A Conversation with Dr. Bill Wagner
Introduction – Dr. Bill Wagner, a fellow Southwesterner who earned his doctorate in missiology from Fuller Seminary, serves currently as a pastor in California of both the Snyder Lane Baptist Church in Rohnert Park, and the North Bay Iranian Church in Novalto. He is also the president of Olivet University International in San Francisco.
It is difficult to impugn his conservative beliefs, especially considering his credentials within SBC life. He spent 31 years of service with the IMB, held a teaching post (evangelism and missions) at Golden Gate Seminary between 1996-2005, and also served as Second Vice-President of the SBC from 2003-2004. In the midst of the Conservative Resurgence he authored the chapter on Biblical Authority and Mission in Authority and Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987). He is certainly not a Liberal by any means, and has the boldness to assert publicly that the only thing which should dismiss a current church from participation in SBC life is the acceptance of homosexual practice. He stated this publicly, mind you, living and working in the San Francisco area. Dr. Wagner has evidently prayed in earnest about being a candidate for the SBC presidency and has thought the matter out carefully, as demonstrated on his website. In my estimation, Bill Wagner is a bold yet humble minister who has a heart to reach the nations for Jesus Christ. In the “conversation” which follows, Dr. Wagner agreed to answer a set of questions I sent him via e-mail. Upon returning his anwers, he and I worked together to edit and present our finalized “conversation.” The interview may seem “overbearing” on my part, but please recall that all of the questions were posed beforehand. I trust you will find the “conversation” interesting and beneficial.
Dr. Galyon: Dr. Wagner, you pastor two congregations, one of which is ethnic – Iranian. Serving as the pastor of this congregation, and having served as both the Regional Consultant for Evangelism and Church Growth for Europe and the Middle East (1982-1986) and the Chairman of the European Baptist Federation Muslim Awareness Committee for Europe (1985-1993), you certainly understand the general nature of Islam and its persecution of Christians. Your book, How Islam Plans to Change the World (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), certainly points to the inevitable and ongoing spiritual confrontation between the Islamic religion and the Church. Iranian Christians certainly know of the bitterness brought about by Islamists in their nation. Several years ago you wrote an article, “How Persecuted Churches Grow: Iraq,” in Strategies for Today’s Leader (2001, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 20-23). You and I obviously come from different points on the spectrum of soterioloy – differing over the doctrines of predestination, election, and the nature and degree of free will – yet agree on the necessity of the need for the Gospel to be proclaimed to all peoples in all places and for their responsibility to respond in repentance and faith. We want to see individuals in Iran, for example, come to know Christ Jesus. Can you please tell us the relationship between persecution and Church growth in persecuted nations?
studied Islam in many countries of the world I am convinced that the persecution of Christians will increase. Shar’ia law states that if a Muslim leaves the faith then they must be put to death. This occurs on a regular basis in many countries of the world. Generally those from the West are allowed to live because they were born as “People of the Book”. This, however, is changing. Now if you offend either the prophet (Mohammed) or Islam you are in danger. I have received death threats but up to now – no action. It could come. My latest book, How Islam Plans to Change the World, does not seem to be so offensive since I only tell what their strategy is to make the world Muslim by the year 2080. At the present time this book has only landed me on CAIR’s “Watch List”. In my church we do not allow people to take photos since many have relatives back in Iran and they could be in danger if the authorities knew of these Christian contacts in the West. It has been said that the blood of those who give their lives is the seed for the growth of the church. This is true inmost situations but the persecution from the Muslims has been so severe that there has been little growth where there has been persecution.Dr. Galyon: For me, and others holding the classical “Calvinist” position, there is a strong connection between the doctrine of election and the perseverance of the saints in the midst of persecution. The classic text demonstrating this, of course, is Romans 8:28-39. This leads directly to the Apostle Paul’s declaration of having “great sorrow and continual grief” in his heart for the sake of his fellow Hebrews (9:1-5) before moving on to his discussion of the doctrine of election in Romans 9. Those of us who are “Calvinists” (and I really don’t like that label because we are followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, not of John Calvin, and our convictions are drawn from Scripture, not from The Institutes) look at Romans 8-9 and see a vital connection between election and evangelism. Rather than believing election negates evangelism, we believe the two are intertwined. I think this thought ties very much into the matter of persecution and suffering as well, which is why the Apostle Paul declared, “I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (2 Timothy 2:10). Coming full circle, so to speak, that brings us back to the Middle East. The first Protestant missionary to the Muslims, Venceslaus Budovetz, and the most efficient missionary to labor in the Middle East, Samuel Zwemer, held to Reformed Theology. It is my contention Budovetz was a “good Calvinist” who saw
the great need for the Gospel to be carried where it had long been forbidden. It is also my contention Zwemer was “successful” because of his strong views on God’s sovereignty and his systematic approach to theology related to the disciplined lifestyle and mindset of Muslims. This seems to be confirmed, in some respects, with the January (2008) issue of Christianity Today. The cover is entitled “Jesus in Turkey: Rebirth of a bloodied church.” A pastor highlighted in the cover story, Turgay Ucal, is a former Muslim who finds the best way to reach his Islamic neighbors is with “emotional Calvinism.” What are your thoughts?
