Flash: ON

The Cornerstone Baptist Church

Let’s consider a statement made by the first speaker at the conference which he gave as justification for holding the conference. He said, “Calvinism has been splitting churches for 400 years and will continue dividing churches for another 400 years, if the Lord tarries.” From this statement it seems apparent that Calvinism has been, is now, and will be till the Lord returns a cause of church splits. Also, it seems as if Calvinism has done little other than split churches over the past 400 years and will do more of the same in the next 400 years, according to the way this statement was expressed.

Several assumptions accompany this statement. First, we are to assume that church splits are bad. Second, we are to assume that church splits are always bad. Third, we are to assume that Calvinism is bad, because it is a continual catalyst for church splits. This logic could be expressed in the form of a syllogism:

1. Church splits are bad

2. Calvinism causes church splits.

3. Therefore, Calvinism is bad.

What should we say in response to this statement and this kind of logic? We will attempt to be brief, but much could and needs to be said. Words come to mind to describe the speaker’s statement like anachronistic, reductionistic, and revisionist. Suffice it to say, it just doesn’t fit the facts. Consider the following reasons for our assertion.

Reason #1: In the original historical setting of the Protestant Reformation, Calvinism, so-called, was nothing but Protestant Reformation orthodoxy. The reformers, from John Wycliffe and Jan Huss to Martin Luther, Martin Bucer, Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin were all in agreement on the essential doctrines of Christianity. When the term, Calvinism, was first coined it did not focus on the TULIP or the “five-points”. It was used simply as a synonym for the teaching which came to the front in the Protestant Reformation. There were no “five-points” per se in Calvin’s day.

In addition, all the reformers were agreed on the necessity of Divine, supernatural and sovereign grace to enable sinners to repent and to believe the gospel- not just Calvin.

Reason #2: The only “split” that occurred during and after Calvin’s day was the departure of many who had been Roman Catholics from Roman Catholicism to Protestantism. This was not viewed as a bad thing but a good thing. Risking oversimplification, we say simply that upon the recovery of Scriptural teaching the reformers saw that Roman Catholicism was apostate and so they heeded the Biblical admonition, “Come out from among their midst and be separate, says the Lord.” (II Cor, 6:17; Isa. 52:11). The reformers were accused of being schismatics (church splitters) by their Roman Catholic opponents. So unless the speaker is against the Protestant Reformation and thinks it was a bad thing, he should rethink his statement.

Reason #3: Far from being a cause of church-splits for the first 400 years or so years of its existence, Calvinism (which is just Reformed Protestantism) was a cause and catalyst for starting churches across Europe and the whole world. During Calvin’s lifetime thousands of refugees fled to Geneva from all over Europe to escape persecution for their beliefs. They fled to Geneva to receive the Reformation (translate, Biblical) teaching and worship found in Geneva. Hundreds of these refugees were taught, converted, trained and sent out across Europe to start new Reformed congregations. The “magisterial” reformers (Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Zwingli, etc.) labored long in the Word, were threatened with death and anathemas from their Roman Catholic antagonists, were excommunicated by the pope, and suffered hardship and villification during their own day. What astounds me is that modern heirs of the Protestant Reformation, who owe these men and others so great a debt, could be so ignorant of the facts and seem to care so little for them. Thousands of congregations over the last 400 years have been started as a direct result of Calvinistic teaching. Thousands of Calvinistic missionaries have been sent out teaching Christian doctrine and preaching the gospel.

As a matter of fact (and I suppose this is the real fly in the ointment for this speaker and others), the Southern Baptist Convention was started by Calvinists, as was the modern missionary movement (remember William Carey?), and Calvinists are not the real cause of church-splits, unless…

We will return to consider the “unless….” at a later time, unless the Lord wills otherwise, because we, though weary in the work, must “earnestly contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3) - because TRUTH MATTERS.

TRUTH MATTERS

Our hope in adding this page to our website is to edify God’s people, to the glory of God, by addressing matters of Biblical and historical importance. We believe all of God’s people “must contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), and especially ministers of the Word must stand upon the truth and stand for the truth. Our Lord, who is “the Way, and the Truth, and the Life” (John 14:6), testified before Pilate: “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice” (John 18:37). Sounding like a modern cynic, Pilate responded, “What is truth?” (John 18:38).

