Jonathan Edwards, Calvinist?

Jonathan Edwards preached the famous sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an angry God"

"There is nothing that keeps wicked men, at any moment, out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God." "All wicked men's pains and contrivance they use to escape hell, while they continue to reject Christ, and so remain wicked men, don't secure them from hell for one moment."

Johnathan Edwards wasn't a good Calvinist (if in fact a Calvinist at all). He believed in the well meant offer and universal atonement. He was practically an Arminian when he preached this sermon. Sinners are not in the hands of an angry God, Christ, His only begotten Son was in His angry hands. God laid on Him the sins of the world. His wrath was appeased at Calvary! This is NOT the message of fire and brimstone but a glorious proclamation and announcement!

Sinners are not called by men at all but God by the Holy Spirit regenerates men according to the pleasure of His own will. Once regenerate the call to repent and be baptized is issued. What was Jonathan Edwards thinking?

Did He believe that God saves sinners? Didn't he remember that Christ himself said He came not to condemn the world but that through Him they might be saved.

edit to add (Feb, 2, 2009: Perhaps I was overstepping to suggest that perhaps Edwards was not a Calvinist. My criticism is with the sermon and far be it from me to speculate about Edwards. The struggle with Calvinist to cooperate with the non-Calvinist in evangelism and revivals seems to me creates a tendency to compromise the sovereignty of God in making a free off to the sinner. This compromise by great men has created problems for Calvinism. When I say Calvinism I mean the Biblical gospel of grace. We are living with the consequences of those compromises today as witnessed by the current American Evangelical scene.

Do You Really Believe That God Saves Sinners?

Notes to Acts 2:4 Scofield Reference Bible
(8) Sins against the Spirit committed by unbelievers are: To blaspheme Mt 12:31, resist Acts 7:51, insult Heb 10:29, "despite," lit. insult). Believers' sins against the Spirit are: To grieve Him by allowing evil in heart or life Eph 4:30,31 and to quench Him by disobedience 1Th 5:19.
The right attitude toward the Spirit is yieldedness to His sway in walk and service, and in constant willingness that He shall "put away" whatever grieves Him or hinders His power Eph 4:31.

There is a problem with these notes. If you believe in total depravity then you know the sinner is spiritually dead and alienated from God. He can't blaspheme or insult God. If you believe in irresistible grace then you know that God cannot be resisted by the unbeliever.

However if you don't believe in these cardinal and orthodox doctrines then you believe like Scofield that the unbeliever can blaspheme, resist and insult God.

There is another problem with these notes. These notes do injustice to the sacrifice of Christ to take away sins. Didn't Scofield believe in the effectual atonement for sins? No, he didn't. Didn't he believe that Christ offered a once for all sacrifice for sins? No, he didn't. Didn't he understand the meaning of Christ sitting down at the right hand of God? No, he didn't. You don't either if you believe like Scofield!

Friends, do you believe in substitutionary atonement? Most American Evangelicals today don't, do you? Do you recrucify Christ anew every time to make the free offer to the sinner? Don't you recrucify Christ anew when you say that the greatest sin is the sin of rejecting Christ?

Conversion And Water Baptism

Yesterday at my Church seven were baptized. One child, five teenage girls and an adult lady.
I joined in with everyone in clapping of my hands as an expression of praise but it has left me contemplating what conversion means in our church.

All were ask the question, "have you put your trust in Christ as your savior?" All answered in the affirmative. "I baptize you, my sister, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Buried with Christ in His death raised to newness of life" was the pronouncement as they were immersed in water. Naturally they were lifted out of the water!

To differing degrees the minister commented on each candidate as to their conversion testimony. A couple of teenagers were particularly noted by the minister as vibrant in their witness to Christ.

Were their conversions the result of decisional regeneration? I am sure the pastor and his staff would be in an uproar if I asked that question of them. I do rejoice in these baptisms.

Nevertheless it brings me to the general question as to what we believe conversion is. The term has undergone changes in definition in our modern American society. When I was a boy a terribly ruthless child would be sent to a reform school where it was hoped he would be reformed in his behavior. An adult criminal was sent to a State Penitentiary where it was hoped he would through struggle of isolation reach a penitent state and come out reformed.

