The Reformation of Doctrine and the Renewal of the Church: A Response to Dr. William R. Estep

Founders ^ | 1997 | R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

[George W. Bush]

Every succesful Calvinistic soul winner preaches like an 'Arminian' one.

And every repentant Arminian prays like a Calvinist. So much for the usual accusations. They're quite tiresome after a certain number of repetitions.

You may be aware that Spurgeon's predecessor at the Metropolitan Tabernacle was John Gill, the writer of the one great Baptist commentary. Although Gill was a thorough Calvinist, Gill's commentary, in much the same way as Calvin's, was not particularly Calvinistic but instead a learned commentary filled with information on Hebraisms, variants of scripture phrasing from various ancient versions and historical insights on ancient life among Jews in the Roman Empire. I use it very often for the insights in ancient life.

Gill also bragged that in his decades as pastor, he had never once given an altar call. But he was also quite successful, though not to the extent Spurgeon was.

Spurgeon is sweeter and easier to love but there is no denying he was a thorough Calvinist and stated it forthrightly on many occasions. While ill and elderly, he fought against the creeping liberalizing Arminian influence among Baptists and English churches in general. Spurgeon lived and died a thorough Calvinist.

[fortheDeclaration]

Every succesful Calvinistic soul winner preaches like an 'Arminian' one. And every repentant Arminian prays like a Calvinist. So much for the usual accusations. They're quite tiresome after a certain number of repetitions.

What accusation?

I would accept the idea that a truely repentant believer would pray like a Calvinist, that is, he acknowledges he is a sinner who needs grace.

But the plea of the Gospel is 'whosoever'(Jn.3:16) and no Calvinist can preach that and be consistent with Calvinism.

And no Arminian can preach the Gospel and not preach that man is a condemned sinner going to a real hell (as do the modern neo-evangelicals) and need the saving work of Christ to save them.

Maybe the best way to approach this is stop dividing between 'Calvinist' and 'Arminian' and start looking at Biblical vs non-Biblical views.

You may be aware that Spurgeon's predecessor at the Metropolitan Tabernacle was John Gill, the writer of the one great Baptist commentary. Although Gill was a thorough Calvinist, Gill's commentary, in much the same way as Calvin's, was not particularly Calvinistic but instead a learned commentary filled with information on Hebraisms, variants of scripture phrasing from various ancient versions and historical insights on ancient life among Jews in the Roman Empire. I use it very often for the insights in ancient life.

Yes, I am aware of Gill, Gail Riplinger has noted some of his comments on certain subjects.

, Gill also bragged that in his decades as pastor, he had never once given an altar call. But he was also quite successful, though not to the extent Spurgeon was. Spurgeon is sweeter and easier to love but there is no denying he was a thorough Calvinist and stated it forthrightly on many occasions. While ill and elderly, he fought against the creeping liberalizing Arminian influence among Baptists and English churches in general. Spurgeon lived and died a thorough Calvinist.

No question that Spurgeon was a Calvinist, but his soul winning appeals were not 'Calvnistic', they made individual appeals for the individual to make a personal decision.

My own personal opinion is that we have gone to 'Arminian' on appealing to souls.

The Bible never speaks of asking someone to make a 'decision for Christ'.

We have become enarmored with 'numbers'.

Paul said that he planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase (1Cor.3:6), so my view of 'soul-winning' is really more 'Calvinistic' (like Gill) put out the Gospel and let the individual make a decision when they are ready to do so.

I think 'pressing for a decision' (a result of D.L.Moody and Finny) has led to many false professions.

[fortheDeclaration]

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us” (2 Thess. 3:6). Sound teaching and aptly quoted. I've always wondered if this verse justifies second-degree separation among Baptists. I have separated from my local church, no longer able to ignore the heretics and the dramatists and other confused persons there. They resist any teaching of sound doctrine and are simply too ignorant of scripture and Baptist history to operate a Baptist church. But I'm not certain if second-degree separation is fully scriptural.

Yes, in context, that verse is speaking of those who are really immoral (do not work), not with those who we have some doctrinal differences.

However, in the case of the modern neo-Evangelical movement, with its compromises with the World, I do think biblical separation is called for.

[fortheDeclaration]

I think two issues are being confused.

One Baptism by immersion and two, local church membership.

If Piper is saying that a child baptism is a legimate substitute for adult Baptism that is compromising the Baptist view on the meaning of water Baptism (identifying with the death, burial and resurrection of of Christ)

If someone doesn't understand why they need to be 'rebaptized' then it is Piper's responsiblity to explain what the Bible teaches on it.

