Wayne Grudem appears to be as tired as I am of fights between young-earth creationists and old-earth creationists.  In his Systematic Theology, he states:  

“How old is the earth then?  Where does this discussion leave us?  [Davis] Young’s arguments for an old earth based on many kinds of scientific data from different disciplines seem (to the present writer at least) to be very strong.

“Although our conclusions are tentative, at this point in our understanding, Scripture seems to be more easily understood to suggest (but not to require) a young earth view, while the observable facts of creation seem increasingly to favor an old earth view. Both view are possible, but neither one is certain. 

"Given this situation, it would seem best (1) to admit that God may not allow us to find a clear solution to this question before Christ returns, and (2) to encourage evangelical scientists and theologians who fall in both the young earth and old earth camps to begin to work together with much less arrogance, much more humility, and a much greater sense of cooperation in a common purpose.

"Progress will certainly be made if old earth and young earth scientists who are Christians will be more willing to talk to each other without hostility, ad hominem attacks, or highly emotional accusations, on the one hand, and without a spirit of condescension or academic pride on the other, for these attitudes are not becoming to the body of Christ, nor are the characteristic of the way of wisdom, which is ‘first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity,’ and full of the recognition that ‘the harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace’ (James 3:17-18).”--Wayne Grudem: 1994, 307-08

To that I just say amen, and amen.--kk

Below are a few notes from last Sunday's sermon on Hannah's Prayer found in 1 Samuel chapter 1.  To hear this sermon, click here.

Children are a gift from the Lord.  But God has a purpose for each and every gift He gives.
Hannah wants a baby, but Israel needs a deliverer.  God is not merely in the baby giving business. God is in the business of redeeming humanity. God doesn't simply want to bless you - He wants to make you into a blessing.

Hannah's prayer was:
A definite prayer (give me a son)
A sacrificial prayer (I will lend him back)
A persevering prayer (she continued praying)
A heartfelt prayer (spoke in her heart)
An unreserved prayer (poured out my soul)
A transforming prayer (her face was no longer sad)

God is in control. In the darkest of days, in the worst of situations, in events that are bewildering to us, God is sovereign and still has a plan.  If we seek His face, we get to join Him in the great drama that is the advancement of the kingdom of God.

At the turn of the 20th century, Augustus H Strong (1836-1921) was the premiere Baptist theologian among northern Baptists, and he remains one of my favorites to read. This morning I was reading his discussion of whether or not this is the best of all possible worlds, and I came across a number of quotes that he had collected (Systematic Theology, 406).  How one answers this question, Strong opines, often determines whether he is an optimist or a pessimist.  He then gives several remarkable quotations. A sampling: 

 When Henry Ward Beecher was asked whether or not life was worth living, he replied, "Depends very much upon the liver.  Optimism and pessimism are largely matters of digestion."

A student gave his reasons for rejecting the best-possible-worlds notion: "I would kill off all the bed-bugs, mosquitoes and fleas, and make oranges and bananas grow farther north."

Strong has several quotes relating to mosquitoes.  He says, "The lady who was bitten by a mosquito asked whether it would be proper to speak of the creature as 'a depraved little insect.'  She was told that this would be improper, because depravity always implies a previous state of innocence, whereas the mosquito has always been as bad as he now is.  Dr. Lyman Beecher, however, seems to have held the contrary view.  When he had captured the mosquito who had bitten him, he crushed the insect saying: 'There! I'll show you that there is a God in Israel!' He identified the mosquito with all the corporate evil of the world." 

Who knew that Victorian theologians had such a sense of humor?

Last Sunday I preached a message from 2 Corinthians 8-9 entitled God's Indescribable Gift.  This passage is especially appropriate for this time of year because it speaks to us about the importance of giving in relation to God's "indescribable gift" to us of His son, Jesus.  This is our reason for giving - because God gave.  Giving is godly.

Tomorrow at Central Baptist we will be receiving our Lottie Moon Christmas offering for international missions, as will be thousands of other SBC churches during this Christmas season.  May God be honored by the generous and joyful giving of his children, and may our gifts bear much fruit for the kingdom of God. 

Merry Christmas!