Dr. Wagner: As you know the whole issue of the resurgence of Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention is real. I must admit that for me it is only a side issue. I was brought up thinking that those who did not believe as I did were wrong at the best and false teachers at the worst. As I have worked intensively in the Muslim World I have come to appreciate all who lift up the Name of Jesus. I do not see my enemies as the Calvinists or any other theological position. To me we have two real enemies. One is secularism and the other is Islam. We must work together to go against these two dangers. I have been quoted as saying that I do not believe that Calvinists are as missional as Arminians. I must admit that I have received many letters saying that I am wrong. I have reviewed my notes on this issue and still hold to this view but I sincerely hope I am wrong and that the resurgence of Calvinism in the SBC will also bring about a renewal of missionary fervor. Let’s pray that this happens.
Dr. Galyon: Dr. Wagner, I’m glad you don’t view “Calvinists” or other brothers and sisters in Christ who hold to other theological positions as your enemies. We are brothers in Christ, and, I hope, friends. Speaking of friends and speaking of a resurgence of Calvinism bringing about a renewal of missionary fervor, I would like to point out that Budovetz was a close friend of Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor in Geneva. That city became a center for training evangelists, church planters and missionaries under Calvin’s leadership. In 1561, a peak year of sending missionaries, no less than 142 individuals were sent out from Geneva for the sake of the Gospel. There were tremendous results from church planting efforts in Calvin’s homeland. In 1555, there were only five organized Evangelical congregations in the nation (in Paris, Meaux, Angers, Poitiers, and Loudon). Nearly four years later, in May 1559, when the first National Synod of Reformed Churches in France secretly convened in Paris, there were 100 churches. In 1562, there were 2,150 congregations and it is estimated Evangelicals in France numbered well over 100,000. Other church planting and evangelistic ventures took place in Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, England, Scotland, and several other European countries. Evangelistic opportunities outside of Europe were shut down in the sixteenth century. The boundaries to the east and south were closed by Islamic forces and the navies of Spain and Portugal denied access to overseas ventures. Despite such opposition, missionaries from Geneva were sent to Guanabara, Brazil, in 1556. This has become the classical example of active Protestant mission work of the Reformation era. With these things in mind, what lends to your belief that the evangelistic activity in Europe was negated by predestinarian belief?
Dr. Wagner: You have some very good arguments. Some of your examples are excellent and also correct. As you know,
neither the Calvinists nor the Lutherans saw their mission field as being outside of Europe. They did not spend much energy in going to the Muslims as you know. Of course they were more interested in bringing Catholics into the Reformed church. This included much evangelism. I am thankful for all they did. I only wish that they had more of a world view. This is one of the reasons for my statement. Also I have had many discussions with Reformed professors from Europe on this topic. After these discussions I am even more convinced of the correctness of my view. Maybe I am too much influenced by Europeans. I might add that very few European Unions in Europe are growing so this does not say much for the non-Calvinists in the churches.
Dr. Galyon: I disagree that neither the Calvinists nor Lutherans saw their mission field as being outside of Europe. I would argue they saw Europe as their primary mission field, as their “Jerusalem.” What I pointed out above, about the Islamic forces and navies under Roman Catholic control, prevented greater mission activity. It still didn’t prevent Calvin from sending missionaries to South America, as noted. Some, however, might argue that even if Calvin were missions-minded, the generation following him would be numbed to evangelistic fervor, yet the earliest Protestant missiologists were Dutch “Calvinists” from the Netherlands. Hadrianus Saravia, a theologian who engaged in the practical work of evangelism, penned On the Various Levels of Ministers of the Gospel as They have been Instituted by the Lord (1590). He argues that ecclesiastical bishops have been given apostolic authority to send out Christians in evangelistic service. His pleas for commitments had considerable influence upon Justus Heurnius and Gisbertius Voetius, as well as the Danish-Halle Mission and the English Puritans, especially John Eliot in North America. Justus Heurnius published An Exhortation to Embark upon an Evangelical Mission among the Indians (1618). It sets forth a biblical foundation for missions, discusses methodology, and describes the Great Commission as a mandate for all Christians. This work significantly advanced mission activity, played a role in the establishment of the Danish-Halle Mission, and had some formative influence upon William Carey. Heurnius was also instrumental in establishing a special seminary in Leiden for training missionaries. The school was under the direction of Antonius Walaeus, who had been a delegate to the Synod of Dort. Gisbertus Voetius, a leading figure at Dort, gave lectures on missiology at the University of Utrecht. Johannes Hoornbeeck, a pupil of both Voetius and Walaeus, authored four books on missiology. He envisioned a world-wide missionary network and called for universities to establish seminaries for training them. From a historical standpoint, what lends to your belief that evangelistic activity is blunted by Dortian Calvinism?
Dr. Wagner: You give many good examples of Reformed theologians that have had a missionary heart. I could give you even more of Arminians who also had a missionary heart. In fact I could create even a longer list than you can, but that is not the question. I do not like trying to say one is more dedicated than another or that one is more missional than another. I wish that the whole idea of Calvinism was never brought up. We are all in this together. We have a world to win and we need not argue who is doing a better job. We need to look to the future and find more effective ways for the future. This is why I am running for the office of President of the SBC. Not to put Calvinists down but to try to unite all Southern Baptists to be more involved in our task of winning our world to Jesus Christ. It is my hope that Calvinists will not vote against me because of my view. I welcome all Calvinists into the fellowship of the SBC. I might add that in my History of Missions class I do not spend any time in trying to divide missions in the different theological persuasions.