Charles Stanley had a good lesson on it last Sunday on his T.V. station.

Don't think I am commending Stanley.

I have critcized him to my Wed. night prayer meeting/bible class as compromising on the Bible issue and walking around the platform with a Bible in his hand that he never references (a NKJ at that!)

[George W. Bush]

I agree completely.

There are Baptist churches that will not accept the baptism of any other church. Landmark Baptists are this way. If you want to be a member, it is understood that you will be baptized by them. Period. And you will not be eligible for sharing in the Lord's Supper in their church unless baptized by them.

Beyond that, Piper's poor discipline here encumbers his church with petty troublemakers and 'special cases'. Again, we would need to know more about how Piper's church is run and whether he has the sole authority in this matter. He probably doesn't as we Baptists don't generally elevate our clergy to papist thrones. I doubt Piper is a pope and, if he were, he might have maintained proper Baptism practice. I'd like to know before I accuse him.

It does not appear that the persons rejecting anabaptism are at medical risk or anything. And we assume they're modern Americans and shower every day and also swim and jump in hot tubs and water-ski pretty often. So they're not afraid of water. It appears they're afraid of following Christ's simple commandment to believe and be baptized as were all the baptized in the New Testament, including Christ Himself.

People who are reluctant to be baptized are suspicious and should never be admitted to any church's membership. Naturally, they should also expect that they will undergo examination of their doctrinal views by the pastor and deacons. Generally, I've come to conclude that a Baptist should not be allowed to vote on church matters unless he understands Baptist distinctives and a minimal amount of Baptist history and his church's constitution. Ignorant persons are almost an inevitable source of problems among the membership.

Although I have been baptized, if I desired to join a church, I wouldn't reject being baptized again.

Once is sufficient. But repetition for the sake of belonging to a church with a sound membership is no burden to either the church or to any believer. However, I would not consent to being baptized by 'laying back' as I don't believe it is scriptural and is merely a stupid and pietistic notion of some nineteenth century preachers who thought it looked nice or was somehow more symbolic than the simple scriptural act of immersion in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, the only standard commanded by scripture. To exceed that simple standard or to impose additional requirements is to add to scripture. If a church attempted to force anyone into their laid-back baptisms, I would consider that church to be scripturally unsound and in violation of its proselytes' Baptist liberties.

Oh, yeah, and none of those stupid swishy white choir robes either. Just dunk 'em.

[George W. Bush]

Maybe the best way to approach this is stop dividing between 'Calvinist' and 'Arminian' and start looking at Biblical vs non-Biblical views.

True enough. Labels are sometimes dogmatic stumbling blocks. We always need to turn to scripture.

No question that Spurgeon was a Calvinist, but his soul winning appeals were not 'Calvnistic', they made individual appeals for the individual to make a personal decision.

And yet, his sermons were Calvinistic. They were preached for the sake of the believers and for their edification. Although his church could never accommodate all the 'seekers' that showed up, his sermons were not 'seeker-friendly' (a recent topic here as you know).

And still, he had a really sweet winsome approach and a passionate call for those who would to believe and to place their full trust in our Savior.

Spurgeon's passion for Christ was his most winning quality, I think. But I don't consider him one iota less a Calvinist than was Gill. It was a difference in style and sensibilities. Gill was more old-school.

I found this recently, an invitation given by George Whitefield, a great evangelist and Wesley's (sounder) colleague. He was also a flaming Calvinist:

"I offer you salvation this day; the door of mercy is not yet shut, there does yet remain a sacrifice for sin, for all that will accept of the Lord Jesus Christ. He will embrace you in the arms of his love. O turn to him, turn in a sense of your own unworthiness; tell him how polluted you are, how vile, and be not faithless, but believing. Why fear ye that the Lord Jesus Christ will not accept of you? Your sins will be no hindrance, your unworthiness no hindrance; if your own corrupt hearts do not keep you back nothing will hinder Christ from receiving of you. He loves to see poor sinners coming to him, he is pleased to see them lie at his feet pleading his promises; and if you thus come to Christ, he will not send you away without his Spirit; no, but will receive and bless you. O do not put a slight on infinite love–he only wants you to believe on him, that you might be saved. This, this is all the dear Saviour desires, to make you happy, that you may leave your sins, to sit down eternally with him at the marriage supper of the Lamb. Let me beseech you to come to Jesus Christ; I invite you all to come to him, and receive him as your Lord and Saviour; he is ready to receive you. I invite you to come to him, that you may find rest for your souls. He will rejoice and be glad. He calls you by his ministers; O come unto him–he is labouring to bring you back from sin and from Satan, unto himself: open the door of your hearts, and the King of glory shall enter in. My heart is full, it is quite full, and I must speak, or I shall burst. What, do you think your souls of no value? Do you esteem them as not worth saving? Are your pleasures worth more than your souls? Had you rather regard the diversions of this life, than the salvation of your souls? If so, you will never be partakers with him in glory; but if you come unto him, he will supply you with his grace here, and bring you to glory hereafter; and there you may sing praises and hallelujahs to the Lamb for ever. And may this be the happy end of all who hear me!"

