The fifth scholarly presentation of the conference belonged to Dr. Ken Keathley, Dean of Graduate Students at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and was concerning the Perseverance of the Saints. This talk took on a different light than the others since it is a part of the Baptist Faith & Message that “All true believers endure to the end,” and thus (hopefully) everyone at the conference, whether Calvinist or non, was in agreement on this. In fact, this is what many at the conference used as the dividing line between being a non-Calvinist and being an Arminian (though I would likely contest that man’s role in salvation is a better place). Nevertheless, Dr. Keathley’s presentation was not without fireworks.
Dr. Keathley began his message by referencing 2 Timothy 1.12. He then stated that there are two components to assurance of salvation: being certain that you are saved and being certain that you will stay saved. Dr. Keathley then asked the question, What is the basis of assurance? It must be one of three views. Either it is not possible to know (traditional Catholicism), it is the essence of faith (which Keathley says is hampered by the doctrines of unconditional election, limited atonement, and temporary faith of the non-elect), or it is logically deduced (a standard Puritan position, deriving assurance from sanctification). Keathley spent some time arguing against the view of logical deduction, including a reference to The Golden Chain by William Perkins and a look at the problem with logical syllogisms.
The question was then asked, How secure is my salvation? Again, we have three views. There is the view that apostasy is possible, which comes out of Augustinianism and Arminianism. Or one may hold that apostasy is not possible, which is the view of Calvinism, Dispensationalism, and Barthian implicit universalism. In this view the verses that appear to speak on apostasy are actually on a loss of rewards in heaven. Then there is the view that apostasy is genuinely threatened but not ultimately possible. This third view arise from places such as Tom Schreiner and A.B. Canneday’s work The Race Set Before Us and says that the verses read for apostasy are not about rewards but are actually threatening hell. However, the warnings here are only of conceivable, but not actual consequences.
Keathley railed against this third view for several minutes, asking just how conceivable apostasy could really be if it is not ultimately possible? Then, after sharing a quote from Schreiner and Canneday’s book, states that their view is not just close to the view of the Council of Trent, it is the view of the Council of Trent (!).
To close, Keathley gave what he stated was a “modest proposal.” He stated that we should take that the only basis for assurance is the objective work of Christ; that assurance is the essence of saving faith; that saving faith remains until the day it gives way to sight; that there are awards to gain or lose subsequent to the receiving of eternal life; and that assurance comes from Christ alone.
In responding to Keathley I want to first address a general comment on his method and then address specifically what he had to say about the Schreiner/Canneday view both in his message and in conversation that we had later that day.
In regards to method, I feel that it was a bit disingenuous of Keathley to use William Perkins Golden Chain as an illustration of Puritan teaching on assurance, seeing as how to anyone who knows what they are looking at it is clear that Perkins advocated a supralapsarian, hyper-Calvinist viewpoint, a much less common variant of Calvinism as it is believed in today. For the sake of making a point, this illustration is certain to rattle some anti-Calvinist cages, but for the sake of honesty it would have been nice for Dr. Keathley to admit that this view is not the prevailing perspective among Calvinist teachings.
Now, turning to his comments against Schreiner and Canneday, or against a logic/works based assurance in general, I found it interesting that when I approached Keathley about this, his own explanation of what constitutes belief was simply to volitionally place trust in Christ, yet when talking about it he constantly referred back to recalling a moment in time or recalling an action that spoke to/demonstrated that trust. An illustration he used was that he demonstrated his faith in the chair to support him by sitting on it.
I know this is hairy, but there truly is a distinction. If Christ is the basis of our assurance, then why do I need to recall a moment when I volitionally put my trust in God to have assurance of my salvation? To what extent I can imagine it, to say that the basis of your assurance is the objective work of Jesus Christ is simply saying too little unless you believe in a sort of universalism, since otherwise there must be some action on your part to let you know that his objective work has been applied to you.
That is where the rub is. For Keathley, a non-Calvinist, or more precisely, a Molinist, salvation is a mental exercise of “looking to Christ.” Yet for myself and Schreiner-Canneday (and I would argue, the Bible), salvation is a process of regeneration leading to justification with the only sure evidence of your salvation coming from the evidences provided in your sanctification. It is only in this sense that Peter’s words to “make your calling and election sure” (2 Peter 1.10) and Paul’s admonition to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2.12) make any sense. What fear and trembling comes from recalling a time that you looked to Jesus? You either did or you didn’t. And, observing the full context of 2 Peter 1, we see a list of qualities that should appear in the believer, that without which Peter says “whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins” (v.9). Yet, what kind of blindness keeps you from remembering a volitional act? Inebriation? This is pure non-sense in Keathley’s view.
