Author: art rogers
Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit preview: Interview with Sam Storms
Thursday, April 5th, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
In just three short weeks, the Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit will take place in Arlington, Texas. One of the featured speakers is Dr. Sam Storms. As a preview to the conference, I thought I would post an email interview in which I was privileged to participate with Dr. Storms. Some of it relates directly the conference, but some deals with the SBC in general. I hope you enjoy it.
Here it is:
12 W: For those who don’t yet know you, can you tell us a little about yourself?
SS: Sure. I was born and raised in Oklahoma and was blessed to have Christian parents and a Christian sister. My parents led me to the Lord, although I’m not sure when I actually came to saving faith. I walked the aisle during a “revival” service at First Baptist Church in Shawnee. I was nine at the time, but I may well have come to faith before that.
During my teen years the only thing that mattered to me (sadly) was athletics. By the time I reached high school (in Duncan, Oklahoma) I was reduced to playing basketball and golf because of four major surgeries I had undergone. It was pretty clear that the Lord was re-directing me from athletics to ministry. I still had aspirations of playing golf professionally, but by the end of my freshman year at the University of Oklahoma I realized that a notoriously bad temper and a lack of skill made that highly unlikely.
I met my wife, Ann (to whom I’ve now been married 35 years), while at OU. We got married after our junior year in 1972. I attended Dallas Theological Seminary and received my Th.M. in Historical Theology there (1977). We were members at First Baptist in Dallas for the first year, having been drawn there by the preaching of W. A. Criswell. However, I soon left in order to fulfill requirements in church ministry for a class I was taking. Ironically, I ended up spending my final three years of seminary serving as interim pastor of a small Presbyterian church. I knew it was only temporary, as my baptistic convictions run quite deep!
I joined the pastoral staff at Believer’s Chapel in Dallas in 1977, a non-denominational Bible church. I served there for eight years, during which also I studied for my Ph.D. at the University of Texas at Dallas. I received my doctorate in 1984 and hoped to teach in a seminary, but the Lord had different plans. I took the position of Senior Pastor at Christ Community Church in Ardmore, Oklahoma, in 1985 (another non-denominational Bible church) and ministered there for eight years, until 1993.
It was in late 1987 into early 1988 that I underwent a major theological shift. I rejected cessationism and embraced the view that all spiritual gifts (even private prayer language!) are valid and available to the church today. This led eventually to my accepting a position with Metro Vineyard Fellowship in Kansas City. I served there for another seven years, primarily as Associate Pastor and President of Grace Training Center, our full-time Bible school. I left Kansas City in August of 2000 and accepted a position teaching theology at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois. In August of 2004 I resigned at Wheaton and returned to Kansas City to establish Enjoying God Ministries.
My wife Ann and I have two daughters (Melanie and Joanna) and two grandsons.
One more personal element. Although we live in Kansas City and serve with Enjoying God Ministries, we are members of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, Oklahoma, where your friend Wade Burleson is pastor.
Those who may want to read in more detail of my spiritual journey and especially how I’ve labored to integrate Word and Spirit in life and ministry can get my book, “Convergence: Spiritual Journeys of a Charismatic Calvinist” (at www.SamStorms.com).
Could you give your academic credentials?
I have a B.A. in History from the University of Oklahoma, a Th.M. in Historical Theology from Dallas Seminary, and a Ph.D. in Intellectual History from the University of Texas at Dallas.
According to your pastor, you are a prolific writer. Could you give some of the books that you have written? What are you working on now?
I think I’m up to thirteen books, with two new ones coming out in the next 12 months. The ones that are still in print include “Pleasures Evermore: The Life-Changing Power of Enjoying God” (NavPress), “One Thing: Developing a Passion for the Beauty of God” (Christian Focus), “Convergence: Spiritual Journeys of a Charismatic Calvinist” (Enjoying God Ministries), “The Beginner’s Guide to Spiritual Gifts” (Regal), “The Singing God: Discover the Joy of Being Enjoyed by God” (Creation House). I’m also one of the four contributors to the book, “Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views” (Zondervan).
In February of this year, Crossway Publishers released my book, “Chosen for Life: The Case for Divine Election.” In July they will publish “Signs of the Spirit: An Interpretation of Jonathan Edwards’ ‘Religious Affections’” Finally, in January or February of 2008 they will release “The Hope of Glory: 100 Daily Meditations on Paul’s Letter to the Colossians.”
I’m currently working on three more books: one on eschatology, one on experiencing the Spirit, and one that will consist of about 50 daily meditations on the seven letters of Revelation 2-3.
What is your experience with Southern Baptist life?
My roots are deep within the convention. My mother and father were members at Bellevue Baptist in Memphis after WW II, where my dad was a deacon and my mom served for a while as R. G. Lee’s secretary. As I noted above, we attended First Baptist in Dallas for a while, and then got involved in a number of other churches for the next thirty or so years. I’ve always been baptistic in theology (although I recently read a SWBTS professor who said that those who use the term “baptistic” are under the influence of postmodernism; go figure!), but the Lord has led me to serve in a variety of church contexts (including independent Bible, Plymouth Brethren, Vineyard, Anglican). As I said, we are now members at Emmanuel Baptist in Enid.
