A Tale of Two Israels: Thoughts on Israel and the Church

 

A Measure of Grace 

Without a doubt, the most controversial issue in church news right now is Israel (well, perhaps second to Kirk Cameron’s imploding theology). I’m no stranger to writing about controversial topics concerning theology and church life, but this blog may get me Epsteined. Israel is a hot topic because it connects to a person’s eschatology (view of the end times), ecclesiology (view of the church), and, in some regards, soteriology (view of salvation). 

I want to say up front that I don’t believe this should be a tier 1 fellowship issue for Christians. There are good brothers and sisters with differing views on Israel. Therefore, we should have a measure of grace with those with whom we disagree. However, there are two fringe ditches to avoid— one ditch places ethnic and national Israel on a pedestal that it doesn’t belong on. The other ditch leads to anti-semitism. Reasonable, Biblical Christians should land somewhere in the middle. With that in mind, let’s light this dumpster fire. 

God’s Chosen People? 

Earlier this year, Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson got into a heated exchange about Israel when Cruz stated that “As Christians, the Bible commands us to bless and support Israel.” Carlson responded, “Wait, the Bible commands us to support the government of Israel?” “We are to support the nation of Israel,” said Cruz as he tried to move on in the conversation. Carlson, unwilling to let it go, said, “This is really important. Can we at least define Israel?” Carlson gets it. This is the million-dollar question: who is Israel? 

Before I get out the scuba gear and dive into this question, I think it’s important for the reader to know that I am a committed pre-millennialist. I believe that Christ will come physically to this world and reign from Jerusalem for a thousand years. I think Israel will be saved on a national level. I point this out because I’m going to say some things that make it seem as if I believe in what has come to be known as “replacement theology” (not true). Just bear with me until the end. 

That said, if you’re like me and were raised on a Scofield study Bible, you were probably programmed to believe that the nation of Israel is the only Israel in the Bible, and it’s stupid even to question such a simple concept. However, in my own study over the years, I have come to realize that this issue is more layered and complex than that (which is why good people differ). 

Like Cruz, I was taught that ethnic Jews are God’s chosen people, and that national Israel is God’s chosen nation. I grew up hearing statements from the pulpit about Israel being the “apple of God’s eye,” that God would bless those who bless Israel, and curse those who curse Israel, etc. However, as I grew in the Word, something just didn’t sit right with these statements. 

Perhaps the easiest way to highlight the complexity of the question, “Who is Israel?” would be to slightly alter the question and ask, “Who are God’s chosen people?” For my dispy friends, I know that their knee-jerk reaction will be to shout, “The Jews!” But let’s step back and analyze that for a minute. Do people go to Heaven because they are ethnic Jews? Do ethnic Jews who reject Christ receive forgiveness and salvation simply because of their ethnicity? The answer is a resounding “NO!” If ethnic Jews die and go to hell without Christ, can we say with a straight face that they are God’s chosen people? I don’t think so. 

Ponder this staggering stat. In the land of Israel, the place where Jesus preached, worked miracles, died on the cross, rose from the dead, and founded the Christian church, is less than 2% Christian! That’s comparable to the 10/40 window in Southeast Asia that is historically unreached with the gospel. The percentage of believers in Israel is also similar to the numbers in the Mormon Mecca of Utah, where I live and pastor. Judicial blindness much? Are these God’s people?

So who are God’s chosen people? Believers in Christ. We see this from Genesis all the way through Revelation. Old Testament believers were saved by grace through faith in the coming messiah (Romans 4, Galatians 3), and today we are saved by grace through faith in the messiah who has already come (Ephesians 2:1-10). This is why some of my covy friends believe in a unified church in both the Old and New Testaments. However, the Bible seems clear that the church was established in the New Testament. And because I’m cautious about using specific language that the Bible doesn’t use, I can’t speak to an Old Testament church, though I can at least understand where they are coming from. But this also leads to a natural question. 

If Believers weren’t the Church in the Old Testament, is the Church a Spiritual Israel in the New Testament? 

This question is ground zero for most of the confusion and polarization among Christians concerning this issue. To be clear, there is an ethnic and national Israel. I’ve been there. I can show it to you on a map, and yet, the New Testament is clear that the church (believers) is a spiritual Israel, the chosen people of God. 

