Comments on: The John 3:16 Conference- Ken Keathley on Perseverance of the Saints

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 03:36:35 +0000

Bottom line is that if you think anyone of the presenters exhibited rancor, junior rancor, or anything else of such a level that they need to be “held accountable” by you, then you need to go to them in person only and not on your blog according to Matt 18.

Your blog should engage the arguments and leave allegations/suggestions/hints/overtones/charges related to character to private conversations.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 02:22:38 +0000

The Great Commission Resurgence, with all due respect, was born out of that same 40+ crowd. And, the young Calvinists are not the only one’s passionate about the Word of God. The conference was billed as a response to TULIP. The lecutures were responses to that system. You may disagree with their argumentation and their conclusions. That is fair. There was, I conceede readily, one lecture in particular that seemed a little off key in terms of spirit. The others were not derisive . . . I say this as one who is still working out some of his theological positions. Please simply consider choosing your language a bit more wisely. I assure you, brother-to-brother, that using “rancor” and “aged elite” is not perceived as helping to alieve any “animosities that will kill us.” I think some of your Calvinist brothers would agree with me.

By: Todd Burus

Todd Burus — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:35:30 +0000

Daniel,
It would be my desire for you to see my words not as coming from a wayward heart but coming from the same heart with which Christ opposed Peter (Matthew 16.21-23) or Paul opposed Peter (Galatians 2.11-14) (poor Peter, he was always stepping in it!). I do not pursue shame or hatred towards any of these men, but fearing that they have gone off course and are setting their energies towards thing which are not of God but of man, I wish to bring awareness and accountability to this.

As for the words, I believe ‘rancor’ is appropriate because there was so much bitterness and ill-will, and the general atmosphere relayed a deep-seated resentment towards Calvinistic beliefs, while not necessarily expressing a good understanding of what they really are. The phrase ‘aged elite’ was not meant as a term of derision but simply to juxtapose the voices leading the debate with my own relative youth. It seems interesting to me that all of the people engaging in this are among the 40 and 50+ crowd, whereas the resurgence is occurring among teens and 20-somethings, and so I would like to be a voice from that group. However, I have the highest respect for all of the men involved in this and the lifetime of commitment they have made to serving God.

Lastly, as far as Johnny Hunt is concerned, I do not want to oppose his idea of the Great Commission Resurgence in any way, but it confuses me when he sets out to do such a thing on one hand and then endorses statements of the nature that Calvinism is the cause of our evangelistic crisis and a move towards Calvinism is a move away from the Gospel. Do you see how those things are irreconcilable?

There is a resurgence already, in biblically sound, young, convicted Calvinists, and for whatever reason the helm of the SBC is afraid of accepting them as the future. If such animosity continues I do not see it turning out well for the convention because I do not know many young Calvinists who feel more allegiance to a denomination than to what they have seen in the Word of God. That’s my fear, that our animosities will kill us, and that’s why I am doing this.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:01:35 +0000

To be honest, I can see your Calvinism, your youth, and your passion (all of which are not necessarily bad in and of themselves); however, I’m not so sure I can see your heart. Words like “rancor” and “aged elite” give me some pause; they don’t remind me of the kindness of our Savior. I hope you take this as constructive from a brother who likes taking shots at the opposition as much as you apparently do, but who has been trying, by God’s grace, to do a much better job of relaxing and engaging arguments only without using language which would belittle a brother. My praise for Hunt was not merely based on what He has done but on what he is doing. We should all be joining with him lock-step on the Great Commission Resurgence.

By: Todd Burus

Todd Burus — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 05:24:01 +0000

Daniel,
Just a comment on my intentions towards Dr. Hunt and Dr. Vines. I am in accord with you that I think these men have lived incredible, Godly lives which have been both a benefit and an example for many people around the world, and I in no way want to throw shame on any of the things that the Lord has done through them over the years. What I am concerned about is what seems to me a string of questionable words and/or actions that they have either taken part in or tacitly endorsed under their respective pulpits and ministries. These men have done great things in the convention, but a lifetime of service does not exempt one from the need for accountability. Case in point, you mention that “the sermons were recorded and are available to any/all who want to hear,” but that is not exactly true. Yes, the sermons are recorded and available to hear, but first one must pay $50 for the CD’s. That is not really an invitation to accountability and stands in sharp contradistinction from the much more balanced (and I believe beneficial) Building Bridges conference held last fall at SEBTS which is still available for free download at various sites. I pray you can see my heart in this matter.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:29:01 +0000

Keathley, fair enough. I beg you to keep four things in mind: 1) he exalted Christ and called people to what God accomplished in our salvation . . .to which a 5-point Calvinist should say Amen. 2) He sped through his presentation to get the conference back on track. 3) He gave props to Schreiner before critiquing him. 4) Humility begs that you assume the best of someone’s motivations until you have reason to think otherwise. There is not enough in Keathley’s lecture for you to say credibly that he exhibited rancor in the least.
- – - -
I would say that your read of Vines/Hunt falls in a similar boat. You can see what you want to see there. I’m sure they are both confident enough of their convictions to say them before an assembled audience at Southern or anywhere else. I’m also convinced that they did not think shining a spotlight on their differences in that particular forum was the better part of valor or Christlikeness. It has nothing to do with cowardice. It has everything to do with being Christlike and presenting arguments in a proper context/forum. The sermons were recorded and are available to any/all who want to hear; they are not lacking accountabilty. Hunt, for his part, is spending every ounce of his energy, it seems, calling us to get back to the Great Commission. I have great respect for a man who is doing that and who God has used mightily though the years.