Finally, the charge that the Schreiner-Canneday view IS the view of the Council of Trent is a step too far. To equate modern Calvinist understanding of spiritual evidences, a belief that is very firmly grounded in biblical study, with the traditional Catholic teaching of perseverance by works is the type of ignorant anti-Calvinism which is fueling this whole unnecessary dispute.
November 12, 2008 at 2:02 pm |
“What fear and trembling comes from recalling a time that you looked to Jesus? You either did or you didn’t. ”
Afterward, the children of Israel shall retrun and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They shall fear the LORD and His goodness in the latter days.
Keathley never said there would not be fruit, he just said that fruit is ultimately not the ground of assurance. Only Christ is and what He accomplished on the Cross. The question becomes in moments when there seems to be good fruit in your life, are you trusting your fruit or your Lord and Savior.
You did a good job summarizing your objections with Keathely, but you did not do a good job showing how Shreiner-Cannaday is not the equivalent of Trent. He quoted them at length and as he was reading what they hand written I was thinking, “wow, that’s Catholicism.” A few minutes later, he made the statement about Trent. He represented their statement fairly with his assessment.
November 12, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
Thank you for your comment.
The point I was trying to make is not that Keathley said that there shouldn’t be fruit, but that (a) when he explained how you know you are trusting in God he kept referring back to logical deductions or evidence (i.e. I know I have faith in the chair because I sat on it), and (b) the simple thought that trust in the objective work of Christ is your basis of assurance does not jive with Scripture since it should not be a fearful or trembling event to recall trusting in God.
It also does not seem to accord with 2 Peter 1.10 in “making your calling and election sure” (which is assurance, right?) which the apostle seems to link directly with the observation of the qualities listed in verses 5-7. And when someone of Keathley’s persuasion uses 1 John 5.13, they mean for it to accord with 1 John 5.12, when actually it should be understood in the context of all of 1 John, which contains statements like “By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked” (2.5-6).
As far as Schreiner-Canneday, I did not intention necessarily to defend their exact words, but only their position as I understand it from knowing their theology and the quotes which Keathley presented. But, in the end, I was basically defensing my own position against Keathley. I could go back and address the exact quotes he attacks, as I recall not reading into them the same conclusions as he did. I’ll try and update on that soon.
November 12, 2008 at 4:01 pm |
Hello,
I noticed a post of yours at another blog (but can’t remember which one) where you made mention of having recordings of these sessions, and to either email you or post a comment on your blog if someone is interested in copies. I’m definitely interested. My email address is threegirldad_at_hotmail_dot_com. Thanks!
November 12, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
Thanks for your interest. I found that the messages are too big to place in an email and so what I have done is I have posted them on my blog for download. They are located under the tab labeled ‘Resources.’ I am about to make a post announcing this as well. Enjoy!
November 12, 2008 at 10:41 pm |
Hosea 3:5 seems to link fear to the goodness of God in providing salvation. I think you need a biblical view of fear here. Fear and trembling is not always associated merely with judgment or a failure on our part. Sometimes it is a response to the awesomeness of God, even His awesomeness in saving us.
As for 2 Peter 1:10, it must be read in context. “These things” begin with “applying all diligence in your faith” back in v. 5. No fruit is borne out, no things are practiced apart from the objective work of Christ on our behalf.
Also, if you really believe this, “salvation is a process of regeneration leading to justification with the only sure evidence of your salvation coming from the evidences provided in your sanctification” then you have also made a pretty good approximation of trent. Justification in the classic Protestant sense is to be delared just on the basis of Christ’s righteouness from the moment you trust Christ. The way you wrote this (I’m thinking, perhaps, that you’ve just not written what you truly mean here?) suggests that the accomplished work of Christ is not sufficient to be justified for those who are, by faith, in Him. It suggests that you must begin with Christ in some fashion and that you must work to acquire the justification that is in Him. If this is true, the words to the thief on the cross make little sense. He could only trust the promise of the Son of God who was accomplishing his salvation before his very eyes.