Within the Southern Baptist landscape right now, what issues do you see driving our mutual discussion? Is there an overarching issue that relates to all of the things abuzz in the Convention? If so, what is it?
The issues are much the same as they’ve been for generations. The things Christians disagree and argue about are fairly constant: the sovereignty of God and human responsibility, especially as it relates to evangelism and missions; the role of the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts in particular; the role of women in ministry and leadership; eschatology, spontaneity vs. liturgy in worship, etc. These and a few other issues are almost always at the center of debate, not just among Baptists but across denominational lines.
The one thing these issues have in common is that none of them is central to the gospel itself. They are all, at best, secondary doctrines, or doctrines on which Christ-exalting, Bible-believing Christians can and often do disagree. Sadly, some question the evangelical credentials of anyone who might dare to differ with their view on Calvinism or whether miraculous gifts occur today or the timing of the rapture or the nature of the millennium.
But there is something else that is even more disturbing, and that is the angry and divisive dogmatism that is emerging over behavioral issues on which the Bible is either silent or leaves one’s decision in the realm of Christian freedom. Perhaps the greatest threat to unity and acceptance in the Church is the tendency to treat particular life-style and cultural preferences as though they were divine law. To be even more specific, it’s the tendency to constrict or reduce or narrow the boundaries of what is acceptable to God, either by demanding what the Bible doesn’t require or forbidding what the Bible clearly permits.
My experience has been that this is typically driven by one of three things: either an unjustified fear of being “spiritually contaminated” by too close contact with the surrounding culture, or an unbridled ambition to gain power over the lives of others, or a failure to believe and trust in the all-sufficiency of Jesus Christ (or all three combined).
I’m concerned that in certain segments of the Convention there is a mindset reminiscent of the old “fundamentalism” that is characterized by isolationism, separatism, anti-intellectualism, cultural withdrawal, and a generally angry and judgmental attitude toward all those who dare to differ on these matters that quite simply don’t matter; at least they don’t matter nearly as much as whether or not you believe in the deity of Christ, his substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
Whereas conservative evangelicalism has typically drawn the line on theological essentials, this more recent fundamentalism draws the line ever more narrowly on issues such as total abstinence vs. moderation in the use of alcohol, the degree of freedom and the role of affections in public worship, the legitimacy of so-called “private prayer language,” etc. Sadly, when one’s commitment to Christ and the authority of Scripture is judged on the basis of this latter group of issues, rather than the former, the situation is bleak indeed.
Where do you see the tension over Reformed theology going in the SBC?
If you have in mind agencies and institutions within the convention, I fear that we may see seminaries and colleges and other agencies drafting statements similar to the one by Southwestern Seminary concerning charismatic gifts and practices. But in this case it would be to eliminate and forbid from the faculty those who embrace five-point Calvinism, or conversely, four-point Arminianism (I can’t image any Southern Baptist agency or institution ever taking a stand against the doctrine of the security of the believer).
I hope this never happens. The healthiest and most instructive and edifying atmosphere in an educational institution is when both perspectives are fairly and objectively represented. I’m a five-point Calvinist but I’ve worked for years alongside colleagues who were five-point Arminians. I’ve found most of them to be Christ-loving, Bible-believing evangelicals that served only to enrich the educational experience.
As far as the Convention as a whole is concerned, I suspect that someone somewhere along the line will propose amending the BFM to exclude Calvinism. If that ever were to happen, I predict a significant exodus from Southern Baptist life of those whose convictions would prohibit them from affirming such a statement. That would be tragic. Short of that, I encourage both sides within the Convention to continue the pursuit of civil dialogue and biblically-based discussion.
The claim has been made, specifically by Dr. Malcolm Yarnell of SWBTS, that there is NO Biblical evidence for the existence of a “Private Prayer Language.” How do you respond? What Scriptures do you think are relevant to the discussion of such a claim?
I’ll be brief on this one, since I’ve written a couple of articles setting forth my view on tongues. I’ve also written more extensively on this in my book, “The Beginner’s Guide to Spiritual Gifts” (Regal).
As I read 1 Corinthians 14, it seems clear that Paul advocated and personally practiced a “private” prayer life that entailed speaking in tongues. If he is thankful that he speaks in tongues more than all (14:18), yet declares that he rarely does so in the corporate meeting of the church (14:19; indeed, in the absence of interpretation he never would do so), one is forced to ask: Where is Paul praying in tongues? It can only be that this takes place in his “private” prayer closet (cf. also 14:28). Therefore, this practice is “private”.
It is certainly “prayer” because Paul calls it such on several occasions (1 Cor. 14:14-15). It is speech, of whatever sort it may be, directed to God (1 Cor. 14:2) in which he “gives thanks” (14:16) and, I assume, since it is “prayer,” petitions God, intercedes, praises (14:15), and whatever else one typically does when engaged in communication with God. Therefore, this practice is “private prayer”.