Each semester my theology classes have a debate.  Sometimes the debate concerns topics such as the nature of tongues or the age of the earth.  This semester, the motion for debate was “A consecrated female Christian is eligible to be considered for all avenues of ministry, including preaching, teaching, and the role of senior pastor.” Harry Hawk gave the opening argument for the side arguing against the motion.  He did such a good job I would like to share his argument with you below:  

We are arguing against the view that women are eligible to be senior pastors.
We view the Bible as the inerrant and infallible word of God. We affirm that God created women and men equal and they each have equal value and worth in God’s eyes. The Bible clearly shows that there are differing roles within the creation between God, the creator, and his creation. It is also clear that there are differing roles within the Trinity between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. These differing roles are also reflected in the roles set forth by God for the family and the Church. Therefore, we affirm that women and men have been given distinct roles within the church, designated by God, in His Word.

1.        God created men and women equal.
           a.        Throughout the Old and New Testament scripture has made it clear that men and women have equal value and dignity before God.
                       i.      Genesis 1:26-27 says, “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion. over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in his own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” It is clear in this passage that man and woman were created equal in God’s eyes. God created man and woman in his image. Wayne Grudem said it best when he said; “Nowhere does the Bible say that men are more in God’s image than women.”[1]
                        ii.      This fact is also demonstrated by Paul in the New Testament in Galatians 3:26-29 where he writes, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” In Galatians 3 Paul affirms that all those in Christ are equal in value and dignity.

2.        God has created men and women as equals but he uses his creation to paint a picture of the relationship that he has with his creation. This picture involves men and women having differing roles within the family relationship.
            a.        Men and women within a marriage relationship have differing roles according to creation.
                       i.      Genesis 2:7, 20b-22 states, “But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.” This section clearly states that Adam was created first and then Eve.
                      ii.      1 Corinthians 15:22 states, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” This shows that Adam had a special role in representing the human race.
                      iii.      Genesis 2:23 states, “And Adam said: ‘This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.’” In this text Adam was given authority over the woman because he named her.
                       iv.      Genesis 3:9 states,  “Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, ‘Where are you?’” This indicates that God held Adam accountable for the sin. Therefore, God called to Adam after the fall, not Eve.

3.        Distinct roles do not imply inequality.
           a.        Within the Trinity there are distinct roles and persons without inequality of essence.
                       i.      1 Corinthians 11:3 states, “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” This text shows that there are definitely distinct roles within the Trinity between the Father and the Son.
                       ii.      In John 3:16 it states that the father gave his only son.
                      iii.      In John 3:17 it states that the father sent his son into the world.
                      iv.      Romans 8:29 states, “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.” This verse tells us that there is a distinct role relationship within the Trinity where Christ submits to the will of the Father.

4.        The distinct roles within the household and the Trinity are both pictures of the distinct roles within the Church.
           a.        The good order in which God ordained marriage and the order, which is seen within the Trinity, are carried thematically into the distinction of roles within the church specifically regarding gender specific roles.
                       i.      In the Old Testament Priests were responsible for teaching the people of God and all of the priests were men. This is attested to in Leviticus 10:11, and Malachi 2:6-7.
                      ii.      1 Timothy 2:12-13 says, “And I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” It should be noted that this passage is in the context of a local, assembled church. Wayne Grudem said, “The conclusion is that Paul did not allow women to do Bible teaching or have governing authority over the assembled church.”[2]
                      iii.      In the qualifications for Elder in 1Timothy 3:2-4 Paul says that He must be the husband of one wife and he must be able to rule his house well. These are both roles that are specific to men.
                      iv.      In Titus 1:5-6 Paul says, “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination.” Paul is restating his qualifications for Elder which gives the idea that these qualifications are not aimed at one local body of believers but to all of the local bodies of believers.
                       v.      Jesus also appointed 12 male apostles. If the church were supposed to have female leadership, He would have chosen 6 male and 6 female apostles.

In conclusion, the entire theme of the Scriptures shows that though women and men are created with equal value as persons there are clear distinctions between men and women that are put there by God. God uses these distinctions in a complimentary way to strengthen the bond within the marriage, the family, and the Trinity. These roles are carried over into the church. This is why we affirm that “A consecrated female Christian is not eligible to be considered for all avenues of ministry; specifically preaching, teaching men, and the role of senior pastor in the context of the local congregation.”