Like Pilate, too many in our day shrug off any serious attempt to seek truth. Some don’t even believe truth exists. Truth, for them, is just personal preference, a personal construct. What’s true for one is not necessarily true for another. This is sheer folly. Relativism rules and ruins too many lives. Christians, however, are ruled by Christ through the Word of God, Holy Scripture, of which Jesus said, “Thy Word is truth” (John 17:17).

Let it be understood at the outset that we make no claim to infallibility in our knowledge of the truth, nor in our interpretation of Scripture, nor in our obedience to Him whom we worship and serve. But we do have an obligation to stand for the truth as it is in Jesus. And, as it is written, “‘I believed, therefore I spoke,’ we also believe, therefore also we speak” (2 Corinthians 4:13). One more voice added to the many already speaking may seem to some only an addition to the confusion. We sincerely hope not. Our aim is to stand for the truth by speaking the truth in love – because TRUTH MATTERS.

David K. Curtis

November 2, 2011

In January 2011 a conference was held in our area entitled “Recovering Grace: A Biblical Response to Calvinism.” Since we have had time to listen to the CDs of the speakers’ messages during the conference, and because of the numbers of people in our area who have been influenced by the things said, and because our people at The Cornerstone Baptist Church have also heard these things and have questions about them, we believe it is our duty to speak concerning these issues. In the interest of truth (in so far as by God’s grace we are enabled to know and to believe the truth) then, we will endeavor to address what was said at the conference.

But first, we should say that we will not refer to the speakers by name, since we are not interested in arousing any personal antagonism between ourselves and others. However, the things which were spoken at the conference must be addressed, and where issue must be taken with what was said in the interest of truth, we shall attempt to speak with Christian courtesy toward brothers in Christ, but also plainly and straightforwardly, because what was said was spoken in public at an advertised meeting for the express purpose of taking issue with what is commonly called “Calvinism” (sometimes referred to as the “Doctrines of Grace”), which as far as we are concerned is nothing other than the Biblical teaching of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

May it be understood by all that we are not (as some assert) primarily concerned with putting forth a system of teaching produced by John Calvin and conforming Scripture to his “system”. Calvin himself, we believe, would “turn over in his grave” at such a thing. He himself was a pastor, preacher, theologian interested in the study and dissemination of Biblical teaching. Anyone who asserts otherwise is either unfamiliar with his writings (and therefore unqualified to write or speak about John Calvin) or so biased against what he wrote that his bias clouds his reason, confounds his speech and confuses his hearers.

The five presentations at the conference delivered by five local ministers were arranged along the lines of the “five points of Calvinism” (as they are popularly called). Many years ago (God alone knows when), someone (God alone knows who) formed an acrostic to help aid the memory in recalling these five points. The acrostic is T – U –L –I –P. Why this flower was chosen to set these doctrines forth, again God alone knows. But the acrostic itself puts forward “Calvinism” thus:

T = Total Depravity

U = Unconditional Election

L = Limited Atonement

I = Irresistible Grace

P = Perseverance of the Saints

So as we consider the five presentations of the conference, we will see what the speakers have to say about each of these teachings ascribed to John Calvin and Calvinism. But most importantly we shall see and consider what the Scriptures say. Because after all we say God’s word is true if it makes every man a liar. Truth Matters.

David K. Curtis

November 18, 2011

Are Calvinists claim-jumpers?

From the beginning of the conference, “Reclaiming Grace: A Biblical Response to Calvinism”, the tone is set and the tenor (the progressive thought throughout) is established. The title of the conference itself asserts that Calvinism has wrongly laid claim to the Biblical teaching on grace (salvation by grace through faith) and the speakers intend to lay claim on the Biblical teaching. The speakers, then, are set to oppose Calvinism’s teaching on grace by proving from the Bible that it is wrong. So we have from the beginning an anti-Calvinistic tone and tenor established for the conference. What could be plainer? Listening to the speakers confirm this. To them, Calvinists are claim-jumpers?