Is it “language”? Yes, if by “language” one means a form of communication. Whether tongues is always a human language un-learned by the speaker (which it isn’t, in my opinion) or also some form of heavenly or angelic dialect (which I believe it is), it is linguistic in nature. The Apostle Paul speaks of “various kinds of tongues” (1 Cor. 12:10), indicating that the expression of this Spirit-induced ability may take any number of forms.
Certainly one is free to argue that the “private prayer language” described in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is no longer valid today, having been designed by God solely for the church of the 1st century, but one can hardly deny that it was precisely that: a private prayer language. Of course, I don’t believe there is anything in the NT that would justify belief that tongues speech ceased with the passing of the apostles, but that is another issue entirely.
What do you say to the claim that the acceptance of a “Private Prayer Language” among our missionaries is allowing an influx of Pentecostal theology?
First, we need to define what is meant by “Pentecostal” theology. The word “Pentecostal” has traditionally been used solely of those churches, denominations, and theological practices that came out of the Azusa Street Revival at the turn of the previous century (most notably, but by no means restricted to, The Assemblies of God). “Pentecostalism” typically affirms three things of tongues speech: (1) it is the initial physical evidence of one having been baptized in the Holy Spirit (thus if one has not spoken in tongues one has not been Spirit-baptized); (2) there is a distinction between tongues as a “sign” (that accompanies Spirit baptism) and tongues as a “gift” (which is designed for one’s devotional experience); and (3) God desires for all Christians to receive the “gift” of tongues.
Those who embrace a modified “Charismatic” view or what some have called a “Third Wave” theology would reject all three of these points at the same time they believe that tongues is a valid gift for the body of Christ today. But like all other gifts it is sovereignly distributed by the Spirit to whomever he wishes. It is not a gift possessed by all. There is no basis for distinguishing tongues as “sign” from tongues as “gift,” although Third Wave folk (such as myself) acknowledge that tongues can be manifest in a number of ways or settings depending on context and intent. Finally, no single spiritual gift, not even tongues, proves anything other than that the Spirit has sovereignly chosen to bestow it. It is not an infallible or necessary sign that one is either “baptized” or “filled” with the Spirit.
The point of this is simply that I seriously doubt if there are many (any?) Southern Baptist missionaries who are advocating a “Pentecostal” perspective on tongues. They may well be in favor of a Third Wave perspective. Personally, I hope the IMB would allow the freedom for this view and practice to exist on the mission field. However, if someone on the field was insisting that all must speak in tongues or that those who do not have not been Spirit-baptized, this raises another issue that would need to be addressed. I don’t necessarily think that such a “Pentecostal” view should exclude someone from the foreign field, but my opinion on that would probably run counter to most Southern Baptists today. Still, I would hope if such a “Pentecostal” view emerged among SBC missionaries that careful and loving instruction would be provided in an effort to bring them into alignment with the teaching of Scripture. But as I said, I suspect my approach to this matter would very much be a minority position within the SBC.
How do you see the debate over moderation concerning the consumption of alcohol? Do you see a disparity in the approach to the alcohol issue and other issues under debate?
Honestly, I’m weary of this debate. Certainly anyone who embraces the authority of Scripture must denounce drunkenness. But I’ve never been persuaded in the least by the alleged “biblical” arguments for total abstinence. Having said that, I think total abstinence is a perfectly honorable and permissible practice to embrace. Any Christian is free to abstain from alcohol. But they aren’t free, in my opinion, to insist that others do the same. They are even less free to accuse those who drink in moderation of being sub-Christian. Abstinence per se is neither a sign of spiritual weakness nor of spiritual strength. Neither is one’s choice of moderation in the use of alcohol a sign of weakness or strength. Whether one totally abstains or drinks in moderation is simply irrelevant to Christian spirituality.
What are your thoughts on the Traditional church, the Missional church and the Emergent church?
That’s a huge question that warrants a dissertation! But I’ll keep my comments brief.
I’m glad to see that you distinguish between the Missional church and the Emergent church (some mistakenly equate them). Every church ought to be missional, if by that you mean that mission is what the church is and not simply one program that it pursues or funds. The church is by biblical definition and divine calling “sent” to the world, whether that world be across the street or across the ocean.
Sadly many conceive of “mission” as something a segment of the church does or as a program the church “funds” rather than as the very identity of what the whole church is.
My primary concern for the Traditional church is that its customs, rituals (yes, even Southern Baptist’s have rituals; they just don’t call them that), habits, and accepted patterns for ministry and worship are so deeply entrenched in the spiritual psyche of a people that the Bible itself is not allowed to critique what is done or provide direction for new expressions of life as the body of Christ.
There is also the potential threat of a Traditional church losing touch with the surrounding culture. They can often create a “fortress” mentality, circle the wagons, hunker down so to speak, and rarely engage with the developments in society or the unsaved who populate it.