[1] Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, 26.

[2] Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, 26.

We are currently covering "eschatology" in my 9am theology class.  Eschatology is the study of last things: the Resurrection, the Judgment, Heaven, and Hell.  This past Wednesday Dennis Darville presented the case for post-millennialism. Post-millennialists believe that Christ will return at the end of the millennium (hence the prefix "post").  I hold to pre-millennialism (the view that the Lord's return will usher in the millennium), but I thought Dennis did a very good job arguing a losing case. ;-)  All Christians look forward to the second coming of Jesus Christ!  Let me give a couple of thoughts about the timing and nature of His return:

Concerning the timing of the Second Coming

1) The date is unknown.  
No one knows when the Lord Jesus will return.  No one--including Harold Camping.

“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.  Take heed, watch and pray; for you do not know when the time is.”  (Mark 13:32-33 NKJ)

2) His return could be at any moment.  
First century Christians were hopeful the Lord would come back in their day.  This lets us know there are no signs or events that have to be fulfilled before He returns.

“… we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” (Titus 2:12b-13NKJ)

Concerning the Nature of His Return

1) His return will be visible.  
On that day no one will be wondering if it is the end of the age.  Everyone will all know that the Lord Jesus is back.

“Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.”  (Rev 1:7 NKJ)

2) His return will be bodily.  He ascended bodily, and so he shall come back in the same way.

“Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:11 NKJ)

3) His return will be glorious.

“Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”  (Matt 24:30 NKJ)

Maranatha!

3.       The connection between natural history and salvation history:  This seems to be a (maybe, the) major area of disagreement between evolutionary creationists and intelligent design proponents. 

On the one hand, there is the modern evolutionary understanding of natural history (often called neo-Darwinism or something similar). Here is my understanding of that narrative: Certain elements of nature contained self-organizing and self-replicating properties.  These properties are able, from a natural perspective, to account for the information and complexity that were necessary for life to arise.  Once life began, random variation and natural selection are sufficient (again naturally speaking) to explain the diversity of life we see today.  Evolutionary creationists understand God to have guided and sustained the entire process by means of ordinary providence.  No direct divine activity is discernible or necessary.

On the other hand, the grand narrative of the Bible presents us with an account of Creation, Fall, Redemption, and eventual Consummation.  Salvation history presents God as the sovereign Lord, active in revealing and saving power.  He manifests himself throughout the Old and New Testaments in signs, wonders, and miracles, and culminates his saving work in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Ordinary providence is spiked with the mighty acts of God.

How does BioLogos connect the two narratives?  Are the two worldviews even compatible?  Southern Baptists affirm that ordinary providence is the way that God generally deals with His creation.  But salvation history is discontinuous.  It contains many moments in which the events that occur can be understood only as special, unique actions of God.  This is why creationists, whether they are YEC advocates, or OEC advocates, or even ID proponents, expect to find evidence of discontinuity in the natural record also.  To laymen (in scientific matters) like me, the relationship between BioLogos and ID proponents appears to be hostile.  And the debate seems to be over whether or not we should expect to find evidences of divine activity in the natural order.  The BioLogos proponents have not demonstrated how they understand the two narratives to come together.       

4.         The status of Adam and Eve: Evolutionary creationists appear to disagree among themselves about whether or not Adam was a historical figure.  Some, such as Denis Lamoureux, declare Adam to be a mythical character.  Others (Denis Alexander comes to mind) view Adam as representative of the first Neolithic farmers with whom God entered into a relationship.

For most Southern Baptists, including me, the historicity of Adam and Eve is a litmus test.  Even a cursory reading of the Bible reveals why we believe this way.  The New Testament authors treat Adam as a historical figure, and they interconnect the mission and work of Jesus with the first man.  Paul repeatedly presents Christ as the last Adam—succeeding where the first Adam failed and redeeming fallen humanity in the process.  C. John Collins has written an excellent book on the subject entitled Did Adam and Eve Exist? Who They Were and Why You Should Care.  He gives three criteria for an orthodox understanding of Adam and Eve (pp 120-21), and I believe they are worth repeating here.
a.        The origin of the human could not have come about by mere natural processes.
b.        Adam and Eve were “at the headwaters of the human race.”
c.        A historical fall must have occurred very closely to the beginning of the human race.
Evolutionary creationists still have a great deal of work to do in this area.  If no evolutionary theory can be found that can reasonably incorporate above three criteria, then that would be a deal killer.