November 13, 2008 at 1:36 am |
Daniel,
I would never argue that a person is declared just based on anything but Christ’s righteousness. However, what I do state is that the way in which we know we are justified can only come about through the evidences provided in sanctification. Whether we are able to see these evidences or not has no bearing upon the actual work of justification. What is at stake is whether we have any reason to believe ourselves saved (assurance). If we “lack these qualities” as stated in 2 Peter 1 (cf. v.5-7), then we will be “so nearsighted” as to have “forgotten” that we have been justified (v.9). Again, not that we haven’t been justified or that our justification is dependent on the observing of these qualities, but that our basis for claiming assurance of this justification is lacking without them.
It’s a subtle difference, one I think Keathley and many others miss because they are more focused on the actual work of Christ (which is not a bad thing to be focused on) and go too far in ascribing what constitutes knowledge that this work has been completed in you, i.e. some nebulous thing called ‘faith’ or ‘trust.’
November 13, 2008 at 12:05 pm |
So would you like to amend your statement that I quoted about being in a process of regeneration leading to justification? That statement was Roman Catholicism through-and-through. When I experience doubts regarding my salvation, I don’t look merely at works, I look to the ground of those works Christ Himself in Whom I am. That seems to be where Peter started too.
Also, I noticed on your conference summary that you left Keathley out. He did not at all come across with “rancor” but he was in the Friday afternoon session. I think it would be the right thing for you to amend your summary of the conference and clarify that Keathley did not have rancor in his presenation. Passion, yes. Enthusiasm, yes. Good argumentation that you may disagree with, yes. Rancor, not even a hint of it.
November 13, 2008 at 1:34 pm |
No, I would not like to amend that statement. The order of salvation that I see in the Bible is that it starts with the regeneration of the spirit, followed by the effectual calling into repentance and faith, which leads to justification. And from here we have sanctification then glorification (if pressed I would probably add more, but this is the basics). The effectual call must necessarily occur after regeneration since the dead spirit can not respond to God, and Romans 8.30 makes it clear that the calling comes before justification, thus it IS a process started with regeneration and leading to justification, as I originally maintained.
Then, as I said, one will be interested in knowing if they are saved, which the Bible teaches is an assurance which comes from the evidences of sanctification in the life of the believer. This act is making sure they are saved in the sense that they are curious, not in the sense that they are fortifying it, which is where I think Dr. Keathley and seemingly yourself have jumped off.
As for whether or not Keathley was deserving of the ‘rancor’ label, I think passing off non-standard supralapsarian beliefs as “Calvinism” without qualification, and the unabashed accusing of a well-known Calvinist at a well-known Calvinist-leaning seminary of affirming works righteousness, is at least enough for the title of ‘junior rancor,’ particularly since it was all done in an environment which just ate up any negativity toward Calvinism it could acquire. I apologize if this seems harsh to you, but as for my assessment as one who was there I stand by it. The reason I did not include him in the crowd of people I worry would split the convention is because he is at Southeastern seminary and I do not believe that Danny Akin would give him platform enough to cause problems in the way that David Allen or Steve Lemke could/have.
Thank you again for your continued engagement and I hope this comment clarifies some of your questions about my views.
November 13, 2008 at 2:20 pm |
I was also in attendance and disagree thoroughly with your assessment of Keathley as exhibiting “junior rancor.” He quoted the positions liberally. He made a good argument for the difference in salvation being based on grace (at the cross) rather than upon a decree (in either 5-point system). You can disagree with his argumentation, but it was fair argumentation. The guy was on a tight timeline and, if you noticed, tried to hurry along to help get the conference back on schedule. I really believe you are over the line on your assessment of Keathley.
Further, I, obviously, disagree with your view of salvation. Regardless, would you at least affirm that one’s justification is complete in Christ at the moment one demonstrates repentance and faith? Is the “process” of justification complete at that moment, or is justification still in process?
In other words, is sanctification “becoming more righteous” or is it “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.”
November 13, 2008 at 2:25 pm |
Furthermore, if you were as busy as Johnny Hunt is, you would preach a sermon more than once in the same place. That is an entirely unfair critique. The man is doing a great job and his focus is on getting us all back to the Great Commission.
November 13, 2008 at 2:25 pm |
sorry, not in the same place. Just more than once.
November 13, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
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.
November 13, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
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.
November 13, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
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?
November 13, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
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.
November 13, 2008 at 5:29 pm |
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.
November 14, 2008 at 12:24 am |
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.
November 14, 2008 at 10:01 am |
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.
November 14, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
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.
November 14, 2008 at 9:22 pm |
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.
November 14, 2008 at 10:36 pm |
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.