In his epistle to the Romans, Paul writes to the Christians at Rome, who were divided along the lines of Jewish and Gentile tradition. The division was so bad between Jewish and Gentile believers that there was a push to found their own separate churches. Paul was writing to nip this in the bud. 

From Romans 1:18 to 3:20, Paul argues that prior to salvation, all were condemned before God (both Jew and Gentile); therefore, believers shouldn’t be divided by secondary issues, knowing that they escaped due condemnation. Along this line of reasoning, Paul begins to expose the superficiality of outward Jewish tradition, specifically referencing the fact that circumcision is worthless, and that it is the circumcision of the heart by faith that matters. He closes this section by saying, “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. (Romans 2:28-29). 

Paul says in no uncertain terms that a true Jew is one in heart (a believer) and not just one outwardly (or ethnically). Some might try to argue that a true Jew would have to be both an ethnic Jew and a believer for this to apply, and that it is an unfounded assumption that it could ever be said of a Gentile that they are a true Jew. However, Paul says just two verses earlier, “Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?” (Romans 2:26). Paul literally says that the uncircumcised (Gentiles) who are circumcised in their heart are more Jew than the circumcised Israelite who has not been circumcised in heart. 

From Romans 3:21 to 8:39, Paul shifts his argument, reasoning that if all were condemned (Jew and Gentile), then all who have been pardoned by Christ (both Jew and Gentile) should have a unity that far exceeds our traditions and preferences, confirming again that believers in Christ are God’s chosen people. 

At the beginning of Romans 9, Paul preemptively answers the question that he knew would be burning in the hearts of his Jewish readers. If believers in Christ are God’s chosen people, and Israel as a nation rejected Christ, then did God fail in keeping His promises to Israel? The answer that Paul gives is found in Romans 9:6, “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” In other words, not all of Israel (ethnic) belongs to Israel (spiritual). To further drive this home, Paul says in the verses following, “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” (Romans 9:7-8)” Notice the clear distinction between Abraham’s fleshly children (ethnic Israel) and the children of God (spiritual Israel). 

Over the next several verses, Paul hashes out the point by giving examples of spiritual Israel within ethnic Israel: Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, etc. See, Romans 9 isn’t about nations, it's about God’s election of a remnant within a nation. This leads to our next point. 

All Roads Lead to the Abrahamic Covenant

It would take an entire blog series to do justice to all of the intricacies concerning the Abrahamic Covenant. For the purposes of this blog, I will only focus on one specific aspect. Genesis 15:4-5 says, “And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.” The million-dollar question is, who is this numberless seed promised to Abraham? Is it his physical seed (ethnic Israel), or his spiritual seed (spiritual Israel)? The answer is “yes.” 

As with many OT prophecies, there was a near fillment, and a far fulfillment. Indeed, Abraham had many ethnic children, who went on to form the nation of Israel. However, Paul offers his own commentary on the ultimate fulfillment of this text. “Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham…And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:7, 29). Believers are the spiritual children of Abraham (spiritual Israel). 

At the end of his epistle to the Galatians, Paul rehashed this line of argumentation by saying, “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” (Galatians 6:14-16) Paul literally calls those who are in Christ Jesus “The Israel of God.” The context doesn’t allow for any other sensible interpretation. To this point, McKnight writes, 

“In this case, the 'whoever' and the 'Israel of God' are identical, just as 'peace' and 'mercy' are put together into a synthesis. In this view, the church is now the “Israel of God” (emphasizing the continuity of the covenant with Abraham). After all, all the church can be called “children of Abraham” and the “true circumcision” (3:29; Phil. 3:3).”

Jesus had a similar conversation with a group of dissenting Jews, “They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.” (John 8:39). Jesus looked these ethnic descendents of Abraham in the eye and said that they weren’t really children of Abraham because they didn’t follow the God of Abraham. Again, believers are a spiritual Israel. 

Still Not Convinced? 

Think about the almost identical language that the Lord uses concerning Israel under the Old Covenant and Christians under the New Covenant. Concerning ethnic Israel, He said, “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.” (Exodus 19:5-6). 

Peter, writing to New Testament believers, said, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.” (I Peter 2:9-10). How can the serious Bible student read statements like this, or what we have seen in Romans, or in Galatians concerning the Abrahamic covenant, and completely dismiss the idea that the church is a spiritual Israel? The church is a spiritual Israel. Believers are the people of God. This leads to another natural question. 