The rest of us were whipped vigorously by parent and teacher in hopes we would reform our ways. In all instances a change in behavior was evidence of reform and were rewarded with status in society. All this is history in our society and memories of days gone by.

We are encouraged to love and accept people as they are without judgment. They can't change and so society changes and adapts to their norm. Above all we must be a united and loving people. Hasn't this infiltrated the Church? Christ is a loving nonjudgmental being and we must follow him in a united nonjudgmental behavior before all.

So basically the problem for society is people like me who just can't give in to this. Eventually people like me will be sent off to institutions where it is hoped I will reform and be productive for society!

Oh my! I have digressed!

What is conversion anyway? Theologically there are three erroneous types of conversions represented by baptism that come to my mind. I have not gotten this from a textbook. It is a product of my own thinking. They are ceremonial, decisional and regenerative baptisms. All three involving actual water. I would hope that the nature of this would incite discussion and my views would not be seen as exclusive. I welcome debate.

First there is a ceremonial baptism, particularly infant baptism, that looks forward to a change in behavior and provides a historical landmark to look back to. There is no actual change in the candidate. The responsibility falls on the observers and baptizer to guide the candidate to a conversion. In my mind there is some validity to this as seen in the Acts accounts of households being baptized; adults, children and perhaps even servants. Still it lacks in some fashion.

Secondly there is decisional baptism that result from a previous decision followed by a water baptism. The responsibility falls on the candidate to actualize the conversion. Only he can validify the certainty of the decision. In my mind there are lots of problems associated with this baptism. Predictably there is a vast falling away of candidates from this.

Regenerative baptism is the greatest error and hopefully least practiced. It assumes at the time of baptism the candidate undergoes a conversion and is saved at baptism. It is expected that some evidence of conversion is displayed at the time. An emotional display of rejoicing by the candidate is expected and particularly with some Pentecostals the evidence of speaking in tongues is the single evidence of salvation. These are "Jesus' name" baptisms in which the doctrine of the trinity is denied. It is not only erroneous but dangerous in that it encourages phony evidence in order to meet the demands of the observers and baptizer. In a sense you get a one shot for salvation and you had better come up shouting and speaking in tongues. Incredible coercion creates nervous ship-wrecked believers, spiritually.

I hesitate to mention a fourth error because it is a conversion that does not need actual water.
It is "faith" baptism. It is often call "word of faith" and it seems to place little importance on water baptism at all. A personal positive confession of scripture made without verified evidence is all that is needed. It is ceremonial and intellectual and the results come later. You "name it and claim it" and it is yours by "faith." Many Charismatics and "health wealth and prosperity" preachers hold to this belief. Also many of the decisional baptism people practice this as well. It has a strong emphasis of "faith."

I hope that this encourages you to think and perhaps debate. What do I believe? I believe in Holy Spirit baptism, I Cor. 12:13, in which an actual heart conversion takes place, not ceremonial nor intellectual assent. It is like a birth all over again! It does not come from the believer's faith but the will of the Father. It is followed by a water baptism with the baptizer pronouncing confidently "thy sins are forgiven! Thou shalt receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and follow Christ!" It is a supernatural work resulting not in perfection but progressive sanctification looking forward to glorification. The rejoicing is not by the candidate but the emotionally excited baptizer and observers. They embrace him in a teaching community. The candidate is established in faith in an affirming community!

How Can Irresistible Grace Be Denied?

Steve Gaines preached a good sermon dealing with irresistible grace. He nearly convinced me to drop the doctrine as unbiblical! He has a sophisticated and intellectual audience and they were trained by Dr Rogers to listen intently and imitate the Bereans in searching the scriptures.

He made a few preparatory statements leading up to the main point. He has been trained in theology and good presentation. Who could argue with him? His main point was "some people believe that stuff!" I was floored. I had never thought that deeply along that line.