By: Todd Burus

Todd Burus — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:56:41 +0000

In re: Johnny Hunt and Jerry Vines,
I did not mean to make it a big deal. I stated it because I find it curious that Dr. Hunt and Dr. Vines were not confident enough in their statements to make them in “enemy territory,” which fits in with the lack of accountability which I think has been exercised by this conference and its participants as a whole.

In re: “process of regeneration”,
I would want to appeal to my larger quote which was “Yet for myself . . . salvation is a process of regeneration leading to justification . . . ” In this, the segment “process of regeneration” was not meant to be taken as “a process which is known as regeneration.” Instead the word “process” actually belongs to “salvation” and so it should be read as “the work of salvation is a process whose parts consist of regeneration leading to justification.” I blame the English language for this one, and hope that my further explanation has cleared this up.

As far as Keathley engaging S-C, let me not speak on that until I have returned to the actual message and readdressed the quotes he read and his statements about them. I promise to get back on this within the next day or two.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:00:02 +0000

The conference was billed as a response to Calvinism. The only “non-Calvinist” point that Hunt made was that he could, without any systematic, philosophical, or other reservation, share the gospel with anyone. He didn’t have to question whether an individual was elect or was not elect. He didn’t have to question whether he might be making a disengenuous offer of the message of the gospel because he is confident that Christ died for all. In other words, he said by way of illustration, I don’t think that limited atonement in the strictly 5-point Calvinist sense is accurate.

Big deal. The sermon was great, and the context was more than appropriate. Maybe it is showing deference and wisdom to pick your spots on minor issues.
– - – -
So, for you, your fruit is the ground of your assurance. Fine, I think you’re wrong, but fine. No huge deal.

For me, it is the accomplished work of Christ who enables my fruit that is the ground of my assurance. I am wholly confident in the work of Christ on my behalf and am trusting entirely in His work alone for my justification. My works don’t save me one whit. The rub was in the statement you made about salvation being in process to justification. We both affirm that the saints will persevere which is what was being discussed.

It seemed that you saw sanctification as being in process toward justification (the clear position of Shreiner-Cannaday in what Keathley quoted at length). Since you do not affirm this, you are not echoing Trent. S-C however, are. That is a fair critique/observation on Keathley’s side, and he did it while also humbly acknowledging he has benefitted greatly from much of Schriener’s work. As you can tell, I’m really bothered by the implication that he took any cheap shots. He went out of his way not to do so. He argued well and with a Christ-like disposition and led us to wonder at the glory of our Savior. I really pray you will re-think this. Your committment to a theological system seems to be preventing you from appreciating the humble efforts of a brother with whom you disagree on this one.

Also, just curious on this one, where do you find a “process of regeneration” in the Scriptures. It seems you either are or are not regenerate and that regeneration is contemporaneous with faith and repentance?

By: Todd Burus

Todd Burus — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:39:32 +0000

Daniel, my critique of Johnny Hunt (and Dr. Vines) is not that they preached the same sermon multiple times, I certainly wouldn’t fault them for that, but it was the fact that each man put special emphasis on non-Calvinist viewpoints at FBC Woodstock that they did not do in front of a more Calvinist-leaning crowd at Southern.

By: Todd Burus

Todd Burus — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:34:22 +0000

I have never at any point said that I believe our justification is incomplete after the moment we believe. To use your words so as not to have this confusion any longer, “one’s justification is complete in Christ at the moment one demonstrates repentance and faith” and sanctification is “becoming in practice what God has already declared us to be in truth (righteous) as the Christ who has redeemed us is exhibited more and more in our living.”

The whole point I’ve been trying to make, which it seems you still have missed, is that the only way to have an epistemic warrant for saying you are justified is through the evidences produced in your actions. Trust and belief are not tangible things, and so in order to know that you have them or have exercised them you must look for the consequences of them. Not seeing these consequences does not mean that the faith doesn’t exist, but it means, as Peter said and I have gone back to repeatedly, that at best you are “so nearsighted that [you are] blind, having forgotten that [you were] cleansed from [your] former sins” (2 Peter 1.9), which would be a position in which, if you have forgotten that your sins were ever cleansed in the first place, you would have no assurance that you were saved in the first place.

As for Keathley, it seems we have to agree to disagree.