This is part 5 of 6 postings of an article I wrote in 1999 entitled Rescuing the Perishing: A Defense of Giving Invitations.  (If you wish to read the article in its entirety along with footnotes, click on the hyperlink title above.)

Theological Arguments
Speaking of ice, the public invitation is an example of what could be called an “iceberg issue.”  Concern for the invitation is only the tip of a large set of unseen theological assumptions.  What we believe about how God saves a lost sinner eventually determines how we go about doing evangelism.  Some reject giving invitations because they do not believe that God desires the salvation of all or that salvation is even available for the non-elect.  

Charge: There is no "well meant offer" of the Gospel to all. 

Hyper-Calvinists such David Engelsma and John Gerstner reject the view that the Gospel is genuinely offered to everyone that hears it.  They do not believe that God loves all people and desires their salvation.  Engelsma claims that Paul
                did not believe, nor did he ever preach, that God loved all men, was gracious to
                all men, and desired the salvation of all men, that is he did not believe, teach,
                or give the well-meant offer of the Gospel…. Paul did not regard the preaching
                of the gospel as an offer of salvation to everyone, directed to everyone in a
                universal love of God and providing everyone with a chance to be saved.[1]   

Engelsma gives a list of statements that he says no true preacher would ever say: “God loves all of you, and Christ died for all of you…God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life…God is gracious to all of you and sincerely desires your salvation.”  His blunt assessment of such declarations is: “This message is false.”[2]  With such a conception of the love of God, it is not difficult to see why Engelsma sees no need for invitations.

Reply: Southern Baptists recognize that God’s offer of salvation to all is real.

In contrast to Engelsma and Gerstner, the Baptist Faith and Message teaches that the Gospel is a genuine offer.[3]  It also teaches that this grace is consistent with man’s genuine and meaningful response.  A genuine offer necessitates a call for a decision.  And a call for a decision is by its very nature an invitation.

Charge: Repentance and faith are the results of being born again, not the conditions for salvation. 

In order to understand the objections of those like Engelsma, one must realize that they see salvation as a process.  First, the elect is regenerated, and then afterwards his repentance and faith reveal this new life.  Faith is not the condition to salvation, it is the result of it.  In such a system, giving an invitation is superfluous.  In many ways, the debate about the invitation is really a disagreement about the order of salvation.

Reply: Conversion is not a process, and that regeneration is simultaneous with conversion (John 1:12). 

Faith is not the means to deserve salvation, but it is the means to obtain it (John 3:36; Acts 16:31).  Faith is not the condition for God to give salvation, but it is the condition to receive it.  Therefore exercising faith is not meriting salvation.  When a free gift is given, the merit belongs to the giver of the gift, not the recipient (Rom.4:16; Eph. 2:8-9).

Charge: Pleading with men to come to Christ is disgraceful and even idolatrous. 

According to Engelsma, preachers are called to proclaim the Gospel, not to persuade men to receive it.  He describes anyone who tries to persuade the hearer as an “offer-man.”

                  An ‘offer-man,’ if he is consistent, must beg sinners, and the disgraceful
                  practice abounds today.  It is revolting to anyone who has caught a glimpse of
                  the majesty of God, the excellent glory of the risen Jesus, and the sovereignty
                  of grace to hear the ‘offer-men’ begging recalcitrant sinners please to accept             
                  Jesus and come to the front.  They conjure up the spectacle of the Baal
                  prophets ranting and raving in their ‘altar call’ for their powerless god to send
                  the fire.[4]

So Engelsma likens those who urge men to come to Christ to the prophets of Baal.  He says giving invitations is tantamount to idolatry because in his opinion it focuses on the sinner rather than the sovereign work of grace.             
      
Reply: Besides being offensive, his characterization is patently false. 