Dr. Galyon: I’m convinced we could both come up with very long lists. Included on my list would be the names of Edwards, Whitefield, and Spurgeon. They are often brought up by “Calvinists” in this discussion as well as the names of notable missionaries – Carey, Paton, and others. Of course, having served in Germany, you are no doubt very familiar with that German Baptist who was a friend of Spurgeon – Johann Gerhard Oncken. Like Calvin and the early missiologists, however, these men are all from a bygone era. We must now deal with the present. The late D. James Kennedy, author
of Evangelism Explosion, created a wonderful and well-used tool for helping Christians advance the Gospel. John Piper, author of Let the Nations Be Glad! The Supremacy of God in Missions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), has had a tremendous impact on the 40-under crowd. He is a frequent speaker at missions conferences (e.g., Urbana) and writes often for missions publications (e.g., “Frontiers”). It seems, from my perspective, that men such as these have sharpened the edge of evangelistic and missionary activity. What are your thoughts on these men and their impact on the current scene? Do they tend to sway your thinking at all on this issue?
Dr. Wagner: Again, your list is impressive. I am happy that you are so well versed in the history of missions. I hope you
can be used in teaching many others. I might add that I am the President of a Presbyterian University – Olivet International University. Many have asked how I could be in a Presbyterian school with my view. No problem!!! They accept me as I accept them. I am really a pro-Calvinist, but am not about to change my theological positions that has served me well these 50-plus years. I might add that I have written much on Johann Gerhard Oncken. He is the reason for the existence of Baptists in many of the Continental European countries. He was truly a great missionary.
Dr. Galyon: I’m glad to hear you are “pro-Calvinist” even if you aren’t a “Calvinist.” My aim is not necessarily to change the theological convictions you’ve held all these years, but to work with you for the sake of our Lord. I hear you saying something very similar to that, and I appreciate it. You served in Europe for 31 years as a missionary with the IMB and retain contact with current missionaries, including your son, Mark. Please tell us about the types of things you hear that bring you concern regarding missionaries who are “Calvinists.” You mentioned elsewhere they tend to be “less missional.” Can you elaborate on that? I’m especially curious, because friends of mine – who would be classified as “Calvinists” – serve in a Muslim dominated area and are what I consider very “missional.”
Dr. Wagner: I hope that in the Convention we do not beat this horse to death. I am not interested in trying to put a scale on who is the most missional. It is really a side issue. If it would help I could make a statement that Calvinists are more missional than others. It would not change a thing. By the way I have spoken with many now serving missionaries in the world (not including my son) and I come away still holding to my view. Again let the Calvinists prove me wrong.
Dr. Galyon: I think we’ve probably beat this horse to death as much as it needs beating. Personally, I want to take this opportunity to call upon my Reformed brothers and sisters within the SBC to prove you wrong. While I think you are right on many, many things, I believe you are wrong in this area and hope to see that demonstrated on the mission field – whether here in North America or abroad. With that in mind, what advice would you give to “Calvinists” in the SBC? How can “Calvinists” improve relationships with their non-Reformed brothers and sisters in the SBC?
Dr. Wagner: I really do not see the problem. When I heard that there was a resurgence in Calvinism in the SBC my attitude was, “So what?!” They are brothers and sisters in Christ. Let’s work together. I would not recommend someone not go to a school because of a heavy Calvinist influence. It would not occur to me. I still recommend to students who are doing post graduate work to go to Southern. My advice is to stop making this an issue. As I said, I was surprised that so many have taken me to task for my statement. I wish that more would be concerned with the 5 billion lost people in the world. Let’s find a way to work together.
Dr. Galyon: I agree, let’s work together as brothers and sisters in Christ for the sake of our Lord and His Gospel. Are there any other matters you would like to add to this discussion?
Dr. Wagner: Some have asked me what will be my emphasis if elected. It is very simple – missions. My hope is that in the
next fifteen years we can have 40,000 of our SBC university students out doing missions for two years. This is realistic. If you study most of our SBC statistics you will find that we are either stagnant or decreasing. We must do something to change this direction. I hope to help. Thanks for asking my advice. I need to add that if elected I will call a sacred assembly where we will ask all Southern Baptist to spend a three day weekend in fasting, prayer and confession of sins. I will name a weekend and all will be encouraged to participate. We need spiritual revival first. May God richly bless you in your service to Him.
Dr. Galyon: Dr. Wagner, I want to thank you for the time and effort you have placed into our discussion. May the Lord bless you as you continue to serve Him in the pastorate, in the academic classroom, and on the mission field!

James,
It seems obvious to me that Dr. Wagner does not include a supposed anti-evangelistic and anti-missionary tendency of Calvinists as part of his “platform” for the SBC presidency. I myself have had the privilege of knowing and working with several self-confessed 5-pointers on the mission field who were among the most consistent and bold evangelists I have known. I agree with Dr. Wagner that this is not the issue that ought to divide us. It is fine to have these discussions. I don’t see Dr. Wagner looking to “pick a fight” about this, though. Not by any stretch of the imagination. He is not the one bringing this issue up. He is merely responding as honestly as he can to the questions others are asking him. Unless it is the desire of Calvinists within the SBC to impose their views on others (for the most part, I don’t think it is), I think it is best to not insist on making such a big issue out of this. At least not with people like Dr. Wagner. Perhaps there are some in the convention that are bent on doing a “house-cleaning.” But, I don’t see Dr. Wagner as one of them.
April 2, 2008 at 9:18 am
David:
I agree with your assessment of Dr. Wagner completely. He’s not looking to “pick a fight” with fellow Christians. I think you know that the “Calvinists” in the SBC aren’t looking to impose their views on others, but are looking to work within the denominational framework in such a way that they are also free of unnecessary impositions. Ministry is difficult, as you well know, but it becomes much more difficult when notable figures consistently denigrate your beliefs. This is compounded when your beliefs are caricatured.