Too often, in the name of tradition, freedom in worship is stifled, the power of the Spirit is suppressed, age old “doctrines” are immune from biblical scrutiny, and what makes people “feel comfortable” is the decisive factor in evaluating fresh proposals or efforts to reach the lost and more effectively communicate with the saved.
I have deep disagreements with the agenda of many (not necessarily all) in the Emergent church. People who want to know the specifics can go to my website (www.SamStorms.com) and click on Recommended. There is a seven part review of Don Carson’s book, “Becoming Conversant with Emergent” that should give them a pretty good idea of where I stand.
What concerns me most about Emergent isn’t the “style” of ministry or the use of “candles and couches” or the commitment to “relevance”. I believe we have to engage with culture if we are going to effectively communicate the gospel to it. What bothers me, though, is the tendency to minimize or, in some cases, altogether jettison the possibility of our knowing absolute truth as it is revealed in Scripture. Too many in Emergent give the impression that because we cannot (and never will) know revealed truth comprehensively or exhaustively that we cannot speak of “absolute truth” in any meaningful sense of the term. Thus they balk at any talk of doctrine or theological boundaries or the importance of identifying “heresy”. Expository preaching is set aside as “modernistic” and ideologically oppressive. This is a serious error that in the long run will threaten the uniqueness of Christianity and undermine our efforts to evangelize the lost.
Again, as I said, there’s so much that could be addressed on this point, but I should probably stop and suggest your readers take a look at my review of Carson’s book.
How serious is the divide within the SBC right now? Do you think it will survive? If it does survive, in what shape will it be?
The divide is certainly real. How serious it is, I’m not sure. There is an unmistakable presence of a “fundamentalist” mentality that I fear will become increasingly belligerent and narrow and critical of those who don’t “toe the line” on their cherished secondary and tertiary issues. I hope those in the Convention can unite on their commitment to the “Fundamentals” of the faith and build a cooperative and effective witness on that basis. But there is, sadly, always an element within any movement or group or denomination that is convinced that true spirituality will always look the same, act the same, worship the same, even when the Bible is either altogether silent on such matters or permits a freedom that such zealots find uncomfortable (if not dangerous).
Yes, the SBC will most certainly survive. But I dare not speculate on what form it will assume.
You are a featured speaker at the Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit later this month. What do you hope this conference will accomplish? How do you think the make up of the conference speakers will help achieve this?
Conferences are a strange thing. Too often they can become an escape from the routine rigors of Christian living. At other times people fall into the mistake of thinking that the spiritual “highs” of a conference are typical of what the Christian life in general is to be. But neither of these is necessary. We need to view a conference like this as an opportunity for honest and open dialogue on issues facing Baptists today. I have high hopes and great expectations for this time in Arlington. I think, if nothing else, it will reveal that there is room under SBC tent for both positions on the ministry of the Holy Spirit. More than that, I hope that cessationists in particular will recognize that their continuationist or charismatic brothers and sisters are as equally committed to the Great Commission and the authority of Scripture as they are.
The speakers represent virtually all possible positions. This is really unusual for a conference on the Spirit. Typically there is only one view that is promoted. There’s always a risk in doing it the way Dwight has chosen, but I think he made the right choice. Let’s pray that in the midst of what will undoubtedly be heated disagreement there will prevail a commitment to loving one another and exalting Christ. That’s certainly what the Spirit would want!
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Posts with related content
Church, General Christian, SBC
April 5th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Art,
Thanks so much for conducting a truly outstanding interview with Dr. Storms. The questions were certainly pertinent to the situation in the SBC right now and Dr. Storms’ answers were concise, well-reasoned, and balanced. He clearly echoes what Wade has been saying for a long time on his blog about the need to allow a diversity of interpretations on non-essential doctrines. His repeated mention of the growing ultra-conservative or fundamentalist movement within the SBC which will not tolerate interpretations which they do not share is clearly at the heart of the current controversy. I suppose that it remains to be seen if this movement is as numerically strong as its proponents insist or whether its leaders are just more vociferous and caustic in their pronouncements.
April 6th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Excellent interview! Although, before the new policies at the IMB and the ensuing discussion on the blogs came up I did not know of Dr. Storms, I have been more and more impressed, upon reading what he has written, by his balanced and reasoned approach toward Scripture, and irenic tone in which he expresses his convictions. It is my prayer that many more will listen with an open heart to what people like Dr. Storms have to teach us.
April 6th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Dr. Storms is impressive.
I like Dr. Storms and Nathan Finn’s ability to apply their scholarship to the contemporary situation without having that condescending tone.
April 6th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Art,
This is a great interview. While having never met Dr. Storms I’ve read much he has written. It is balanced and well presented with the biblical materials foundational to all he says. Thanks for a good look into many subjects he’s thought/studied through.
By the way, you are an “artful” interviewer. Excuse the pun, but do it often as far as I’m concerned.
April 6th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Art,
Excellent work! Dr. Storms words are wise, scholarly, and pastoral. I hope they are received by many in the SBC.
April 6th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Thanks for a good interview Art and for introducting this ministry to more Southern Baptists.