We would agree that salvation is completely a work of God, but we also believe that He uses intermediate means to accomplish His work.  It is God who calls men to salvation, but He uses the Gospel preacher to issue the summons. As noted earlier, the word "persuade" is often used in the Bible to describe evangelistic efforts.  This is not a denial of the essential work of the Holy Spirit in drawing people to Christ.  No one can argue someone to Jesus, but God does use our earnest solicitations to accomplish His will.

Engelsma says that urging men to be saved denigrates the glory of God.  But surely Engelsma does not care more about God's glory than does the Lord Himself.  In Hosea, the Lord presents Himself as pleading with idolatrous Israel as a husband would plead with a wayward wife.  The Father in the Parable of the Prodigal Son was willing to run to the younger son and go out to plead with the older son.  Does Engelsma think Jesus was mimicking the prophets of Baal when he wept over Jerusalem and exclaimed, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem…How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!”  There is nothing disgraceful in Paul’s appeal when he states, “Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20).  There is a place for earnest, brokenhearted preaching.  The invitation is a natural expression of the sincere, godly desire for people to come to Christ.

This is part 3 of 6 postings of an article I wrote in 1999 entitled Rescuing the Perishing: A Defense of Giving Invitations.  (If you wish to read the article in its entirety along with footnotes, click on the hyperlink title above.)
Historical Arguments

Charge: The practice of giving invitations was invented (or at least popularized) by Charles Finney.

A common attack against invitations is to connect them in some way with Charles Finney.  Engelsma calls the altar call “that johnny-come-lately innovation of Finney.”[1]  Albert Dod, a former professor of theology at Princeton claims, “The practice of urging people to come forward at the end of preaching services was introduced by Charles Finney.  This method is without historical precedent.”  Why would this accusation matter? Because although Finney was an influential evangelist of the early 19th century, he definitely held aberrant views concerning salvation.  In essence Finney taught that a person could be moved to come to Christ without the convicting and converting work of the Holy Spirit.  Thus, if the altar call were a method derived from his spurious theology, then this would call into question its validity.

Reply: This is an example of guilt by association.  It is also historically incorrect

The Separate Baptists of the Sandy Creek tradition were giving invitations 30 years before Finney was even born.  An eyewitness described the manner in which the “ranting Anabaptists” would conduct services during the great revivals in the Carolinas in the 1760’s:

                   At the close of the sermon, the minister would come down from the pulpit
                  and while singing a suitable hymn would go around among the brethren
                  shaking hands. The hymn being sung, he would then extend an invitation to
                  such persons as felt themselves poor guilty sinners, and were anxiously
                  inquiring the way of salvation, to come forward and kneel near the stand, or if
                  they preferred, they could kneel at their seats, proffering to unite with them in
                  prayer for their con­version.[2]

Many may have learned how to give invitations from Finney, but not Baptists.

The fact that Separate Baptists gave altar calls is important for several reasons.  Many of the Separate Baptists were converts of George Whitefield during the Great Awakening of the mid-18th century.  (Whitefield, an Anglican, is supposed to have lamented, “All my chickens have become ducks.”)  They inherited Whitefield’s moderate Calvinism and aggressive attitude toward evangelism.

Prior to this time there were only the Particular Baptists (or Regular Baptists, as they came to be known) and a handful of General Baptists in the American Colonies.[3]  Although the Particular Baptists had arrived in the colonies nearly 100 years earlier, they never enjoyed the success of the Separate Baptists.  The Separate Baptists spread through the Southern colonies like wildfire and soon vastly outnumbered their Particular counterparts.  In 1740, there were less than one thousand Baptists spread among a meager sixty churches throughout all of America.  They made up less than 1% of the population.  Then came the great revivals of the Separate Baptists.  Just sixty years later, Baptists were the largest denomination on the continent with over one thousand churches.  From smallest to largest in sixty years!  It is no exaggeration to say that over 90% of all Southern Baptist Churches can trace their roots back to the Sandy Creek Revival of the Separate Baptists. 