Dr. Wagner and I have had a very pleasant exchange through this process, so much so that I consider him a friend. We worked at this “dialogue” together. I trust you can tell there isn’t animosity on either side. There may be disagreement, but it is friendly. Dr. Wagner and I worked through this process together in order to demonstrate the fact we have much in common – particularly believing salvation comes through Christ alone and the Church is responsible for declaring the Gospel throughout the whole world, calling all to repentance and faith – and that we can be of help to each other for the sake of the Kingdom.
I appreciate your input, especially since you are on the front-line in missionary service.
April 2, 2008 at 11:45 am
James,
Fair enough. As I read the interview, though, I couldn’t help from reading into it that Dr. Wagner kept wanting to steer the conversation away from the Calvinist question, and you kept wanting to bring it back to that.
April 2, 2008 at 12:04 pm
David:
That’s because all of the questions were e-mailed to Dr. Wagner up front. He answered them and then we worked on editing the material together. Had it been a telephone discussion, rather than an e-mail one, I have no doubt the material would’ve been quite a bit different.
April 2, 2008 at 12:08 pm
OUTSTANDING stuff, brother. Well done.
Dr. Wagner did indeed keep trying to downplay his comments, but he never came close to revoking them either.
He said, “. I do not like trying to say one is more dedicated than another or that one is more missional than another.”
I would just say, “Then why did you? Why are you?”
Why not say, “Both need to be more dedicated” or whatnot?
I would have been satisfied with some qualifiers, like …
“In my experience Calvinists are less missional, but I know historically there have been great contributions from Calvinists and there still are.”
What folks like me object to is the implication that Reformed theology necessarily leads to anti-missional behavior/attitudes.
I think Dr. Wagner’s statements fuel that caricature.
April 2, 2008 at 12:31 pm
That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
April 2, 2008 at 1:22 pm
James,
Thank you for expanding the Calvinist conversation with Dr. Wagner. You did a great job!
Les
April 2, 2008 at 3:27 pm
David – you are certainly welcome. In fact, you may note I edited the intro to the piece with the explanatory bit. Thanks for pointing that out.
Gunny – thought well through, as always. I want to give Dr. Wagner full credit, though, for not being an “anti-Calvinist” / basher of all things Reformed. In fact, I have found him to be (as he said) a “pro-Calvinist.”
Les – My pleasure. Of course, Dr. Wagner made it happen by agreeing to it. I think him again.
April 2, 2008 at 4:30 pm
“Emotional Calvinism”, now there is a term that attracts me.
April 2, 2008 at 7:48 pm
That was good. Thanks for pressing the issue of evangelism that is raised as a canard against Calvinists. Wagner’s responses were accomodating, but refreshing in that he did not make the situation combative, nor did he raise any spectres of demon possessed Calvinists that refuse to remain chained.
It will be interesting to see the development of his candidacy. He seems sincere about revival. He seems, also, a man who might just be able to build the bridges that others are determine to undermine.
April 2, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Oh! It’s 5-1 Cardinals again. Pray for rain!
April 2, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Thanks for the interview James. I found it to be insightful and helpful to see a little more of what Dr. Wagner believes. I don’t think he is an anti-Calvinist, he seems to be a pro-Christ-mission and if Calvinist can help he is all for it. The only problem I have is the rhetoric that he used originally is the rhetoric of the anti-Calvinist group, so I still have some apprehensions.
April 2, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Thank’s Rev!
I am greatly encouraged. I agree with Gunny that Dr. Wagner’s original statments on their own are fuel on the strawman fire, but it seems Dr. Wagner has no agenda to exclude calvinists, kick out churches, or marginalize certain seminaries, as we have heard others suggest.
It’s always nice to hear that we’re not worse than muslims! He is actually presuming we’re brothers and sisters in Christ who are welcomed in the service of proclaiming the truth that salvation comes through Christ alone. Thanks for doing the work on this one.
April 3, 2008 at 10:33 am
Worship Leader Ron wrote:
“It’s always nice to hear that we’re not worse than muslims!”
Whoop!
Baby steps, but progress it is nonetheless.
P.S. The Cardinals got cheated, that should have been a sweep of the NL champs.
April 3, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Ron & Gunny: I’ve never gotten over that asinine statement from Caner. And for good reason.
P.S. (Amen, brother. Go CARDS!)
April 3, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Rev.,
Great work!
chadwick
April 3, 2008 at 9:45 pm
James
Life here is grand with friends I love so dear
Comfort I get from God’s own word
Yet when I face that chilling hand of death
Won’t you tell me
Where could I go but to the Lord
I am alone in this sinful world and I have no man to teach me. I feel led toward a belief in Calvinism that is not popular. I am not smart nor a scholar but I just believe that limited atonement means limited atonement for the elect without any qualifiers. I have an understanding that the non-elect are perishing. They are not going to believe on Christ. God has not predestined the non-elect to hell rather all are determine to hell because of Adam’s sin. God’s love is manifested in the fact that he chooses, not at all on the basis of merit on the elect’s part, but according to his good pleasure to save some.
While I get a little direction from men’s interpretations of God’s Word, I do draw comfort from the fact that the elect are much greater in number than we can conceive. I get comfort from the fact that the non-elect will perish with the understanding that they did neglect their responsibilities in this life. They will know what I don’t see clearly right now that God will not be to blame. They will be without excuse. This is the awe that I believe will make heaven all the more splendorous!