Yet the speakers tell their listeners that they are not providing ammunition to fire against the Calvinist brothers. They love them. Calvinism is not a cult. Christians are to love one another. Unity is to be sought. A right understanding and experience of grace will cause us to love one another. Others who are not saved will see how much we love one another and will be influenced to receive the gospel of Jesus Christ. The speakers have good friends who are Calvinists and have discussed with them their disagreements concerning Calvinism. Such disclaimers are made throughout the conference. To borrow from Shakespeare, “Methinks he doth protest too much.”

Telling me you love me while continually punching me in the stomach hardly softens the blows. Your words don’t match your deeds. No! Let’s be clear. The speakers believe, rightly or wrongly, that Calvinism (whatever it is) is a bad thing. And if you believe it and promote it, that is a bad thing. Let us say that if we understood Calvinism as they do, and if we believed the Bible disproved Calvinism, we would agree wholeheartedly that Calvinism is a bad thing too. But is what they call Calvinism really Calvinism? Do they really offer a “Biblical Response” to it? We hope by God’s grace to continue to look into this because TRUTH MATTERS.

David K. Curtis

Who Was John Calvin and What did He Do?

                In answer to the question, “What is Calvinism?”, the first speaker of the “Reclaiming Grace” conference ventured on the life of John Calvin. He stated that Calvin was born in Picardy (actually Noyon is the town, Picardy is the region), France, in 1509 and died in Geneva, Switzerland, 1564. From there on he quickly turned from fact to fiction. Accusations first made in Calvin’s own time, written into a “biography” of the reformer by his nemesis, Jerome Bolsec, and repeated throughout history by those who oppose Reformation teaching, were parroted by this speaker.
                Bolsec was a Roman Catholic monk who went from France to Geneva in apparent sympathy with Calvin and the Reformation. He left Geneva after several years, disgruntled and angry that he did not secure the teaching position he felt his talents deserved and returned to Roman Catholicism. In 1577 he wrote his “Life of Calvin” which accuses Calvin of being the son of a notorious blasphemer, of being sexually immoral, of having complete tyrannical control over the affairs of Geneva, of being malicious, cruel, and ignorant. To these charges modern historians who have poured over the historical records, have responded to Bolsec with words like “myth,” “falsehood,” “unsubstantiated,” “questionable,” and “hateful”. Bolsec’s virulent and fraudulent “biography” has survived and been embellished upon, to fuel anti-Reformation teaching.
                The speaker himself embellished upon Bolsec’s accusations (we don’t know what his sources were) by adding that history would call Calvin a murderer, and that because of his view that God forced the elect to believe “Calvin felt that it was right for him to force the citizens of Geneva to become the elect”. The supposed method of this forced election “was to force Geneva’s citizens to join the church, and if they did not the penalty was severe, even death.” How strange that the historical record does not give any evidence of this at all. Of the fifteen or so modern biographies (by Calvinists and non-Calvinists) we have read, at least in part, not one gives any credence to such an allegation. Does this allegation by the speaker and the tactic chosen to speak against Calvinism reveal his bias?
                There was no “reign of terror” in Geneva in Calvin’s day. He never murdered anyone (not even Servetus). These trumped up charges and inflammatory rhetoric only demonstrate that the speaker has an agenda:
“Hate the message, kill the messenger.”
                However much one may disagree with the views of another, one should never resort to slander. This is never acceptable - at least, it shouldn’t be. No one in the conference saw fit to correct the obvious false claims made by this speaker. Many reputable historians have written fair accounts of the reformer’s life. To be sure, others have written “biographies” like Bolsec’s; but especially ministers of the gospel ought to be concerned with finding out the truth and stating facts.
                Calvin’s friend, Theodore Beza, who wrote a biography of Calvin also, after showing his glowing admiration for his friend, well said, “We would not make an angel of a man.” Neither would we. Calvin had many faults and sins which he acknowledged and apparently, according to his own testimony, confessed to God and sought his forgiveness. “We would not make an angel of a man” - but neither would we make a man a devil. To leave hearers with the impression that the whole of Calvin’s teaching is not worth inspecting because Calvin was such a scurrilous person is itself reprehensible. John Calvin was a sinner who needed God’s grace through Jesus Christ as much as anyone. He acknowledged this repeatedly. To slander him or anyone, living or dead, is always wrong. It is sin which needs to be repented of. May we each consider this and seek to find out the facts and tell the truth - because TRUTH MATTERS.

David K. Curtis

Menu