Both Particular and Separate Baptists were Calvinistic, but Separate Baptists never interpreted the doctrines of sovereignty, predestination, and election in such a way as to smother evangelism.  The Separates knew that salvation was entirely a work of God but they also realized that He uses the Church to do His work.  They sang enthusiastically, preached fervently, and called men to Christ with blunt clarity.  The Particular Baptists were jealous of the growth of the Separate Baptists, but were hindered by a theology that seemed to produce only inertia.  Before we do away with the invitation we should ask ourselves if the Particular Baptists are the best model to follow.

This is part 2 of 6 postings of an article I wrote in 1999 entitled Rescuing the Perishing: A Defense of Giving Invitations.  (If you wish to read the article in its entirety along with footnotes, click on the hyperlink title above.)

Biblical Arguments
Charge: Invitations are not found in the Bible, neither in principle nor in practice.
Reply: If this charge were true, it is at best an argument from silence; but invitations were often given in the Bible. 

Often the charge is made that nothing like the modern invitation can be found in the Scriptures.  This is at best an argument from silence.  Neither ushers nor the pews in which they seat people; neither offertories nor the organs on which they are played; nor most of the various components of a modern worship service can be found explicitly in the Bible.  In fact, some would say that the Sunday morning worship service itself is not in the Scriptures.  If the Bible is silent about giving an invitation, then the burden of proof is on those who say that invitations violate Biblical principles.  (Actually, this is exactly the line of argument used by those who would forbid the use of hymns or musical instruments in church services.)

However, there is abundant Scriptural justification for the practice of giving public invitations.  In both the Old and New Testament there are numerous examples of the hearers of God's message being challenged to make an open and public decision.  When Moses confronted the congregation for their idolatry he commanded, "Whoever is on the Lord's side--come to me!" (Ex. 32:26).  In his final days of leading Israel, Moses concluded his sermon by calling on the congregation to choose: "I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life…." (Deut. 32:19).  Joshua called on Israel to publicly decide between the Lord and idols when he said, "Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve…." (Josh. 24:15).  After the people publicly declared their allegiance to God, Joshua warned against making a rash decision.  But nonetheless, he accepted their profession of faith (vs. 19-25).  Likewise, Elijah challenged the people of Israel by asking, "How long will you falter between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him." (1 Ki. 18:21).  The very nature of the prophetic message demands a clear and public decision.

From John the Baptist to John the Revelator, the New Testament also provides justification for giving public invitations.  Our Lord confronted the disciples with a clear call to follow Him.  To all He says, “Come to Me, all you who labor…” (Matt. 11:28).  The Canon closes with the offer:  “And the Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’ and let him who hears say, ‘Come!’  And let him who thirsts come.  Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely” (Rev. 22:17).  Repeatedly in the New Testament the invitation is given for all “to come.”

Certain words used in Scripture to describe evangelistic preaching provide a strong warrant for public invitations.  After Peter preached his powerful sermon on the Day of Pentecost, the Bible says that he then "exhorted them, saying, 'Be saved from this perverse generation.'" (Acts 2:40)  The word translated "exhort" is parakaleo, which could be translated "invite," for it is a call for the hearer to come and take his stand with the speaker.  Peter gives us a clear example of one whom at the end of his message invited the listeners to make a public decision.

In addition to parakaleo, we find the word peitho used to describe the evangelistic efforts of Paul, Apollos, and others.  It is generally translated as "persuade" (Acts 13:43; 17:4; 18:4).  Engelsma claims that true preaching is simply proclamation and that it should not be an effort to persuade.  He believes that the attempt to persuade men to decide for Christ is to presume upon the work of the Holy Spirit. But peitho means “to convince someone to believe something”—the very essence of persuasion.  Engelsma’s understanding of preaching is deficient and alien to the New Testament.   

This is part 1 of 6 postings of an article I wrote in 1999 entitled Rescuing the Perishing: A Defense of Giving Invitations.  (If you wish to read the article in is entirety along with footnotes, click on the hyperlink title above.)