When I get to heaven I will be shocked at how many are there, that I am even there and who are getting the big rewards.
April 4, 2008 at 7:00 am
My opinion of Dr Wagner: I don’t trust him! Don’t turn your back on him. JMO
April 4, 2008 at 7:03 am
America needed a angry black man to address the needs of blacks in America. God needs some angry Calvinist to say enough is enough! to the Church today. Placating and courting Arminians is useless. We don’t need to unify around error but need a revival of truth.
April 4, 2008 at 8:49 am
Charles – I’m sorry you feel alone in this world. You are correct about those who reject Christ, they are not going to Hell because God predetermined they would, but because of their own sinfulness. I agree with you 100%, God is not to blame for their sin. God’s love is demonstrated at the cross, and also in everyday things such as sunshine and rain and breath, though the love He has for His bride is distinguished from that of His general care for all. I agree with you wholeheartedly that the number of the elect is innumerable. Amen!
You may not trust Dr. Wagner, but I do. He and I disagree, obviously, on some particulars, but He is concerned about the Gospel of Jesus Christ advancing throughout the world. On that point, we agree and we labor.
On your last comment, several thoughts.
1) America didn’t need an angry black man yelling his racist rants.
2) God doesn’t need anything, He’s God.
3) God doesn’t call for angry Calvinists, but for speaking the truth in love (Eph 4:15).
4) “Arminians” who trust Christ alone for salvation aren’t so much Arminians as they are Christians, and if Christians, then Christ Jesus died for them. If the Lord Jesus placated the Father’s justice on their behalf, and courted them through the work of the Holy Spirit and the drawing of the Father, then my fellowship with them is not useless.
5) Unifying around the Gospel is not unifying around error.
6) Yes, we do need a revival of truth, but it won’t come through an angry spirit.
April 4, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Rev,
I really appreciate this interview. My frustrations and reservations lie with the original implications that Calvinism = less missional. That is an unfair characterization that assumes much of which you historically and factually answered.
I was happy to see his “pro-calvinism” statement as we have enough problems with mis-characterizations in the SBC.
What really seems to be missing from the perspective of folks like Dr. Wagner is to consider the state of the SBC and its percentage of members who are actually Calvinistic.
Thanks again,
Mark
April 4, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I come from a Presbyterian background. I think Dr. Wagner may be a little off target, in that I doubt a bunch of European Professors have much direct knowledge of how missional American Baptists with Calvinist tendencies are. That seemed to have played a major part in his understanding, unless I missed something.
And I’ll repeat it again: I live in Birmingham, where there are wall-to-wall SBC churches. Yet in the 33 years I’ve been here, EVERY SINGLE TIME I’ve been approached by someone wanting to witness for Christ, it’s been a Presbyterian! Never ONCE a Baptist.
April 4, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Bob – I agree with your assessment regarding the European professors. German profs speaking about “Calvinism” tend to think of Barth, etc.
Thanks for repeating your Birmingham experience. BTW, what’s your address?
April 4, 2008 at 5:32 pm
There is a theory of salvation that teaches there are two conflicting decrees: a general decree by which God wills the salvation of all men, and a specific decree by which God wills the salvation of the elect. On one hand Arminianism is rejected by insisting on a sovereign election of God, while, on the other hand it holds out an Arminian gospel appeal.
James, is this your view?
Charles
April 4, 2008 at 7:23 pm
About 30 minutes SE of CB Scott, in Pelham. Or did you mean email?
April 4, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Good work, James.
April 4, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Bob – Sorry, humor isn’t always caught in print… meant “Where do you live” so that a Baptist could finally make it to your door.
Thanks, Quinn.
Charles – I’ve not heard of the two conflicting decrees, but I do know of the two “wills” of God (held by the likes of Martin Luther and John Piper). I agree with the likes of Luther and Piper – affirming both unconditional election and the free offer of the Gospel to all.
April 4, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Didn’t you learn from your mother that if Luther and Piper jump off a cliff, “why should you?” How can you hold to one ox “unconditional election” and another ox (going in an oposite direction) “free offer of the gospel to all” You are one strong doctor!!
James, seriously, “the free offer of the gospel to all” and particular atonement.
I guess you will next deny substitutionary atonement!
April 5, 2008 at 7:41 am
Charles – Those two oxen aren’t pulling in opposite directions, something which “Calvinists” have always understood. In addition to Luther and Piper, I can add Calvin, Spurgeon, the Canons of Dort, et al. Who do you have on “your side”?
Tell me what you think of these statements…
*The Manifestation of God’s Love – But this is how God showed his love: he sent his only begotten Son into the world, so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
*The Preaching of the Gospel – In order that people may be brought to faith, God mercifully sends proclaimers of this very joyful message to the people he wishes and at the time he wishes. By this ministry people are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified. For how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without someone preaching? And how shall they preach unless they have been sent? (Rom. 10:14-15).
*A Twofold Response to the Gospel – God’s anger remains on those who do not believe this gospel. But those who do accept it and embrace Jesus the Savior with a true and living faith are delivered through him from God’s anger and from destruction, and receive the gift of eternal life.
*The Infinite Value of Christ’s Death – This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.
*Reasons for This Infinite Value – This death is of such great value and worth for the reason that the person who suffered it is–as was necessary to be our Savior–not only a true and perfectly holy man, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Another reason is that this death was accompanied by the experience of God’s anger and curse, which we by our sins had fully deserved.