Is Fulfillment the Same Thing As Replacement? 

The short answer is “no.” This is where I part ways with many of my reformed friends on this issue. Just because the church is a spiritual fulfillment of Israel, it doesn’t mean that God is done with ethnic Israel. Paul anticipated this question, based on his statements in Romans 9 and 10. Romans 11 begins with, “I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.” (Romans 11:1-2). 

Over the following several verses, Paul communicates that due to Israel’s rejection of Christ, God has judicially blinded them, and that He is reaching the Gentiles for a time. However, there will come a point in history when God will open the eyes of the Jews (I personally think this will happen during the Great Tribulation period). “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.” (Romans 11:26-27). Based on everything that Paul has said in chapter 11, there is no other way to interpret this text than a widespread conversion and revival of the nation of Israel. 

However, there is a significant caveat that needs to be inserted here. Those ethnic Jews who come to faith in Christ will be grafted into the spiritual Israel of believers. So the true Israel is one people, made up of Jews and Gentiles: two groups, one people. Although we can distinguish between Jews and Gentiles as ethnic groups, we need not make the mistake of thinking that God has two peoples. God has only one people: believers, the true Israel.  

What is Our Responsibility Toward the Nation of Israel?

For starters, it would behoove us to adopt Paul's heart regarding the nation of Israel. “Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.” (Romans 10:1). We should pray for the Jewish people, support foreign missions in Israel, and share the gospel with Jews every chance we get. 

Second, we should avoid the ditches mentioned earlier in this blog. The first ditch, illustrated by Ted Cruz, places the nation of Israel on a pedestal that it doesn’t belong on. Although Cruz couldn’t remember the verse reference in his interview with Tucker Carlson, he quoted from Genesis 12:2-3- “And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” I think this may be one of the most abused texts in the Old Testament. Notice that it says nothing about blessing or cursing the nation of Israel. Rather, God blessed Abraham so that all families of the earth (Jews and Gentiles) would be blessed. This is the promise of the gospel. Is God promising blessings and cursings based on how people respond to national Israel, or is God promising blessings or cursing based on their response to the gospel? The latter is the only viable option, unless we are to throw out the central message of the entire Bible, for a distorted interpretation of a single, isolated verse. Waltke writes, 

“After Jesus’s execution and resurrection, God promises that the Jewish people will now see all the nations finding blessing through them and along with them, as he has said to Abraham (Acts 3:25–26) And it happens. People who trust in Jesus and thus belong to him do count as the offspring of Abraham and are among the heirs of his promise, whatever their race or social position or gender. In the giving of the Spirit, the blessing of Abraham comes to them, the blessing destined for all nations (Gal. 3:8, 14, 28–29).”

Decades of faulty theology in America have elevated the nation of Israel and its leaders to an almost unquestionable cult-like status. Not everything that Israel does is right, simply because it’s Israel doing it. Please hear this: Israel absolutely has a right to its own sovereign borders. Israel has the right to defend itself from its enemies, both foreign and domestic. They absolutely have the right to exist in peace. However, they do not have the right to a blank checkbook from the U.S. They do not deserve a blind allegiance that never questions their policies or procedures. We have to get out of this mindset. Israel is not above reproach. 

When it comes to our pulpits, we need to stick to preaching Jesus and stop preaching the Jerusalem Times. We cannot allow our sermons to be hijacked every time a 10-year-old kid shoots off bottle rockets with his parents in the Israeli countryside. 

The other ditch that must be avoided is the replacement, antisemitic ditch that has produced hot, juicy garbage being pumped out by the likes of Candace Owens, Joel Webbon, and Corey Mahler with the Stone Choir Podcast (thank God it was recently discontinued). All Christians everywhere should condemn that hellish nonsense in the strongest terms possible.   

Conclusion

As with many other polarizing issues within the church, Israel is more complex than most would like it to be. It’s not an either/or scenario, but a both/and. There is an ethnic Israel, and there is a Spiritual Israel. As Paul stated in Romans 2 and Galatians 3, it’s not your ethnicity or outward traditions that matter; it’s faith in Christ. Do you know Him? Are you a believer? Do you belong to the church, the Spiritual Israel? Ephesians 2:8-9 says, For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” (Acts 16:31). 