Giving his testimony of his conversion while listening to Billy Graham on television, Jim recalled the night he and his wife prayed to receive Christ, then called the telephone number on the screen.  Follow-up by counselors resulted in their public profession of faith in a local Southern Baptist Church.  With a mixture of sadness and confidence in his voice, Jim tells me that six weeks ago he lost his wife to cancer.

Jim and his wife are just two of the multitudes who have responded to the invitation to receive Jesus Christ by either walking an aisle, calling a telephone number, or any number of ways through the ministry of Billy Graham.  Yet there are those who criticize the approach of Graham and others like him.  Author David Engelsma accuses Dr. Graham of doing incalculable damage.  He says that people like Jim and Chloe are done a disservice in that they are given false hopes; while more than likely they are still unsaved.  In his book, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel, Engelsma writes, “The message of Graham is the doctrine of Pelagius out of hell.”  He goes on to label the altar call “the most atrocious abomination before God and man.”

Engelsma is convinced “that God eternally hates some men; has immutably decreed their damnation; and has determined to withhold from them Christ, grace, faith, and salvation.”  He makes “the exact, explicit denial that God loves all men, desires to save all men, and conditionally offers them salvation.”  (Incidentally, Engelsma wrote these words in an attempt to prove that he is not a hyper-Calvinist).  His main complaint about giving invitations is that it infers that there is a “well meant offer” of the Gospel to everyone who hears, when in his opinion, there clearly is not.  Engelsma’s attitude is reminiscent of an old Particular Baptist Hymn:

We are the Lord’s elected few,
Let all the rest be damned
There’s room enough in hell for you,
We won’t have heaven crammed!

Not everyone opposed to invitations would embrace Engelsma’s sentiments, but his arguments are repeated with alarming frequency.  However, when the biblical, historical and theological issues are examined, it is evident that the practice of giving public invitations is on solid footing.  This article will attempt to reply to the most frequently stated charges. 

Over the years I have often been asked my position regarding whether or not infants and children who die go to heaven.  Drs. Akin and Mohler co-wrote the article below giving a defense of why we (I include myself) believe that all children who die go to heaven.  This article is reposted from www.betweenthetimes.com.

Few things in life are more tragic and heartbreaking than the death of a baby or small child. For parents, the grief can be overwhelming. For the minister, to stand over a small, white casket and provide comfort and support seems to ask for more than he can deliver.

Many console themselves with the thought that at least the child is now in a better place. Some believe small children who die become angels. They are certain these precious little ones are in heaven with God.

However, it is important for us both to ask and answer some important questions if we can. Do those who die in infancy go to heaven? How do we know? What evidence is there to support such a conclusion? Sentimentalism and emotional hopes and wants are not sufficient for those who live under the authority of the Word of God. We must, if possible, find out what God has said.

It is interesting to discover that the Church has not been of one mind on this issue. In fact, the early and medieval Church was anything but united. Some Church Fathers remained silent on the issue. Ambrose said unbaptized infants were not admitted to heaven, but have immunity from the pains of hell. Augustine basically affirmed the damnation of all unbaptized infants, but taught they would receive the mildest punishment of all. Gregory of Nyssa offered that infants who die immediately mature and are given the opportunity to trust Christ. Calvin affirmed the certain election of some infants to salvation and was open to the possibility that all infants who die are saved. He said, “Christ receives not only those who, moved by holy desire and faith, freely approach unto Him, but those who are not yet of age to know how much they need His grace.” Zwingli, B.B. Warfield and Charles Hodge all taught that God saves all who die in infancy. This perspective has basically become the dominant view of the Church in the 20th century.

Yet, a popular evangelical theologian chided Billy Graham when at the Oklahoma City memorial service he said, “Someday there will be a glorious reunion with those who have died and gone to heaven before us, and that includes all those innocent children that are lost. They’re not lost from God because any child that young is automatically in heaven and in God’s arms.” The theologian scolded Dr. Graham for offering what he called “. . . a new gospel: justification by youth alone.”