Webster online dictionaryfor "stuff": "writing, discourse, talk, or ideas of little value : trash" But it is not just Gaines using the word to settle a theological issue it is the way he says it. When a man from Alabama uses the word "stuff" he enunciates it with a snarl. Elvis could pronounce "stuff" with a snarl, raising the lips on one side and with a mouth full of mush.

The sanctuary was full of Christians and doubtfully not a single person could protest. This was the final authority. It was a definite infallible pronouncement.

He was a member of the 2000 BF&M revision committee and did he contribute this wisdom at the table with the other members? I wonder if Al Mohler just quietly accepted this definition?
I'm sure Dr. Rogers agreed with him. I would like to have been a fly on the wall in this discussion!

What this causes me to ask, is there credibility with Gaines and Rogers? Is their anti-Calvinism a willfully insincere denial of irresistible grace. I am inclined to think there is willful deception.
To deny irresistible grace is to admit that God's will can be resisted and that the blood of Christ is not effectual, that there will be people in hell who refused the blood of Christ.

Irresistible Grace

The sinner cannot resist the grace of God. Man cannot turn the jet stream that flows over America neither can he stop the earthquakes that erupts in her belly. Neither can he resist the Spirit of Grace! The Lord is not slack concerning His promises. God accomplishes His will!

edit to add: Irresistible grace is also effectual drawing. John 6:44 No one is dragged kicking and screaming into heaven but through regeneration the elect are drawn from spiritual death as one draws water from a deep well. (R C. Sproul) The sinner is not wooed to come up from the deep but is literally re-birthed and by the active force of the Holy Spirit brought to Christ according to the Father's will. None of this is accomplished under any cooperation of the elect. The Holy spirit compels by force. He does not extend an invitation or entice anyone to come. Jesus spoke to Lazarus and he left the tomb of death and came to life.

William Carey

Wouldn't you like to be able to go to India and labor for ten years without a single convert? I hear the virtues of Carey being praised from pulpits everywhere. With unwavering faith he labored steadfastly in the face of difficulties without a single convert! Oh my, I wish I was that dedicated!

Fret not thyself! Today, thanks to the development of Christian Science and media technologies you can go to India and see souls saved on the airplane before you get to India. The vision of Charles Fuller and the struggling missionary pioneer, William Carey, has been perfected and refined from a ten year struggle to a ten week crash course. In fact you don't even have to have the crash course. My friend if you have forty dollars to spare you can equip yourself! There are now 'means' to reach the lost. NavPress offers a "one verse evangelism" program for under, now don't miss this, $39.99. Evangelism Explosion offers a Level 1 Trainee Starter Kit w/ KJV Learning Cards for $34.95!

Today you can become a William Carey in the ease of your own home. Win friends and influence them to make a decision for Christ. In this day and time, if you are an Arminian, you have no excuse for not winning souls. No one but yourself hinders the cause. If souls are not saved it is your fault! Now go out there and get some decisions!

The Sacredness Of Grace

The Catholic church treats the handling of the communion elements with utmost respect. When it is blessed it becomes for them the actual body and blood of Christ. The officiating priest carries a cloth to wipe the cup lest any excesses be spilt. The wafer crumbs are to be caught and placed in the silver plate. A cloth is used to wipe any residue and then shook into the plate. If any of the wine is spilt it is wiped with a dampened cloth and rung back into the chalice.

The remaining host is consumed by the priest and the wine is either drank by the priest or placed back in the sanctuary where it can be used in another service or served to the sick-at-home. Any misuse of the elements is considered a sacrilege.

This is symbolism of irresistible and effectual grace. No grace is ever wasted and to consider grace an unholy thing to be wasted by the sanctified is to insult the Spirit of grace. This is trampling under foot the son of God. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God.

Adrian Rogers' misleading his followers into Pelagianism is guilty of a sacrilege of grace. He was a careless and indifferent priest, mockingly spilling the blood and scattering the bread to be trampled underfoot. There is no forgiveness for this and to do so is to fall into the hands of an angry God!

The blood is effectual and irresistible and not to be cast out carelessly. Not a drop of holy blood will be carried into the lake of fire. Every drop will be carried through the portals of heaven to be displayed before the Father for his glory.