I stumbled across the ministry of Sam Storms when I saw where he was preaching at John Piper’s church. …later had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Storms at the Together For The Gospel conference last year.
Southern Baptists are fortunate to have him, as well as men like Jerry Rankin. I sincerely pray that the unfortunate, extra Biblical policies of the IMB can be reversed so that we may have the future Sam Storms and Jerry Rankin’s in our convention.
April 7th, 2007 at 12:08 am
It seems that with the track record of Dr.Storms in moving from one denomination to another,one type church program tp another, one doctrinal emphasis to another, he is not too well qualified to speak with authority, authenticity, and credibility at such a conference as Arlington. A little more stability is needed in these times of turmoil.
Byron
April 7th, 2007 at 6:09 am
Art,
With respect to all, I’m not sure but what the diversity experienced by Dr. Storms may be as much a qualifier to speak about the Holy Spirit as anything.
I’m reminded of that passage describing the waters flowing from the Temple in Ezekiel. In verses 1-5 it kept rising until one was swimming in it AND it followed, not the precut riverbank but cut it’s own life giving channel. If in any fashion this can be applied to the Spirit’s work of giving life, and I believe it can, the varied experiences of Dr. Storms in the Body of Christ would be a benefit to hear it would seem to me.
As I relfect on my own history, I see a moving through many changes theologically, personally, and relationally. I don’t generally see this as disqualifing in any fashion but, perhaps, a sign of growth. That is what I’m certainly hoping has happened.
All of this is premised in my mind on the belief that things are bigger than my understanding of them. I don’t understand ALL of scripture, I haven’t experienced ALL the activity of the Spirit, and my part in Southern Baptist life is not ALL of the Body of Christ on planet earth.
So, I guess I’m kind of excited about someone who has experienced, studied, and seen things that will stretch me in my walk. I’ll be there with bells on.
April 7th, 2007 at 7:33 am
Byron,
How do you get that Dr. Storms moved from one type church program to another? I don’t see any mention of church programs he has been involved with at all.
Also, how do you get that Dr. Storms moved from one doctrinal emphasis to another?
In fact, I think there might be some evidence of the opposite of what you say. Here are two quotes from Dr. Storms:
“I’ve ALWAYS been baptistic in theology…” (emphasis mine)
“But I’ve NEVER been persuaded in the least by the alleged “biblical” arguments for total abstinence.” (emphasis mine)
As far as “changing” from one doctrinal position to another, the only one I see is that he changed from “cessationism” to “continualism”.
Other than that, it looks as if he might have written on different theological topics. But, this does not neccessarily mean he has moved from one doctrinal emphasis to another in his life.
And, of course, this might be something good instead of bad in that it might show that he has a broad range of sound theological understanding (depending on the quality of his content). For example, if a Christian writer only wrote solid works in the area of eschatology, then he might not have shown whether or not he has much sound understanding in other areas of theology (like soteriology, etc.).
Therefore, out of your three categories, I see that Dr. Storms has moved more than a little in one area (denominations).
Accordingly, if I am correct in my assessment, I am wondering whether or not if this criteria were applied to you if you would fare much better than him.
Have you ever moved from more than one doctrinal emphasis to another?
If so, how many times?
April 7th, 2007 at 9:57 am
It seems that Sam Storms has the false idea that Calvinism translates into the security of the believer. John Piper, a 5-point Calvinist who is praised and embraced by many in the SBC, does not believe in biblical assurance and security of the believer. He states,
There are many warnings in Scripture that those who do not hold fast to Christ can be lost in the end. . . We do not breathe easy after a person has prayed to receive Christ, as though we can be assured from our perspective that they are now beyond the reach of the evil one. There is a fight of faith to be fought. We must endure to the end in faith if we are to be saved. (see http://www.desiringgod.org, “What Piper believes about the 5-points of Calvinism”)
I don’t judge anyone for not recognizing the subtle doctrinal dangers in the writings of John Piper and other Calvinists. He masterfully persuades his reader to drop their guard with passionate calls for God’s glory and the goal of God’s worship in all nations. Who could possibly disagree? The chilling system of extreme Calvinism is being sold in the SBC in a way that seems warm and satisfying. Ultimately Storm’s and Piper’s doctrine holds that YOU WILL BE SAVED OR DAMNED FOR ALL ETERNITY BECAUSE YOU WERE SAVED OR DAMNED FROM ALL ETERNITY.
The SBC needs a double dose of discernment when it comes to Calvinism lest it become prey to a doctrinal system that:
Reduces the mission of the church to identifying the elect to promote the glory of God, rather than seeking the lost to proclaim the gospel of God’s grace.
Tarnishes the very character of God by presenting Him as a narcissistic, self-loving, cosmic sadist.
Robs the children of God of their assurance of salvation and eternal security.
Perverts the gospel of the grace of Christ that is freely offered to all.
Twists biblical truth to fit the man-made system of Calvinism.