It is our conviction that there are good reasons biblically and theologically for believing that God saves all who die who do not reach a stage of moral understanding and accountability. It is readily admitted that Scripture does not speak to this issue directly, yet there is evidence that can be gleaned that would lead us to affirm on biblical grounds that God receives into heaven all who have died in infancy. Some evidence is stronger than others, but cumulatively they marshall strong support for infant salvation. We will note six of them.

First, the grace, goodness and mercy of God would support the position that God saves all infants who die. This is the strongest argument and perhaps the decisive one. God is love (1 John 4:8) and desires that all be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). God is love and His concern for children is evident in Matthew 18:14 where Jesus says, “Your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.” People go to hell because they choose in willful rebellion and unbelief to reject God and His grace. Children are incapable of this kind of conscious rejection of God. Where such rebellion and willful disobedience is absent, God is gracious to receive.

Second, when the baby boy who was born to David and Bathsheba died (2 Samuel 12:15-18), David did two significant things: 1) He confessed his confidence that he would see the child again and, 2) he comforted his wife Bathsheba (vs. 23-24). David could have done those two things only if he was confident that his little son was with God. Any other explanation does not do justice to the text.

Third, in James 4:17, the Bible says, “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” The Bible is clear that we are all born with a sin nature as a result of being in Adam (Roman 5:12). This is what is called the doctrine of original sin. However, the Scriptures make a distinction between original sin and actual sins. While all are guilty of original sin, moral responsibility and understanding is necessary for our being accountable for actual sins (Deuteronomy 1:30; Isaiah 7:16). It is to the one who knows to do right and does not do it that sin is reckoned. Infants are incapable of such decisions.

Fourth, Jesus affirmed that the kingdom of God belonged to little children (Luke 18:15-17). In the passage he is stating that saving faith is a childlike faith, but He also seems to be affirming the reality of children populating heaven.

Fifth, Scripture affirms that the number of saved souls is very great (Revelation 7:9). Since most of the world has been and is still non-Christian, might it be the untold multitude who have died prematurely or in infancy comprise a majority of those in heaven? Such a possibility ought not to be dismissed too quickly. In this context Charles Spurgeon said, “I rejoice to know that the souls of all infants, as soon as they die, speed their way to paradise. Think what a multitude there is of them.”

Sixth, some in Scripture are said to be chosen or sanctified from the womb (1 Samuel 1:8-2:21; Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:15). This certainly affirms the salvation of some infants and repudiates the view that only baptized babies are assured of heaven. Neither Samuel, Jeremiah or John the Baptist was baptized.

After surveying these arguments, it is important for us to remember that anyone who is saved is saved because of the grace of God, the saving work of Jesus Christ and the undeserved and unmerited regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Like all who have ever lived, except for Jesus, infants need to be saved. Only Jesus can take away their sin, and if they are saved it is because of His sovereign grace and abounding mercy. Abraham said, “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18:25). We can confidently say, “Yes, He will.” When it comes to those incapable of volitional, willful acts of sin, we can rest assured God will, indeed, do right. Precious little ones are the objects of His saving mercy and grace.

CONCLUSION

On September 29, 1861, the great Baptist pastor, Charles Spurgeon, preached a message entitled “Infant Salvation.” In that message he chastened some critics who had “. . . wickedly, lyingly, and slanderously said of Calvinists that we believe that some little children perish.” Similar rumblings have been heard in some Baptist circles of late. Spurgeon affirmed that God saved little ones without limitation and without exception. He, then, as was his manner, turned to conclude the message with an evangelistic appeal to parents who might be lost. Listen to his plea:

Many of you are parents who have children in heaven. Is it not a desirable thing that you should go there too? And yet, have I not in these galleries and in this area some, perhaps many, who have no hope hereafter? . . . . Mother, unconverted mother, from the battlements of heaven your child beckons you to Paradise. Father, ungodly, impenitent father, the little eyes that once looked joyously on you, look down upon you now and the lips which had scarcely learned to call you “Father” ere they were sealed by the silence of death, may be heard as with a still, small voice, saying to you this morning, “Father, must we be forever divided by the great gulf which no man can pass?” If you wilt, think of these matters, perhaps the heart will begin to move, and the eyes may begin to flow and then may the Holy Spirit put before thine eyes the cross of the Savior . . . if thou wilt turn thine eye to Him, thou shalt live . . .