What I Wish My IFB Brethren Knew About the Calvinism/Arminianism Debate (Part 5)

 

    This is the fifth and final installment in this series (read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4). In this series, I have been confronting the egregious arguments against Calvinism and the subsequent slander of our Calvinist brothers posted regularly by IFB pastors online (Arminianism as well, although the brunt of the fire is aimed at Calvinism, so the thrust of my arguments have gone there as well). 

    As an Independent Baptist pastor, my goal in this series is not necessarily to champion either of these positions, but to expose the terrible arguments against them. Only when we get rid of terrible arguments fueled by unhinged bias can we have civil and productive dialogue among brothers. This is my goal, unity through edification. It’s time to deal with our final strawman. 

Strawman #5: Baptists have never been Calvinists (worded another way, Baptist Churches have never been Calvinistic in their doctrine). 

    To be clear, church history should never be our final authority for faith and practice; that throne only belongs to the Bible. However, church history is important because it can give us great insight into how our Christian predecessors interpreted the Bible. If our churches are preaching and teaching things that can’t be found anywhere in the annals of church history, it’s probably because our doctrine can’t be found in the pages of the Bible either. As the old adage says, “If it’s new, it’s not true, and if it’s true, it’s not new.”

    Church history is important because it discourages churches and leaders from doing their own thing. This is something that all cults have in common: they ignore Biblical doctrine and church history so they can do their own thing. Church history will force groups like this to answer the question, “Why didn’t any of our Christian ancestors teach or practice those things?” It places the burden of proof on them to explain why they are right and all Christians everywhere for the past 2,000 years were wrong. 

    In the same vein, if a particular church group or denomination does an about-face on a key Biblical doctrine, the burden of proof is on them to explain how and why they came to that conclusion that led them to go against nearly two millennia of church teaching on that particular issue. This particular point will be most relevant to the discussion about what Baptists have historically taught concerning salvation. 

Baptist Churches Have Never Been Calvinistic? 

    To be fair, many people who make this claim probably mean that Independent Baptist churches have never been Calvinistic. However, we will deal with both of these claims individually because they are laden with problems. Let’s first address the claim that Baptists in general are not Calvinists.  

    It needs to be stated up front that, due to the autonomous nature of Baptist churches, it is impossible to throw a blanket over every Baptist congregation that has ever existed and speak for them concerning the specifics of their soteriology. However, we can show what the majority of Baptist churches have historically taught concerning salvation. Bold claim alert: the overwhelming majority of Baptist churches were Calvinist prior to the 1900s. In fact, there were so many Baptist Calvinists of yesteryear that, instead of listing examples, it would save me a lot of time to simply state that it would be almost impossible to name a well-known Baptist pastor or missionary prior to the 1900s who wasn’t a Calvinist (Google it). Church historian Thomas Nettles writes, 

“The particular focus of this book draws attention to soteriology in Baptist life. The writer’s thesis is that Calvinism, popularly called the Doctrines of Grace, prevailed in the most influential and enduring arenas of Baptist denominational life until the end of the second decade of the twentieth century, and that for the past seventy years, both negligence and rejection have taken their toll upon the Baptist understanding of and -even more- commitment to those truths that Baptists once held dear.” (Thomas J. Nettles, By His Grace and for His Glory: A Historical, Theological and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life (Baker, Grand Rapids, 1986) 13.)

    Thomas Kidd writes, 

“In a 1793 survey, early Baptist historian John Asplund estimated that there were 1,032 Baptist churches in America. Out of those, 956 were Calvinist congregations. These were “Particular Baptists,” for they believed in a definite atonement (or “particular redemption”), that Christ had died to save the elect decisively. “General Baptists,” who believed that Christ had died indefinitely for the sins of anyone who would choose him, accounted for a tiny fraction of the whole. Even some of those, Asplund noted, believed in certain Calvinist tenets such as “perseverance in grace.” (https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/calvinism-is-not-new-to-baptists) 

    One of the oldest books in my library is entitled Baptist, Why and Why Not. It was published in 1899 by the Sunday School Board of the SBC (keep in mind that this was prior to the mass exodus of churches from the SBC, and therefore representative of the overwhelming majority of Baptist thought at that time). The authors write, 

“Our people are as stout as the stoutest in holding fast and true the great doctrine of election with its co-ordinate doctrines, and yet are nothing behind the most earnest in emphasizing the freedom of the human will, and in proclaiming the gospel as the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth.” (pg. 13). 