April 7th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Bob,
John Piper states “We must ENDURE TO THE END in FAITH if we are to be saved.” (emphasis mine)
Baptist Faith & Message 2000 states “All true believers ENDURE TO THE END…they SHALL BE KEPT by the power of God through FAITH unto salvation.” (emphasis mine)
Could you explain how you see a contradiction here?
You state “Reduces the mission of the church to identifying the elect to promote the glory of God, rather than seeking the lost to proclaim the gospel of God’s grace.”
Could you cite one reference by Piper or anyone in the SBC that states that Christians should “identify” the elect?
You said “Tarnishes the very character of God by presenting Him as a narcissistic, self-loving, cosmic sadist.”
I think I am borrowing phrasing from Piper in asking you this–Should the Supremely Valuable God not Value Himself Supremely?
If not, then why not?
You said “Robs the children of God of their assurance of salvation and eternal security.”
As long as I am perservering (and if I am a true believer, the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 says I will), then how does what Calvinism teach rob me of justifiable assurance?
You said “Perverts the gospel of the grace of Christ that is freely offered to all.”
Could you cite one reference by Piper or anyone in the SBC that states that Christians should not offer the gospel freely to all [if this is what you are saying--I'm not all the way sure you are]?
You said “Twists biblical truth to fit the man-made system of Calvinism.”
Pretty big assertion. However, it does not seem to be very helpful when you don’t offer any reason for your assertion.
April 7th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Hi Benji,
Thanks for the quick response. Because my time is short at the moment, let me respond to your first challenge, and get back to you on the others.
You write:
John Piper states “We must ENDURE TO THE END in FAITH if we are to be saved.” (emphasis mine)
Baptist Faith & Message 2000 states “All true believers ENDURE TO THE END…they SHALL BE KEPT by the power of God through FAITH unto salvation.” (emphasis mine)
Could you explain how you see a contradiction here? (end quote)
Sure. First of all, I appreciate the BF&M, but I think that both you and I will agree that as a human document, it has its strengths and weaknesses. It is the scripture alone that is the final authority in faith and practice.
The BF&M as you quoted states, “…they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.” That is far different that John Piper saying, “. . . that those who do not hold fast to Christ can be lost in the end. . .” Our security and assurance does not rest in “our” holding fast to Christ, but rather to “His” holding fast to us.
For assurance of salvation, John Piper suggests that we must look to our continuing works of faith and not the finished work of Christ. He says, “There is a fight of faith to be fought. We must endure to the end in faith if we are to be saved.” For Piper security focuses on “his” fight and his commitment to endure to the end. His faith is in himself.
The BF&M teaches that our security rests by faith “in the power of God.” May I suggest that assurance of salvation can only be found in the promise of God to save any and all who believe that His Son died for their sins and declares us righteous in His resurrection.
Personally, I find that John Piper’s and Calvinism’s soteriology to be very close to that of Rome. Both systems demand that one look to their changed life and works of righteousness for assurance of salvation. Rome would have no problem with Piper when he says, “We do not breathe easy after a person has prayed to receive Christ, as though we can be assured from our perspective that they are now beyond the reach of the evil one.”
Benji, these are great questions and challenges and I know you have more to which I will be happy to respond.
In His grace,
Bob
April 7th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Bob,
Thanks for the response and I have to be quick as well.
Wihtout researching Piper on this point (so if you have, please join in if it helps), I think Piper would say:
1. God chose John Piper in Christ before the foundation of the world.
2. Christ accomplished John Piper’s Salvation on the cross.
3. God the Father and God the Son’s “grip” on John Piper ensures that John Piper will endure to the end.
4. The commands of Scripture for John Piper to endure are one of the means by which God will ensure that John Piper will endure to the end.
5. John Piper must endure in the present to be “sure” that he is one of the elect in the first place (2 Peter 1:10).
Accordingly, the “security” that John Piper has been saved, is saved, and will be saved is all of God, but part of the “evidence” that John Piper looks to in order to be “sure” that he is secure is in the good works he does in the present.
And yes, it is possible for John Piper to backslide so that he becomes “unsure” of his salvation while all the while remaining “secure” in Christ.
* For those of you who might see some error in my representation of Piper’s theology, please correct me if I am wrong.
April 7th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Having read and heard John Piper for many years Benji is correct in his post. I am also glad that Paul B. addressed Byron’s post as I was thinking the same thing looking back on my journey. I was not originally Southern Baptist, although I have been in the same church for fifteen years going on sixteen, at 51 it’s the first time I have been a member of a Southern Baptist anything.
April 7th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Benji writes:
Accordingly, the “security” that John Piper has been saved, is saved, and will be saved is all of God, but part of the “evidence” that John Piper looks to in order to be “sure” that he is secure is in the good works he does in the present.
And yes, it is possible for John Piper to backslide so that he becomes “unsure” of his salvation while all the while remaining “secure” in Christ.
* For those of you who might see some error in my representation of Piper’s theology, please correct me if I am wrong.