Little ones are precious in God’s sight. If they die, they go to heaven. Parents, who have trusted Jesus, who have lost a little one, if they have trusted Jesus, can be confident of a wonderful reunion someday. Are you hopeful of seeing again that little treasure God entrusted to you for such a short time? Jesus has made a way. Come to Him now and someday you will see them again.

 - By R. Albert Mohler, Jr. and Daniel L. Akin

Twice recently I (Penny) have been asked this question: "So, what are you passionate about?"  Both times the question took me aback, with my brain scrambling to respond intelligently. This appears to be the current "get to know you" question and I felt unprepared to answer.

Passion, according the dictionary, is "any powerful or compelling emotion or feeling".   Therefore to be passionate is to be "ruled by or compelled by intense emotion or strong feeling".  So it would seem that the question of the day, the question that other Christians think should be asked of another whom they wish to know is - what do you feel the most strongly about?  Aha! This explains why the "passion question" has been a difficult one for me.  I do not consider my feelings about any subject to be a key component to my life or ministry. 

God has been teaching me from day one of my spiritual journey, that what I know is supremely more important than what I feel.

My feelings are deceiving.  My emotions are dependent on whether I have had enough sleep; whether my husband is giving me enough attention; and whether it is rainy or sunny outside.  But my feelings and emotions - compelling as they may be - are not to rule my life.  Whether I am riding high on the mountain of success, or muddling through the valley of discouragement, I must daily submit these feelings to the truth of God's word.   

Now that we have cleared up why I found this question a difficult one, I want to articulate as honestly as possible where my passions lie.

I am passionate about:

·         Jesus - I want to know Him and love Him better every day. 

·          My husband - (Read my previous post entitled "I married the evangelist in the pea green suit").

·         My children and grandchild - After ministry to Ken my greatest ministry has been, and is, to influence and pray for the salvation and sanctification of my offspring and extended family.

·         The church and the seminary - ministering alongside my husband as God directs.

But here is the thing...

No matter now I feel today about Jesus or my husband or my children or my duties at the seminary or my church, I am still going to do what I know I should do.  I will read my Bible, pray for and minister to my husband and my family, and serve Jesus in the tasks big and small, planned or unexpected that come my way...because the love of Christ compels me (2 Cor 5:14); because I know that Jesus is mine and I am His eternally (Jn 10:28); and I am confident of His leading, guiding, protecting Hand (Ps 139)...hm, I guess I do feel quite passionately about all that!

About 35 years ago I (Penny) met a young man at a church baseball game who had recently accepted Christ.  My girlfriend beside me whispered (don't you think Ken is kind of cute?).  My response was something like, "Yeah, he's OK", trying to pretend I had not noticed.  Later my father and pastor invited this young man to preach a youth revival at our church.  When he walked in the first night in a vested pea green suit, my first thought was that he wasn't going to go too far unless someone helped him out in the clothing department!  Thus began my wardrobe ministry to the man I would marry a few years later.

Later, Ken and I attended the same college and he often gave me a ride home during breaks.  It was an eight hour drive from Chattanooga, TN to Poplar Bluff, MO.  On those long drives we talked about everything from politics to music to theology. I had struggled for some time with assurance of salvation. It was because of our discussions and Ken’s patience and scriptural knowledge that I finally came to realize that I could not earn (or keep) my salvation by my own efforts; I came to understand that my salvation did not depend on my own ability or goodness – but instead on the infinite ability and goodness of God. (John 10:28-29)

Since that time I have spent countless hours listening to my husband teach and preach.  I have heard some of his sermon series multiple times and, strange as it may sound, I still laugh and cry at the same stories; still find myself encouraged or convicted at the conclusion. The primary reason for this, of course, is the Word itself - which he exposits verse by verse, book by book.   Doing so, he says, will ensure that he preaches "the whole counsel of God" not simply his favorite verses or subjects.  Secondly, Ken preaches today with the same passion and zeal he had as a 20 year old, only with the increased knowledge and wisdom that comes with growing in grace and walking with God through the journey of life. 