*The Mandate to Proclaim the Gospel to All – Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.
*Unbelief Man’s Responsibility – However, that many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief is not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient, but because they themselves are at fault.
*The Saving Effectiveness of Christ’s Death – For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son’s costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God’s will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit’s other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.
April 5, 2008 at 8:39 am
Pingback: The Wagner Rules about Calvinism « SBC Ghost Recon
James,
when you listed the missional Calvinists, the proper response from Wagner would have been:
You give many good examples of Reformed theologians that have had a missionary heart. I admit I was wrong to say that all Calvinists are anti-missions. Thank you for correcting my error.
However, I will say that he is a good Baptist and like ALL of us from time to time do when we find ourselves in a hole, we bring in a backhoe to digger ourselves in deeper.
Once again, thank you for this great interview.
April 5, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Quinn –
To be fair to Dr. Wagner, he didn’t say all Calvinists are anti-missions. Here is what he did have to say:
“I also have studied the history of missions and know that many Presbyterians and other [sic] who are Calvinists have been very fruitful in missions. Second, I must say that my statement said that when a comparison is made I tend to find that those who are Calvinists are generally less missional. I have worked for many years in Switzerland, Netherlands and Belgium. At the Evangelical Theological Faculty many of my fellow esteemed professors are from the Reform persuasion. I have send [sic] many hour speaking with these leaders of the church. I have come away with a great appreciation of their position but still convinced that the doctrine of predestination has a tendency to blunt the sharp edge of evangelism and missions. I am speaking about both my studies in the past and my observations of contemporary missions . Today the Presbyterian Church and other reformed church groups are not on the leading edge of missions. The number of missionaries send [sic] by Presbyterians in the last fifty years have been rapidly decreasing. I wish this were not true. I might add that during and after the Calvin inspired reformation in Switzerland there was not a great missionary movement coming from that part of Europe.
There is always the possibility that I have been too much influenced by my 31 year European experience to view the present situation in the SBC. I am ready to learn. It is apparent that there is a place for Calvinists within the Southern Baptist Convention.
I have made my case. I stand to be corrected. If anyone feels that they can convince me that Calvinists are as missional as Armenians [sic] then I will change my stance.”
April 5, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Rev:
(Gotcha)
April 5, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Who do you have on “your side”? God and His Word! …not the writings of Calvin or any other Calvinist. I can remember an old Baptist preacher on radio saying the phrase “sinner saved by grace” when I was about 10-12 and in a Wesleyan Holiness Pentecostal Church. I believed that old preacher rather than the Arminians I grew up hearing. My Calvinism is rooted in the Word Of God and not “men” I know, I know, it’s confusing but I am a “Biblicist”
April 5, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Charles,
There are not “two decrees.” Rather, we affirm that God decrees a thing and then issues His law. His law is binding on all. The elect will love His law; the reprobate will hate it.
“Limited atonement” does not infer no “free offer.” Don’t get hung up on the “offer.” The “offer” is variously construed as a command, a gift, etc.
We affirm the command impels the “offer.”
If you affirm that there is no “free offer” you will, ironically, wind up saying that there is universality to God’s law. That’s just another way of saying you need a warrant to believe. Arminians put that in the ability of men to believe and (with Amyaldians) the scope of the atonement. HyperCalvinists (and you’re heading there) are actually using the same logic. So,on the one hand you would rebuke Arminians, yet you implicitly believe the same sort of thinking.
We Calvinists simply affirm that God says is binding – period. The scope of the atonement is simply irrelevant. Sin generates its own warrant to repent. Thus the gospel “offer” is it’s own warrant to believe, impelled by the command to so. The “offer” serves to call the elect and to incuplate the reprobate, as does God’s law. The law will inculpate the reprobate (and the apostates in the church), and it will ultimately serve to convict and thus call the elect under the application of the Spirit.
So, I would encourage you to substitute “God’s law” for “offer” and for your beliefs about the atonement and ask yourself if you think Scripture can really sustain what you are asserting.
April 5, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Correction, This sentence: If you affirm that there is no “free offer” you will, ironically, wind up saying that there is universality to God’s law.
Should read:
If you affirm that there is no “free offer” you will, ironically, wind up saying that there is no universality to God’s law.
April 5, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Charles – Yes, I know I have God and His Word on my side.
My point about Calvin, etc., is that if you are calling yourself a “Calvinist” but you aren’t in agreement with historical “Calvinists,” then you should reconsider what you are calling yourself. If you disagree with Calvin, Dort, Hodge, Warfield, Spurgeon, Edwards, et al, then you probably *aren’t* a “Calvinist.” I didn’t think you liked the term “Biblicist.”
Gene – thanks for weighing in on the issue.
April 5, 2008 at 10:04 pm
I don’t like the term “Biblicist” when the Jehovah Witnesses and Adrian Rogers use it to define their beliefs. I was using the term sarcastically.
How can you say I disagree with Calvin, Hodge, Warfield, Spurgeon, Edwards and that et al fellow when I don’t know what they believe. I believe the TULIP as spelled out by Dort.
When I was just a kid I held to “sinners saved by grace” but never to “sinners going to hell because they rejected Christ” I believed that everyone was destined to hell because they were conceived and born into sin. I see clearly that the ones believing on Christ are the elect chosen of God. The rest are perishing.
Gene, If I believe in “free offer” I may slip into unlimited atonement (universal) something that you nor me want to get into. Then you need to believe in conditional election and partial depravity and of course resistable grace and inorder to stay SBC you will believe in “believers” eternal security. You will be a .5 Calvinist. Please pardon my over simplifications.