(end quote)
Great! Benji, I agree that you have accurately presented what John Piper looks to for assurance of his salvation – John Piper. John Piper is “sure” that he is secure in his good works and “unsure” of his salvation when he “backslides.” Because John Piper and Calvinists hold that Christ died only for the elect, they cannot look to the cross of Christ alone for assurance. They must seek other evidence in addition to the cross. As Piper writes:
“Nevertheless, we must also own up to the fact that our final salvation is made contingent upon the subsequent obedience which comes from faith.”
For the true Calvinist, salvation is always “contingent” upon odebience. Again, Rome has no problem with this position.
Bob
April 7th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
I need to remember that these messages are supposed to be about the interview with Sam Storms. While I did not know Sam, I was a student at Dallas Theological Seminary from ‘75-’80. So, our DTS days overlaped. I don’t know what brand of 5-point Calvinism he promotes, but I do agree it is healthly to recognize that the Body of Christ is one and we should not divide over non-estentials including differences on the gifts of the Holy Spirit ( I am quite certain I would see things a little differently than Sam on this subject ). After my studies in ThM program at DTS and the DMin program at Reformed Theological Seminary and over 25 years of teaching and ministry, I am of the opinion that too many times we break fellowship over issues we all probably hold with some error and fail to unite over the simple gospel that saves. If anyone believes that Jesus is the Son of God, Christ who died for their sins and conquered death in His resurrection, they are my brother and we are one in Christ.
Bob
April 7th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Bob,
A Christian’s obedience is intrisinically related to the sovereignty of God. When God commands us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, we are immediately told that it is because God is at work in us both to will and to do according to His good pleasure. Paul said that it was “by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace was toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, thought it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me” (1 Cor. 15:10). When the writer of Hebrews warns against apostasy and calls believers to press on to maturity, he adds, “This we will do if God permits“. Finally, by adding to our faith such qualities as described in 2 Pet. 1:5-8 Peter tell us that such practice (e.g. obedience) of these qualities one will never “fall” but will “richly provide an entrance into the eternal kingdom . . .”.
Inasmuch as God is sovereign in our salvation, he is sovereign in our sanctification. Those whom God has called, he has santified and glorified. For God made Christ “our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30). Piper is not boasting in his obedience apart from absolute dependence upon God. Rather, he is glorying in the God who has provided precious promises and enabling grace that allow us to be partakers of his divine nature (2 Pet. 1:3). The completed work of the cross leaves no room for boasting by man either in turning to Christ in faith or living the life of faith. As we have received the Lord Jesus, so we walk in Him (Col.2:6).
The “contingency” you speak of assumes that our obedience is somehow unguarded and alien to God’s sovereignty. Those who view that God is not sovereign in salvation would be consistent to say that God is not sovereign in santification. Those who view that God did not effectually call His sheep to himself have every right to say that obedience is not guaranteed by the indwelling and effectual work of the Holy Spirit. Those who hold a view of eternal security which does not include a persevering of the believer to the end by God’s purpose do not take into account such Scriptures aforementioned.
With that said, I believe you have sorely misunderstood Piper. Piper is not seeking evidence in addition to the cross. The santification and good works subsequent to conversion has been purchased at the cross and thereby included. We obey because we love him; we love him because he first loved us.
When you said, “What John Piper looks to for assurance of his salvation – John Piper,” you were almost correct. It is not John Piper but God in John Piper.
April 7th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Great interview, thanks for that.
Just curious, how does it work to be a member of a church so far from where one lives? Seems like it would be hard to be a member as Paul envisions it in 1 Cor. Just curious.
April 7th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
All,
Sorry that I have been out today. Many things going on today and family in as well.
Byron,
It would seem that denominational loyalty would be the key to you evaluating someone as authoritative, authentic and credible. if Dr. Storms is none of those things, then the evaluation of such, in my opinion, should be based on his ability to “rightly divide the Word of Truth.”
Bob,
Thanks for recognizing that this is about the interview and not the validity of Reformed Theology nor about John Piper. Also, I appreciate your last statement about unity in spite of disagreement of tertiary issues.
Jason,
This is something that I hope to tease Wade about in light of the whole membership issue. We have removed from our roll “Non-Resident” members. In my opinion, there is no such thing.
To answer your question though, I believe that Dr. Storms is traveling and speaking most every weekend and not able to attend a local church regularly anyway. That, however, is pure speculation on my part.
Blessings to all. I pray that your celebration of the Resurrection tomorrow will be filled with joy and that the gospel is proclaimed by all of you throughout the day and week ahead.
April 7th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Art,
I introduced the issues in Calvinism because it was raised in the interview. I appreciate the interaction with Benji, Debbie, and Timmy. I wish to offer an answer to Timmy, and I will move on. Do you have another place we can continue to explore these issues?
Blessings to all,
Bob
_____________
Timmy,
Please understand, I am in no way suggesting that as believers we are not called to a life of love and obedience toward God. Believers in Christ are to live to reflect the glory of God.
We are indeed to “work OUT our own salvation with fear and trembling.” But we are not commanded to “work FOR our own salvation.” Recognizing that “by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast,” does not ignore that “we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” However, note that Ephesians 2:10 says, “should” and not “must” or “will.” Good works are not a condition of salvation nor do they offer assurance.