God took a rough hewn hillbilly from the Missouri Ozarks and, because he was willing and obedient, gently whittled away on the rough edges of his character and abilities, making a multi-functional tool to serve His church and the Kingdom.  The Lord brought him from the saw mill to the academy in order to use him in a larger way than would have been possible otherwise.  My husband has never been satisfied with the status quo. He has always sought to run the race with excellence, pressing “toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.” 

I am honored and blessed that God united us in marriage and in ministry 31 years ago.   My prayer is that we will be vessels fit and useful for HIS service, as long as he gives us breath.

John R Rice was, arguably, the leading voice of Fundamentalism in the 20th century.  At its peak in the early 1970’s, his weekly paper, The Sword of the Lord, boasted a circulation of over 130,000.  Back in those days, as a young Southern Baptist disturbed by the direction of the Convention, I read the Sword faithfully.  Articles such as “Southern Baptists–Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing,” “Death in the Pot at Furman University,” and “Liberalism at Southern Seminary Exposed” convinced me and others similarly concerned that something had to be done.  For the last couple of years Joy Martin, one of Rice’s six daughters, has entrusted the Library at Southeastern with the task of being caretaker over Rice’s papers.  As we finish the process of digitizing his letters, sermons, and other personal correspondence, Southeastern will transfer the papers to Southwestern Seminary, where Rice attended.  Now Andrew Himes, one of Rice’s grandsons, has written a new biography about his grandfather, and it is not the hagiography one might expect.

Himes, by his own admission, was the black sheep of the Rice family.  Though he made a profession of faith at an early age and surrendered to preach under the ministry of Rice, by the time he went to college in the late ’60s he had abandoned his faith.  When Himes graduated from the University of Wisconsin he was an atheist and a communist, and he spent the next decade as a union organizer.  By his own admission, Himes traded one fundamentalism for another.  By the time of Rice’s death in 1980, Himes had realized the futility of Mao’s and Stalin’s utopia, and was at the end of his rope.  In many ways Himes’ biography tells the story of how he went “from worshipping his famous grandfather, to hating him, and finally to loving him.”

Through the story of Rice’s life, Himes attempts to tell the wider story of Fundamentalism.  In broad surveys he recounts the influences that birthed Fundamentalism–the first and second Great Awakenings, Reconstruction, the Scopes Monkey Trials–with varying degrees of success.  But the best parts of the book are the portions which tell of Rice’s relationships with those who played such a significant role in the formation of Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism.  John R. Rice got his start in evangelism in no small part due to J. Frank Norris.  In turn, Rice would play a pivotal role in launching the career of Billy Graham.  Rice and Graham’s eventual falling out illustrated the larger break up between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals.  Himes had a front row seat to many of events which shaped Evangelicalism in general and Baptists in particular.  You will want to read his account of having lunch with Jerry Falwell at his grandfather’s funeral (Falwell extolled to Himes, the communist, the Christian virtues of Ronald Reagan). 

In many ways The Sword of the Lord is a very sad book.  Himes’ regret over the broken relationship between Rice and him comes through often.  This is no whitewash: Himes deals with Rice’s failure to deal properly with the race issue during the civil rights movement.  But his days as an angry communist ideologue are over.  Now approaching retirement age, Himes has come to admire his grandfather’s character and courage.  Without endorsing every page, I recommend The Sword of the Lord as an insightful work about a crucial person and his role in modern church history.

