The Student Global Impact National Conference, a missions conference for college students and young adults, took place this week at Inter-City Baptist Church in the metro Detroit area. About 340 people attended.
Phil Johnson wrote a lucid article in 1998 that those using the term “hyper-Calvinism” would do well to read:
Hyper-Calvinism, simply stated, is a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility. To call it “hyper-Calvinism” is something of a misnomer. It is actually a rejection of historic Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism entails a denial of what is taught in both Scripture and the major Calvinistic creeds, substituting instead an imbalanced and unbiblical notion of divine sovereignty.
Hyper-Calvinism comes in several flavors, so it admits no simple, pithy definition. . . .
A fivefold definition: The definition I am proposing outlines five varieties of hyper-Calvinism, listed here in a declining order, from the worst kind to a less extreme variety (which some might prefer to class as “ultra-high Calvinism”):
A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
- Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear,
- OR Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner,
- OR Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal),
- OR Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,”
- OR Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.
All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message
HT: JT
My friend A. J. Gibson is a missionary in Monterrey, Mexico. Why?
A. J. explains in a comment he posted re Chris Anderson’s perceptive “Advice for My Angst-Ridden, Non-Calvinistic Friends” (which weighs in on the issue I raised in “An Example of a Fundamentalism Not Worth Saving“):
Excellent comments, Chris. I’m a missionary for several reasons.
- Because I believe with all my heart that God has a chosen people in Latin America and that he’s given me the privilege to help call them out from the nations for his name.
- Because my theology tells me that God’s glory is the chief end of all his eternal decrees and that the greatest thing I can do in this life is live to that end.
- Because many years ago I tearfully and brokenly read Piper’s Let the Nations Be Glad and my man- (and self-) centered worldview was devastated by the beauty and greatness of the God I found there. Never in all my years growing up in fundamentalism had I heard or read such words. I decided that I had to tell others about Him.
Soli Deo Gloria
(BTW, in the interests of historical accuracy, those Latin words were the battle cry of a group of flamboyant Calvinist leaders whose ministries continue to bear fruit 500 years later.)
My last post highlights a book I read last night:
Gregory Koukl. Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.
In the foreword Lee Strobel recounts this story:
When I hosted a national television program called Faith Under Fire, which featured short debates on spiritual topics, I decided to invite best-selling New Age author Deepak Chopra to be a guest. The topic would be the future of faith. To offer a different perspective, I asked my friend Greg Koukl to represent Christianity. The idea was to tape them as they interacted for about fifteen minutes via satellite, the typical format for a segment of the show.
That plan quickly went out the window.
Greg was simply so engaging and so effecting in poking holes in Chopra’s worldview that I had to keep the cameras running. Time after time, Greg was able to expose the faulty thinking underlying Chopra’s amorphous theology and correct his inaccurate claims about Jesus and the Bible. Before I knew it, we had consumed the entire hour of the show. Chopra—who was accustomed to spouting his opinions unchallenged on television and radio—was left thoroughly defeated and deflated.
As soon as the taping was over, I turned to my producer. “That,” I said, “was a textbook example of how to defend Christianity.” For the only time in our show’s tenure, we decided to devote an entire program to airing one debate.
Why was Greg so incredibly successful in that encounter? He wasn’t belligerent or obnoxious. He didn’t raise his voice or launch into a sermon. Instead, he used the kind of tactics that he describes in his book: winsomely using key questions and other techniques to guide the conversation and unveil the flawed assumptions and hidden contradictions in another person’s positions. (p. 13)
Koukl’s website lists many video resources and other resources on apologetics, including a link to the Chopra-Koukl debate. (I also searched on “Koulk” at LeeStrobel.com and discovered ten videos, including the Chopra-Koukl debate in smaller segments.) Here’s a 36-minute video of the Chopra-Koukl debate:
As I acquire new books, I typically do not immediately assign them to their proper places on bookshelves. First I want to spend at least a few minutes with each book to get a sense of its argument and how it might be a useful resource to consult in the future.
Tonight I’ve been working through a stack of new books, spending fifteen minutes with one, five with another, etc. Then I picked up this one:
Gregory Koukl. Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009. [excerpt]
This is one of those rare books that is hard to put down. It’s insightful, witty, and fun to read. Except for an unpersuasive argument against determinism (pp. 128–29), the book is extremely helpful, particularly Koukl’s winsome and strategic use of asking questions (chaps. 3–6).
One of the most helpful chapters is entitled “Rhodes Scholar.” [Read more…] about The Fallacy of Expert Witness
An altar call is an “invitation” to “come forward” after a sermon to make a spiritual decision or commitment. I’ve endured hundreds of emotionally charged invitations characterized by man-centered manipulation. Unfortunately, my experience is not unusual.
Christian History just published a brief, impartial history of the altar call by Doug Sweeney and Mark Rogers: “Walk the Aisle.”
The most thorough treatment I’ve read on the altar call is this:
David Bennett. The Altar Call: Its Origin and Present Usage. New York: University Press of America, 2000. 261 pp.
Mark Noll describes Bennett’s work in the foreword as “the best sort of engaged history . . . . thorough . . . . fair . . . . unusually stimulating” (pp. v–vi). This work is a revision of Bennett’s (b. 1942) M.Th. thesis entitled “The Public Invitation System in Evangelism” for the Australian College of Theology in Sydney.
Here are some useful and brief analyses of the altar call:
Updates:
1. Sadly humorous:
2. How to Manipulate People to Make (Fake) Professions of Faith
Jenni and I are visiting family in Greenville, South Carolina, and this afternoon I guided one of my brothers on a tour of the Jerusalem Chamber at Bob Jones University‘s library. On our way out, I showed him the seminary building, which includes several interactive kiosks, one of which contains video testimonials from faculty, pastors, and graduates attempting to convince prospective students to come to BJU Seminary. That kiosk includes a letter on BJU letterhead with this explanation: “In 1994 a young man preparing for the ministry wrote to Dr. Bob Jones Jr. asking for his advice to someone who is called to preach. The following is Dr. Jones’ reply.”
I was reminded of this tract today while re-reading George Mish Marsden‘s Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism: 1870-1925 (2d ed.; New York: Oxford, 2006), p. 100. (It also occurs on p. 100 in the 1980 edition.) I spent a while searching for an image of it and finally found one on Timmy Brister’s blog.
Although no doubt well intentioned, this tract illustrates (1) evangelism that is both eisegetical and manipulative and (2) yet another reason that theology matters.