The scriptures teach that the assurance of our justification by faith apart from works sets us free to love, obey and serve God. Reformed soteriology gets it backward. It teaches that apart from our love, our obedience and our works for God, there is no certainty of justification. But proclaiming salvation by God’s grace does not encourage ungodly living.
“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present age.” (Titus 2:11-12)
For Piper and other Calvinists, only the “elect” from eternity past can be saved. Believing in the death and resurrection of Christ for salvation is not the condition for salvation (according to Piper), but rather the evidence of election. One must first be “born-again,” and this is the result of election apart from faith in Christ.
For this kind of Calvinist there is no assurance of salvation in the cross of Christ. It is always possible that Christ did not die for John Piper. It is always possible that Christ did not die for you. Believing in Christ’s death and resurrection will not save is what they teach. Only those who endure to the very end are saved. And you cannot be sure you will endure to the end, until the end. Ultimately Piper’s brand of Calvinism holds that YOU WILL BE SAVED OR DAMNED FOR ALL ETERNITY BECAUSE YOU WERE SAVED OR DAMNED FROM ALL ETERNITY.
This is in my opinion a perversion of the grace of Christ.
Bob
April 8th, 2007 at 3:48 am
This is what I get for checking the email on my treo in the middle of the night. I read something and can’t go back to sleep until I respond.
Bob,
The article only addressed whether or not we could get along in the SBC – and Reformed theology was one of the dividing lines discussed. I did not discuss, nor attempt to discuss, whether or not it valid, as you have done here. I have intentionally avoided that line of discussion for the entirety of my blogging.
Which brings me to the answer to your question: No, I don’t have another place to discuss the merits of Calvinism. The blogosphere is so full of pro/anti Calvinistic places for discussion, and they are generally filled with MUCH vitriol. I avoid it like the plague.
If you think Calvinism gets it wrong – fine. Absolutely your privilege (and a view shared by a huge majority of Southern Baptists), and again, I thank you for recognizing that it is a tertiary issue within the bounds of cooperation. Still you have said some things about what Piper believes – that he thinks his salvation is dependent on him/his works – that I don’t think are accurate representations of the man.
Now, I don’t know John Piper. I have read some of his writings, perused his website and listened to a few of his sermons. Having done this, I am absolutely confident that he would deny virtually everything you have said he believes. I have heard/read him affirm grace alone and perseverance of the saints. I have never heard/read him to present God as a narcissistic, self loving sadist.
You have your opinion of that and, clearly, mine is different. Whatever we all believe about Calvinism (or drinking in moderation, PPL or the stewardship of Kingdom monies), I think we owe it to one another to represent accurately what others believe.
On that count, one of three things has happened here.
1. You have misrepresented John Piper intentionally. I don’t believe this to be true. It sounds to me that you are sincere and I don’t want to believe this about anyone.
2. You have misunderstood John Piper’s comments about working out our salvation. Clearly, I think this is what has happened. I think Piper believes that falling away from a confession of Christ is not the loss of salvation, but the revelation that the person never had salvation. Similar to what the Apostle John wrote in 1 John 2:19.
3. You have represented him in an exactly accurate way and that he is intentionally misleading everyone about what he truly believes. This would make John Piper a cult leader, and not someone with whom I would care to cooperate.
Whatever has happened here, it is indeed time to move away from John Piper. He is not, the validity of Calvinism is not, the subject of this article or blog.
Thank you for your congenial spirit even in disagreement and I thank you for being willing to move on.
April 8th, 2007 at 7:43 am
I love you Art,
Bless you brother.
Bob
April 19th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Piper’s postion on on the security of the beliver based upon the wrok of Christ can be clarified by reading his sermons on 1 John. I think all of us must admit that anytime we speak or write that nay particular sentance must be read in the context of the whole. Here is a paragraph from a sermon, 1 John 1 part 7:
“But our doing what is right and our abiding is Jesus is not the ultimate ground of our confidence—it’s an essential signal but it is not the foundation of our confidence. Thank God that the foundation of our confidence is not what we do, but rather the ultimate ground of our confidence is in what God has done for us. In v. 29 we read “Every one who does what is right is born of God”—or more literally, “Every one who does what is right has been born of God.” What has God done for us? Let’s read the next verse: “See what love the Father has given us that we should be called children of God; and so we are.”
The fact that we are learning to abide in Christ and do what is right is an evidence, a signal, that something supernatural has happened to us. John calls it being born of God. Out of the Father’s free and boundless love he calls a person to be his child and then he causes this person to be born again. This new birth God has given us precedes any inkling of love for him on our part. In 1:13 of his gospel John says that becoming a child of God does not originate with us, but with God: “We are born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” In 1 John 4:10 it says, “In this is love, not that we love God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” Then again a few verses later in 4:19 it says, “We love, because he first loved us.” We love, we do what is right, we abide in Jesus as a result of God causing us to be born again.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Please excuse the lack of editing!