    Notice that this is the classic Biblical paradox taught by strict-Calvinists like Spurgeon (see Blog 3 in this series). Later in this same book, in the chapter entitled “Why Baptist and not Presbyterian,” T.S. Dunaway writes, 

“It is but simple justice to the Presbyterians to say that there are many of their beliefs and practices which entitle them to my highest respect, warmest admiration, and brotherly love. Concerning what are called the doctrines of divine grace, the Baptists and Presbyterians are perhaps nearer agreed in their beliefs than any other large and distinct Protestant denomination. The soundness of their views concerning these doctrines of grace, their intelligence, the prominent part they have taken in higher education, their reverence for God’s word, their strict observance of the Sabbath, their fervent piety and consistent Christian living, call forth the praise and admiration of every true Baptist.” (pg. 130). 

    If you’re still not convinced, just take a look at the historic Baptist confessions. Another bold claim alert: every well-known historic Baptist confession affirms the doctrines of grace either in full or in part (virtually all were 4 or 5 pointers). It isn’t until the Baptist Faith and Message of 1925 that this language begins to be watered down. Let’s just look at a few samples to prove the point. 

    Concerning the Fall of Adam, the Philadelphia Baptist Confession of 1742 states, 

“They being the root, and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free. (Rom. 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22, 45, 49; Ps. 51:5; Job 14:4; Eph. 2:3; Rom. 6:20, 5:12; Heb. 2:14, 15; 1 Thess. 1:10). From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.” (PBC, 6:3-4)  

    This is classic Total Depravity. 

    Concerning the doctrine of election, the Standard Confession of 1660 states, 

 “That God hath even before the foundation of the world chosen, (or elected) to eternal life, such as believe, and so are in Christ, John 3. 16. Ephes. 1. 4, 2 Thes. 2. 13. Yet confident we are, that the purpose of God according to election, was not in the least arising from fore-seen faith in, or works of righteousness done by the creature, but only from the mercy, goodness, and passion dwelling in God, and so it is of him that calleth, Rom. 9. ii. whose purity and unwordable holiness, cannot admit of any unclean person (or thing) to be in his presence, therefore his decree of mercy reaches only the godly man, whom (saith David) God hath set apart for himself, Psal. 4:3.” (SC, Article VIII) 

    This is classic unconditional election. What’s interesting about the Standard Confession is that it was a General Baptist Confession. General Baptists did not believe in limited or definite atonement, and yet they believed the other doctrines of Grace. What this means is that even the “non-Calvinist” Baptist churches of yesteryear were infinitely more Calvinistic than most Baptist churches today. 

    In reference to the atonement, the London Baptist Confession of 1689 states, 

“God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification; nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit in time does actually apply Christ to them.” (LBC, 11:4). 

    Christ died for the sins of the elect. This is classic limited atonement. 

    In reference to the saving grace of God, the Philadelphia Baptist Confession of 1742 states, 

“Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.” (PBC, 10:1).  

    This is classic irresistible grace. 

    In the section literally entitled, “The Perserverance of the Saints,” The Sandy Creek Confession of 1845 states, 

“That such only are real believers as endure unto the end; that their persevering attachment to Christ is the grand mark which distinguishes them from superficial professors; that a special Providence watches over their welfare, and they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.” (SCC, Article IX)

    I could give multiple examples of these doctrines from multiple confessions, but I think the reader gets the idea (for a list of pretty much all of the Baptist Confessions, click here). Suffice it to say, the statement that “Baptists have never been Calvinists” is a patently false statement. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is entitled to their own facts. 

Ok, but Independent Baptist Churches have Never Been Calvinistic? 

    There are three glaring problems with this statement. First, the word "Independent” assumes that each church has the authority to teach doctrine in line with their Biblical conviction and in accordance with what Baptists have historically taught (we just saw that). One would have to possess absolute knowledge about the doctrine of every Independent Baptist Church in the world in order to make such a blanket statement. Granted, there might be some Baptist “popes” out there who would like to decree that no true IFB church would ever teach the doctrines of grace, but again, the word "Independent" destroys their power to do so.  