Charles
April 6, 2008 at 6:15 am
James and Gene, are you saying that if I reject your belief that God desires the salvation of of all men, even non-elect although He has purposed to save only the elect then I am hyper-Calvinist? Are you saying that God desires something that He is not able to bring to pass?
You said: “Sin generates its own warrant to repent.” II Cor 7:10 “For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation never to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world worketh death.” Godly sorrow comes from regeneration and not from the sinner’s enablement. Pre-conversion sorrow produces death but godly sorrow of regeneration produces repentance
You say: “So,on the one hand you would rebuke Arminians, yet you implicitly believe the same sort of thinking.” Gene, I believe the five points of Calvinism: Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistable grace and perservance of the saints. That is my basis for rebuking Arminians and yet you say I am believing the same sort of thinking. You believe in “free offer” (non-discriminatory atonement) and still hold to unconditional election and call yourself a true Calvinist. It seems to me that you are thinking like Arminius and may I add Moise Amyraut. Your evangelism consist of making an Arminian appeal and my evangelism is a simple proclamation of the good news of my personal salvation to everyone on the bus without discrimination. You have to have a response from the sinner and I leave the response to the Holy Spirit.
You can be misled by the sinner’s response but the Holy Spirit never fails in His response. You can send in a report of decisions at the end of the month. VBS ministers report the most decisions. (I heard that in Church today)
April 6, 2008 at 7:43 pm
When a sinner prays he will be lying, always!. His throat is an open sepulchre and the poison of asps is under his lips. If you get him to pray with you don’t beleive a word he says. He will not seek after God. They will not fear God. There will not be any godly sorrow. Does this shock you?
April 6, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Charles –
If you don’t know what Calvin, Hodge, Warfield, Spurgeon, Edwards and that *ahem* “et al fellow” believe, then may I suggest you take the time to read them and find out for yourself?
What do you think of this? Agree or disagree?
“But this is how God showed his love: he sent his only begotten Son into the world, so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. . . . In order that people may be brought to faith, God mercifully sends proclaimers of this very joyful message. . . . By this ministry people are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified. . . . This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world. . . . It is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.”
Though you addressed your “free offer will cause you to slip into universal atonement” argument to Gene, I believe your logic is flawed. It’s like saying a monotheist who affirms the Trinity will slip into tritheism. We must always affirm what Scripture affirms, even when there is tension and mystery.
I can’t speak for Gene, but as for myself, I would say that Hyper-Calvinism holds that God has no love for the non-elect whatsoever and that God has no care about their spiritual demise. Am I saying God desires something He is unable to bring to pass? No. I’m saying God has revealed in His Word that He loves the world and does not delight in the death of the wicked. This is God’s revealed will. Election/ predestination is part of God’s hidden will. We don’t know who is elect (though He has revealed those doctrines are true). As I told you on another comment on another post, whatsoever comes to pass is a matter of God bringing it to pass. Nothing happens apart from God’s decretive will.
You stated, “When a sinner prays he will be lying, always!. His throat is an open sepulchre and the poison of asps is under his lips. If you get him to pray with you don’t beleive a word he says. He will not seek after God. They will not fear God. There will not be any godly sorrow. Does this shock you?” No. Why should it? But, if he prays, and God has worked in his heart, then that will not be the case, will it?
April 6, 2008 at 10:00 pm
James
It seems to me your argument is flawed by saying I will slip into hyper-Calvinism because I believe TULIP of Dort (particularily particular atonement). Fat chance of that happening. It’s like saying a monotheist who affirms the Trinity will slip into tritheism. By the way the greatest concern for a monotheist is sliping into modalism by saying all the time “come to Jesus” in his altar calls. He denies the work of the Father and the Holy Spirit and becomes a “Pseudo-Trinitarian.” That is the real concern of the error of Arminianism.
If the sinner has not been regenerated and he says “God is working in my heart” then he is lying. That is scriptural according to Rom 3:11-18 Now if you believe in a pre-regeneration grace… You will have to “skew a verse”.
April 7, 2008 at 7:01 am
Charles – I didn’t say you will slip into hyper-Calvinism because you affirm TULIP. I said your thinking that one who holds to both unconditional election and the free offer of the gospel will slip into Arminianism, etc., is flawed. That’s why I brought up the Trinity/ tritheism statement. One who holds to the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t going to slip into tritheism or modalism by necessity. You make a fairly valid point regarding the altar call/ “come to Jesus” statement, though we must remember that the Lord Jesus Himself said, “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy-laden” Right?
April 7, 2008 at 12:03 pm
James,
Speaking of the tension between UE and FO, you said, “Those two oxen aren’t pulling in opposite directions, something which “Calvinists” have always understood.”
Now you are saying “We must always affirm what Scripture affirms, even when there is tension and mystery.” Sometime tension and mystery inspires awe and other time confusion. I’m left trying to see how you reconcile the both UE and FO
You said, “I can’t speak for Gene, but as for myself, I would say that Hyper-Calvinism holds that God has no love for the non-elect whatsoever and that God has no care about their spiritual demise.” I am not well read enought to speak to all that hypers believe. On the surface it sounds like a bit of an emotional judgement by anti-hypers.
