprits to the Arminian, Pelagian, and so-called "Biblicist" that Mr. Baker claims to be. Here is what he wrote:
This idea of responsibility/accountability seems to be a primary motivating factor as to why the biblical doctrines of the total depravity, particular redemption, regeneration, unconditional election, justification, predestination, the effectual call, and sin are modified. They are modified to make God's judgment and man's accountability palatable to those who will not bow before a sovereign God and admit that "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." Romans 9:18. They are modified and made to focus upon man's will or the "whosoever will" brought up at the beginning of this article rather than upon particular redemption, or Christ as our atonement, and God and his eternal decrees. Mr. Baker would no doubt argue that man is not responsible for being a sinner but for his unbelief only, this is his only real problem.
Somehow he thinks a proper biblical understanding of total depravity removes man's responsibility. This is nothing less than humanistic reasoning being applied to biblical theology. "He was raised in a bad environment," "he couldn't help it," "he is a product of his heritage." I could go on but it ought to be enough to remind you that our courts are clogged with this type of humanistic, rationalistic defense. "It is someone else's fault that I am the way I am." It is also the error-laden concept that accountability requires ability. If God demands repentance and faith man must then inherently be able to repent and believe. That logic is flawed and not biblical. To teach what is taught in the article under question is to promote fleshy efforts instead of bowing before our sovereign God and while smiting our breast proclaim, "God be merciful to me a sinner." Now, according to Mr. Baker, God has removed all obstacles out of the way in Christ's death and man but needs to make his choice. What does that make of the atoning work of Christ? According to Mr. Baker, Christ's atoning work secures nothing but the possibility of salvation, and the responsibility of salvation lies with each individual. Mr. Baker pens his objection to both particular redemption and unconditional election. An objection to them as particular events undertaken by God in His sovereignty has caused many Christians to stumble and miss the blessings these truths grant us when they are coupled together. To make God's election of some to salvation based upon their foreseen faith is to deny the effects of the atonement or display an ignorance of our atonement. He rejects a particular atonement or redemption, and instead teaches a "general provision" for the salvation of man. But that "general provision" Mr. Baker holds to so tenaciously guarantees the salvation of no man. It is clearly taught in his article that this "general provision" contributes to the possibility of man's salvation. He places the emphasis and the fact of man's salvation upon man and means, rather than God and his election, effectual calling, and atonement. His idea means that despite all God has done, or will do, some will be forever lost. Why? Because he has placed the power of salvation into the hands of man and his power to choose in his natural and unregenerate state rather than into the hands of a sovereign God who has provided a definite salvation for a definite people. I won't go further into his lack of comprehension of perseverance and not knowing the differences between it and preservation. I will only say I am utterly amazed to hear a Baptist write that he does not believe in the perseverance of the saints. I should deal with his concept of the ministry of the Holy Spirit and how he implies with scripture quotes that God has already granted the gifts of repentance and faith to both Jew and Gentile. But, I have gone long enough but must add this final paragraph of Mr. Baker.
Indeed Mr. Baker, the Apostle Paul knew that some would object when he wrote what he did in Romans chapter nine and added these verses. "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" Romans 9:19-21. I'll take God's word over humanistic logic every time. The attempt to make God just in the eyes of sinful men will always lead to error. God is just and does not need man to defend him. T.U.L.I.P. is not a deadly flower at all. I see the most deadly doctrine to truth is in elevating man's opinions above God's word, allowing humanism to creep into evangelism, and ignoring the historic faith of our Baptist forefathers. I will contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints. I see T.U.L.I.P. as the Royal Bloom of heaven. In all my words and concern for the truth, I sincerely hope I have not appeared to be contentious. William L. Brown
|
|
|