    Second, given all that we have learned about historic Baptist teaching concerning soteriology, the burden of proof falls on IFB pastors who would make such a statement to explain why they are right and our Baptist forefathers were wrong (and damnably wrong in the eyes of many). Imagine our brethren being able to travel back in time and sit at the table with men like Spurgeon, Bunyan, or Carey, explaining to them their damnable heresy from hell (I’d love to see it). IFB pastors are cutting off their nose to spite their face when they ride their hobby horse of Calvinism. They cannot do so without condemning our Baptist forefathers. 

    Lastly, IFB pastors are creating an incredible dilemma for themselves when they make this statement because they are going to have to explain why they are doing their own thing, completely separated from church history (which, by nature, is very cultic). Whenever I hear a preacher harp on the “Old Paths” or “Old Time Religion,” I think to myself, “How far back are we going?” Are we going back to the time when the overwhelming majority of Baptists taught the doctrines of grace, or are we going back to the 1950s when Baptists were fighting against the evils of wire-rimmed glasses and beards? 

    This dilemma becomes glaring when one considers that a large percentage of the rabidly anti-Calvinist IFBs also believe in the “Trail of Blood” mentality as it pertains to Baptist history. For the uninitiated, The Trail of Blood was a book published posthumously in 1931 from the works of B.H. Carroll (who was a staunch Calvinist BTW) argues that Baptist succession goes all the way back to the times of the Apostles. The claim that the IFB churches are doing their own thing and find their origins in the early 1900s is irreconcilable with the “Trail of Blood” mentality. 

    To take the irony a step further, IFBs in this category deny any connection at all to Calvinist Baptist churches, but they will gladly accept Carroll’s assertion that early heretical groups like the Paulicans, Montanists, and Donatists were actually the early Baptists by a different name. These groups were Heretics with a capital H. If we saw them today, we wouldn’t even consider them brothers in Christ, much less Baptists. But hey, consistency is way overrated, right? 

    Needless to say, the statement that Independent Baptist churches have never been Calvinist is a patently false statement as well. To try to stand by this statement is to commit homicide against facts and logic. That dog won’t hunt. 

Conclusion

    I conclude this series by reiterating that I’m not trying to defend or champion a certain label (although I certainly know where my beliefs land). My goal is to encourage people to lower the temperature regarding our brothers and sisters in Christ with whom we might disagree. Not everything is a tier 1 issue. I also wanted to unify through edification. We tend to fear what we don’t understand. If we understand someone else’s position, we need not fear them (unless they truly are a heretic, and even then, we should pray for their salvation). 

    I was talking to an older Baptist pastor friend of mine just this past week about how, in years gone by, he (a non-Calvinist) could go to an IFB meeting, sit at a table after the service, and break bread with Calvinists. They could talk about their differences, agree to disagree, and go about their lives. We need to get back to that. The inability to do so isn’t macho; it’s weak and fragile. Unfortunately, weak men hurt a lot of people in their attempt to look macho. 

    Even over the past few weeks of releasing this blog series, I lost over a hundred friends on Facebook. Not a single one of them reached out to me to ask questions or clarify anything; they just cut me off. None of them even attempted to address my arguments or point out anything I said that was untrue. This isn’t heroic, it’s weak. It’s so fragile that a person can’t even be Facebook friends with someone who doesn’t believe 100% like they do. WEAK.

    Lastly, I wrote this blog series because I was already being talked about and hated on by other preachers (I know because some of the preachers who got an earful of this were kind enough to tell me). This has been happening for several years, and I finally reached the point where, if I’m going to be hated, at least now I might not be hated for what I don’t believe. I took the time to write a five-blog series (at least 20,000 words in total). There it is, do what you will with it. But just remember that God still hates slander (In other words, please get better arguments). At least now, from here to eternity, if someone uploads a ridiculous or slanderous post or message, I can send them a link to this series. 

    We live in a world full of darkness; let’s not fight against the children of Light. If you believe the Bible and preach the true gospel, I’m for you. I don’t care what label you wear. By the grace of God, I’m thick-skinned enough to handle our differences.  

What I Wish My IFB Brothers Knew About the Calvinism/Arminianism Debate (Part 4)

 

This is part four of a series (read part 1 here, 2 here, and part 3 here). In this series, I am confronting egregious arguments put forth on almost a daily basis by IFB pastors on social media, attacking Calvinism and slandering our Calvinist brothers (Arminians as well, but they don’t get nearly as much heat, so I won’t give them as much attention). As an Independent Baptist pastor, I’m not writing to defend these positions per se, but rather to deal with the terrible arguments against them. It’s time to deal with strawman #4. 