I am in agreement with Gene when he says “the scope of the atonement is simply irrelevant” For you it maybe relevant but for me it matters little to me what God feels for the non-elect their demise will take place anyway. When God is sorrowful for the consequences of the wicked, I believe there are elect who are wicked and will reap the consequences of it. The regenerated have free will and can reject Christ’s offer of perfection. Saving grace is irresistable; sanctifying grace is resistable. Positional sanctification (as is regeneration) is irresistible; practical sanctifying assistance is resistable. It is easily and readily resisted inspite of a generous gift of freed will.
April 7, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Charles – How do I reconcile the two? Spurgeon was asked the same question, essentially, and replied, “I never try to reconcile friends.”
April 7, 2008 at 4:35 pm
James
OK enough with the joking Spurgeon was a classical Calvinist! Jokes over!! ha! ha!!
Spurgeon said: “Whilst I may be railed upon as a heritic and as a hyper-Calvinist, after all, I am backed up by antiquity.” Spurgeon’s Sovereign Grace Sermons, p.71
Are you sure you are not reading an edited version of his works. There are reprints where Calvinism has been expunged.
There were times when Spurgeon shared the pulpit with Moody and would preach sermons that seemed Arminian such sermons can be heard today by men who have mastered the art of playing both sides to the middle. I would hate that Spurgeon did that. “Lo, God hath reserved unto himself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee unto Baal!”
April 7, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Charles – I know all about Spurgeon. He was neither a hyper-Calvinist nor an Arminian. If you think he “bowed the knee unto Baal,” then…. well, there’s no use kicking this dead horse anymore. Spurgeon is one of my heroes. He was assailed by the hyper-Calvinists for daring to believe and practice the “free offer” of the Gospel. He was assailed by the “Arminians” as being outdated and out-of-touch. Nonetheless, he was used by God for the sake of the Kingdom.
April 7, 2008 at 5:58 pm
But wasn’t he also assailed for being hyper-Calvinist by the Arminians? Wasn’t he charged by the hypers of softening his views with Arminians? No, when accused of being hyper-Calvinist he stood against the charges by standing with antiquity. He stood his ground against softening his beliefs in the sovereignty of God in salvation.
I do not believe that his Calvinism was not concealed in the least. “If a handful of us stand alone in an unflinching maintainenance of the sovereignty of our God, if we are beset by enemies, ay, and even by our own brethern, who ought to be our friends and helpers, it matters not, if we can but count upon the past; the noble army of martyrs, the glorious host of confessors, are our friends; the witnesses of truth stand by us.” “Lo, God hath reserved unto himself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee unto Baal!”
April 7, 2008 at 6:39 pm
I agree we need to quit kicking this dead horse. Dr Wagner said he hopes the convention will not beat this horse to death. You replied, I think we have beat this horse to death. You replied to me in reference to Spurgeon that there is no use in kicking this dead horse anymore.
Kicking a horse, without me researching the phrase, seems to impliy arguing over petty differences. It can be resolved by one person refusing to kick anymore. The one whose pettiness is most petty should be the first, logically. But in my years of experience the ones most petty win out over the less petty from exhaustion.
In this case missional arguments favoring Arminian methods of free will prevail over God’s sovereignty. Dr Wagner will insist on that along with the SBC and whoever is elected as convention president. I believe that Spurgeon would take a long drag on a good cigar or pipe finish the last of the ale in his glass get up and kick the horse and say, damn brethern, God is sovereign in election!
April 8, 2008 at 7:30 am
Charles – this is my last comment on this post (just a heads up).
The “Calvinistic” method is to proclaim the Gospel to all people in all places and trusting that God, in His sovereignty, will use His word to bring life. Spurgeon would certainly enjoy a good cigar or pipe and declare, “God is sovereign in election!” And, knowing that fact, would – in good “Calvinist” fashion (not “Arminian”) – proclaim the free offer of the Gospel. It’s not either/or, but both/and. “Free offer” is not equivalent to “Free Will” (in the sense of human autonomy). Interesting, I posted several phrases more than once and asked whether or not you agreed with them, but you never replied. Wish you would’ve. Might’ve made this conversation a bit more interesting. Nonetheless, thanks for your input.
Peace out.
April 8, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Thanks for the interview. Dr. Wagner did seems to downplay his comments, but in seeing how the interview was conducted I can understand why it looks that way. He doesn’t want to cause trouble where we don’t need it. This is important for Calvinists to know if we are to consider voting for him. the last thing we want is an anti-Calvinist prez. whether the president will be Calvinist or not we want him to encourage southern baptists to work together for the expansion of the kingdom. This interview can help alleviate some of our worries. I am, I might add, happy to hear that his emphasis as president would be missions.
Sam
April 9, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Sam: Dr. Wagner seems to me to be a very gracious man and doesn’t want to pick a fight with his “Calvinist” brothers and sisters. I am very, very grateful for that. Like you, I’m happy to hear of his emphasis on missions.
April 10, 2008 at 7:12 am
Pingback: Hyper-Calvinism and Southern Baptists | Sweet Tea & Theology
For the amount of time we spend responding on these blogs and debating who is right or wrong, we could be out serving, loving and working the streets. Thats the problem with Christianity today we’re all so prideful and want to push our views to the point of wasting our valuable time. And we’d rather SIT behind the computer to push these views. Face it, the multitude of “Christians” are lazy and lack submission to the Holy Spirits leading; lives are not transformed and we’re extremely worldly minded. Calvinist or not WHO CARES! Lets get out and find “the elect” OR those who will receive Christ with an open heart (however you want to classify them) and preach the gospel! Let’s keep the main thing the main thing.
January 7, 2012 at 3:23 pm