Two weeks ago I attended the Christian Scholars Conference at Pepperdine University.  Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project and current director of the National Institutes of Health, gave a keynote address in which he argued that Christians must be open to the notion that God used evolution to bring about the human race.  On the plane ride to the conference, I read the latest issue of Christianity Today.  Its cover story was entitled "The Search for the Historical Adam."  For Evangelicals, the origins issue is front and center.

And it’s not going away anytime soon.  I believe I am safe in saying that the doctrine of Creation and the proper interpretation of the first 11 chapters of Genesis will be the biggest theological and biblical debate we face over the next decade.  Evangelicals are divided on the issue.  At this time, four positions predominate: young earth creationism, old earth creationism, evolutionary creationism, and intelligent design.  Let me briefly describe them and give links for each position.

1. Young earth creationism (YEC):  YEC proponents argue for a literal, 6-day creation that occurred approximately 6000 years ago.  They contend that the proper interpretation of Gen 1-3 requires this position.  Death, disease, and predation entered the world through the Fall of Adam.  For the most part, geological evidences of an ancient earth are attributed to the flood of Noah.  YEC advocates find the astronomical evidences of an ancient universe (such as light from distant stars) much more difficult to explain.  A variety of theories are offered, but the predominant one is still the mature creation view, otherwise known as the "appearance of age" hypothesis.  The leading representative group today for the YEC position is the organization Answers in Genesis.

2. Old earth creationism (OEC):  Old earth creationism is sometimes called progressive creationism.  OEC proponents argue that God created in successive stages over a period of millions or billions of years.  In other words, OEC advocates accept the scientific evidence for an ancient universe (and the Big Bang theory), but they do not accept the predominant biological theory of origins, which of course is Darwinian evolution.  OEC theorizes that God miraculously created Adam and Eve about 60 to 100 thousand years ago.  The strongest objection YEC proponents have to OEC is its acceptance of animal death and disease prior to Adam's fall.  The leading representative group today for the OEC position is the organization Reasons to Believe.

3. Evolutionary creationism (EC): Proponents of evolutionary creationism (also called “theistic evolution”) accept the current scientific theories both of the origin of the universe and of the human race.  That is, EC accepts the Darwinian hypothesis that all life, including humans, descended from a common ancestor (generally understood to be a single-cell life form).  EC advocates believe that God endued Creation with the principles and laws that caused the essential components of life to self-organize.  Random mutation provided the immense variety we observe in the fossil record and in living things today, and natural selection determined which species survived and which went extinct.  Generally, EC does not understand Adam and Eve to be literal persons (though there are significant exceptions to this point).  The leading representative group today for the EC position is the BioLogos Foundation.

4. Intelligent design (ID):  The Intelligent Design movement began as a group of scholars and scientists who were unconvinced by the Darwinian hypothesis and were disturbed by the philosophical naturalism that seems to underlie it.  ID proponents argue that an objective examination of the scientific evidence alone (without appealing to the Genesis account) will lead an unbiased inquirer to the conclusion that design by an Intelligent Being (i.e., God) is the best explanation of the evidence.  ID contends that arguing over the age of the earth distracts from the bigger adversary--Darwinism and the philosophical atheism underlying it.  As a result, one can find both YEC and OEC proponents within the ID movement, and in fact a handful of ID advocates hold to certain non-Darwinian versions of evolution (Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, is a prime example).  The leading representative group today for the ID position is the Discovery Institute.

Mark Rooker and I currently are writing 40 Questions on Creation and Evolution, and I can tell you that the number of books, articles, and websites on the subject is overwhelming.  None of the four views are without serious problems, but my sympathies lie with the ID position.  Evangelicals are a missional people.   As such we cannot shy away from the difficult issues presented by origins science, and we must engage the natural sciences with confidence and integrity.  The God Who gave us the Bible is the God Who created heaven and earth.  We must endeavor that He will have worshippers in every vocation and we advance the Kingdom of God into every arena of life—including the natural sciences.