Strawman #4: Calvinism Kills Evangelism 

Whenever I see someone post this claim online, I can feel my spiritual gift of sarcasm start to well up in a double portion within my soul. I know when a person says this, they are repeating something they have heard, from somebody else who heard it, from somebody else who just made it up. I suppose it can be argued that Hyper-Calvinism kills evangelism, but that’s not what we are talking about here (see part 3 for the differences). This blog probably won’t be as long as the others, simply because this claim is so easy to refute. 

The Missionary Hall of Fame is Filled With Calvinists

The vast majority of the early mission societies were Calvinist organizations (for example, the Massachusetts Missionary Society (1795), the Missionary Society of Connecticut (1798), the London Missionary Society (1795), the Female Society for Missionary Purposes (1800), and the Baptist Missionary Society (1792)).

It stands to reason that since most of the early Mission Societies were Calvinist organizations, most of the missionaries and evangelists would also be Calvinists. This is certainly the case. I will list several examples with a brief biography of each. (though not all of them belonged to the aforementioned Mission Societies). 

  Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). Edwards preached the most famous sermon since the time of the Apostles, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” Many historians consider this sermon to be the spark that lit the fire of the Great Awakening. Over half a million people have downloaded this sermon across all major platforms (just to hear someone else read it word for word). After Edwards' church booted him for refusing to practice open communion, Edwards and his family became missionaries to the Mohican Indians in Massachusetts. Edwards also had a huge influence on many of the Mission Societies in New England. 

  John Bunyan (1628-1688). Bunyan was imprisoned for 12 years for refusing to stop preaching without a government license (which would have controlled what he was allowed to say). While in prison, he wrote Pilgrim’s Progress, much of which was written on the prison wall. To date, Pilgrim’s Progress has sold more copies than any other work in the English language, with the exception of the King James Bible. Not bad for an uneducated tinker. His preaching was so popular that thousands would gather to hear him preach in a field or a barn. Oxford graduate, John Owen, said of Bunyan, “Could I possess the tinker’s abilities, please your majesty, I would gladly relinquish all my learning.” 

  George Whitefield (1714-1770). Whitefield was one of the most prominent voices of the Great Awakening. He walked up and down the Eastern Seaboard, open-air preaching in the American Colonies. His booming voice was legendary and reportedly heard for miles. It is estimated that Whitefield preached to crowds ranging from 20,000 to 50,000 people. 

  Shubal Stearns (1706-1771). A convert of George Whitefield, Stearns was a powerful preacher during the Great Awakening. He was the founder of Sandy Creek Baptist Church in North Carolina. Under Stearns' leadership, this church produced some 125 ministers, who went on to plant 42 churches accross the South. 

  Obediah Holmes (1610-1682). Holmes is famous for taking 30 public lashes for refusing to stop preaching, as well as a refusal to acknowledge infant baptism as a sufficient mode of Baptism.  He could have paid 30lbs and avoided the beating, but refused. 

  William Carey (1761-1834). Carey is known as the father of modern missions because he founded the Baptist Missionary Society and spent over 40 years as a missionary in India without a single furlough. He is famously quoted as saying, “Expect great things from God; attempt great things for God.”

  Adonirum Judson (1788-1850). Judson was a disciple of Carey. Just weeks after marriage, he and his wife travelled to Burma to be missionaries. Judson spent nearly two years in prison for preaching the gospel in the infamous Ava and Aung Pinle prisons. He also lost his wife and young daughter to smallpox in 1826. Judson didn’t see his first convert until after spending 7 years in Burma, but would see nearly 700 converts in his lifetime. He planted several churches and translated the Bible into the Burmese language. 

  Luther Rice (1783-1836). Rice rode thousands of miles on horseback, up and down the Eastern Coast, visiting churches and raising mission funds for Judson and others. He died in the saddle in South Carolina in 1836. Perhaps no other single individual has raised more money for missions than Luther Rice.

    Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892). This man needs no introduction (but if you want to know more, see blog 3 in this series). 