Now tell me, is there anything there that any clergyman should have a problem with? Theology be hanged, that is a sweet and scriptural appeal for sinners to trust in Christ alone!

My own personal opinion is that we have gone too 'Arminian' on appealing to souls. The Bible never speaks of asking someone to make a 'decision for Christ'. We have become enarmored with 'numbers'.

Among the SBC, there has been some debate on whether altar calls and 'walking the aisle' should be the focus of worship services. The clergy are rumbling a bit about it, wondering why so many of these persons are so disappointing. And then why some people who were convicted simply by reading the Bible have much more spiritual tenacity and discipline. As a layman, I can appreciate their quandary.

It's easy for me to point at Gill and Spurgeon and act like it's all so easy for clergymen. But modern people are not what the people of that time were. And Gill and Spurgeon didn't have to compete with the same popular culture and the entertainments of a libertine culture like modern Europe or America.

Even so, I know you and I share a confidence that people are still hungry for the truths of scripture, no less than during the Reformation era. And we need not compromise scriptural truth and doctrine to accommodate modernism.

Perhaps this is one place where Calvinism is a source of comfort. We Calvinists rely so utterly upon God to bring men to repent. We know it is not due to our own merit or persuasiveness. We want them convicted under the spirit of the Word, not under our mere human influence or oratory. And we never have to worry that any soul God tried to save ended up in hell because we weren't persuasive enough. We may fail due to our human weaknesses but our God never does because He will save all who He has willed to save. To put it simply, He cannot fail.

It is very comforting. And I don't think it dampens enthusiasm for evangelism. Quite to the contrary when one looks at the great missionary efforts of Baptists, the greatest leaders of which were always, yep, Calvinists. These were the founders of Baptists missions, people like William Carey, Luther Rice, and Adoniram and Anne Judson, Lottie Moon. More of those blasted Calvinists who are supposed to be so lazy about evangelism.

We could be lazy Calvinists as we are sometimes accused of being. But it doesn't seem to work that way. I discovered the local Baptist church was sitting on about $20,000 in their bank account with no debts but only giving $25 a month to the convention's missions. I started earmarking all my donations for missions since the local leadership had no concern for them and instead blathered about spending money on worldly entertainments and renting theaters for Passion Of The Christ or country western music with a little Christian testimony thrown in. But only a pittance for Baptist missions. It was shameful IMO.

[fortheDeclaration]

I believe that a person can declare he has been baptized as an adult by immersion and that is sufficent.

I believe that the Lord's Supper should be open to all believers.

No Baptist church should state that it acceptable to be baptized in any other manner other then immersion and as an adult, making a profession of faith in Christ.

[George W. Bush]

I believe that the Lord's Supper should be open to all believers.

Open communion? Hmmm... Open to the unbaptized? All those at the Last Supper, including Jesus, were baptized believers.

No Baptist church should state that it acceptable to be baptized in any other manner other then immersion and as an adult, making a profession of faith in Christ.

They really are departing from Baptist tradition otherwise. I do think that teenagers and older children can be saved as well. Babies and tykes? Not really. I think that a saving faith in Christ is not for kids who still believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

[fortheDeclaration]

I believe that the Lord's Supper should be open to all believers. Open communion? Hmmm... Open to the unbaptized? All those at the Last Supper, including Jesus, were baptized believers.

Not exactly, Judas was there also.

No Baptist church should state that it acceptable to be baptized in any other manner other then immersion and as an adult, making a profession of faith in Christ. They really are departing from Baptist tradition otherwise. I do think that teenagers and older children can be saved as well. Babies and tykes? Not really. I think that a saving faith in Christ is not for kids who still believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

When someone is old enough to understand his own profession of faith, then he should receive water baptism.