  Jim Elliot (1927-1956). Elliot sought to share the gospel with the Huaorani people of Ecuador. Sadly, he was murdered at spear point (with four of his missionary friends) by the very people he sought to reach. His wife and children, as well as the families of his deceased friends, stayed and reached the Huaorani with the gospel anyway. His story was put into a book and a major movie production called “The End of the Spear.” Elliot is famously quoted as saying, “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.” 

I could list countless more examples, but I think the reader gets the idea. Imagine someone walking up to George Whitefield as he was preaching in the streets (many times to the chagrin of the crowd), or John Bunyan as he languished in prison, or Luther Rice as he was dying in the saddle, or Jim Elliot as he was about to be murdered, and saying, “It’s just too bad that Calvinists don’t believe in evangelism.” In the words of Michael Jordan, “Please stop, get some help.” 

Does Calvinism Kill Evangelism Today?

I actually had someone argue that, given all the examples of Calvinist missionaries and preachers in the past, it probably wasn’t wise to say that Calvinism killed evangelism back then, but it definitely kills evangelism today. Ok, let’s examine that statement, shall we? Who has the greatest online presence in the conservative, non-Catholic church world? Love them or hate them, it’s the Calvinists (Apologia, Wes Huff, James White, Allie Beth Stucky, Chadd Wright, etc.). The only “Big” IFB online influencer right now is Spencer Smith, and he can’t even call out perverts or a cheap gospel among our own ranks without many in the IFB wanting to tar and feather him for it.

Who is leading the fight against abortion in this country? It’s the Calvinists. Who is hitting the street corners? It’s Calvinists. I went down to the LDS General Conference this past weekend to try to hand out gospel tracts to some of the over 20,000 in attendance. There were several churches there doing the same thing, with nearly 80 people total (despite the pouring cold rain). 90% of them were Calvinists. In fact, if you’re like Tony Hutson and don’t want to rub shoulders with Calvinists, you’d better stay within the safety of the four walls of the church. Because if you ever want to hit the highways and hedges, there will be Calvinists waiting on you there. 

Is Calvinism Inconsistent With Evangelism?

Some might say, ok, but if Calvinists evangelize, they do it in spite of their beliefs and not because of them. I might agree with that statement if we are talking about Hyper-Calvinism, but not Calvinism. We see this contrast so clearly when William Carey (a Calvinist) was talking to his pastor, John Ryland (a Hyper-Calvinist), about going to the mission field in India. Ryland said to Carey, “Young man, sit down. When God pleases to convert the heathen, he’ll do it without consulting you or me.” (Thomas Schirrmacher, William Carey: Theologian, Linguist, Social Reformer, p. 100).

Why would anyone want to evangelize if God elects? My question would be, why would anyone want to evangelize if God doesn’t? Think about it. Either God can change hearts or He can’t. Either He can save anybody, or He can’t. You don’t have to agree with the theology to understand the premise that it’s a huge motivation and confidence booster to believe that God is going to save His people. He is going to call His sheep, and they will hear His voice and follow Him (is that in the Bible somewhere?). Charles Spurgeon said, 

“If God would have painted a yellow stripe on the backs of the elect I would go around lifting shirts. But since He didn't I must preach "whosoever will" and when "whatsoever" believes I know that he is one of the elect.”

On the other hand, imagine how burdensome it would be to hit the highways and hedges and think that the results are up to us. These souls hang in the balance, and it’s up to our powers of persuasion and debate to win them. As a minister of the gospel, I couldn’t function in a world like that. We are responsible for sowing the seed. It is God who brings the harvest.

Conclusion

Calvinism doesn’t kill evangelism, but I’ll tell you what does: apathy; and a cheap gospel. Unfortunately, our independent Baptist churches are full of both. Just this morning, a well-known IFB evangelist tweeted this, 

“Did you hear about the Life Guard who took 1 hour and 45 minutes making sure the drowning man understood everything there’s to know about the Life Preserver before he threw it to him? Nope, me either, so stop doing that with Salvation’s Soul Saving Preserver!”

In other words, John 6:44 isn’t in the Bible. It doesn’t matter if the Lord is dealing with their heart or not. Walk them through a 123 repeat after me prayer, and then you can post a picture online about winning this person to the Lord. Fruits of repentance, what is that? Perhaps it’s time that we, as Independent Baptists, get our own spiritual house in order and give the Calvinists a break. 

Read part 5 here