5.       The perennial problem of evil:  Selfishness, suffering, and death are not spiritually neutral phenomena.  YEC and OEC adherents believe a rupture occurred in the natural order when Lucifer rebelled, and in some ways again when Adam joined him.  The Fall was a ruinous event.  As a result, both moral evil and natural evil exists.  Granted, natural evil is far more ambiguous than moral evil.  But all Christians agree that—as beautiful as the present order is—things are not the way they are supposed to be.  And Christians throughout church history have attributed the sad condition of this present age to the free moral choices of angels and humans.

Evolutionary creationism seems to have a particularly difficult problem on this point.  Evolutionary theory presents selfishness as a virtue—perhaps the only virtue.  Even altruism is seen as well-disguised selfishness.  Christianity has historically viewed selfishness as among the greatest of vices and has seen death as the greatest of enemies.   But according to EC, suffering and death are not tragedies.  Rather they are creative agents that assist the engine of natural selection. 

6.       The nature and authority of Scripture: Southern Baptists are inerrantists, without apology.  We hold to the infallibility of the Bible because we believe it is the Word of God.  God is truth, so the very nature of the divine disclosure is truth, without any mixture of error.  In addition, we believe that the Bible presents itself as inspired, infallible, and inerrant, and that this was the understanding Jesus had of the Scriptures during his earthly ministry.  One is free to reject the Bible’s infallibility, but I think anyone who does so must admit that his view of Scripture is different from our Lord’s.

I read Peter Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation with dismay.  Dr. Enns is a research fellow at BioLogos, and he has published an extensive critique of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy on this blogsite.  So it would appear that Dr. Enns’ view of inerrancy is at least welcomed at BioLogos, if not promoted.  I know of no SBC seminary professor who agrees with Dr. Enns’ position; certainly none at Southeastern.  This doesn’t automatically mean that he is wrong and we are right.  But it does mean that this is a major hurdle to any serious conversation between Southern Baptists and BioLogos.

Last June, Francis Collins, the founder of BioLogos, was a plenary presenter at the Christian Scholars Conference at Pepperdine Univ., and it was there I heard him speak in person for the first time.  How could one not be impressed? I rejoice in the contributions he has made as a scientist and for the clear, positive witness he gives for the Gospel.  If the members of the BioLogos Foundation someday demonstrate how evolutionary creationism fits reasonably with a high view of Scripture, a credible approach to Gen 1-3, a historical Adam and Eve, and a historical Fall, then I will be the first to take their arguments seriously.  I just don’t think they’ve done that yet.

Darrell Falk of BioLogos asked me and several other SBC professors to write articles which expressed our concerns with the BioLogos position on theistic evolution.  BioLogos was founded by Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and current Director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland.  Over the next few days, I will post sections of the article I wrote for this project.  When BioLogos publishes the article in full on their site, I will include the link as well.

I thank Darrel Falk for the opportunity to write this brief essay for the BioLogos website.  When Dr. Falk extended the invitation to me and other SBC seminary professors like me to write a series of essays, he knew full well that we would mostly express our concerns and disagreements with a number of BioLogos positions.  I commend Dr. Falk for his graciousness and bravery.  I intend at this time merely to introduce the topics about which my colleagues will write more extensively.

Professors at the six Southern Baptist seminaries subscribe to the Baptist Faith and Message (BF&M), the statement of faith adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention.  The BF&M provides a summary of Christian beliefs from a Baptist perspective, but it is conspicuously silent on three subjects: Calvinism, the nature of the millennial kingdom, and the age of the earth.  Because Southern Baptists hold to a spectrum of views on each of these hot-button items, no specific position is taken.  It is the third matter—creation, the age of the earth, and all the attendant matters, that concern us now.  The BF&M declares God to be the Creator of the Universe and describes humans as the special creation of God, but the confession has no section that deals specifically with the doctrine of Creation.

I think it would be safe to say that most (but not all) Southern Baptists hold to young-earth creationism (YEC).  Among the faculty of our six seminaries one would find a mix of YEC proponents and OEC (old-earth creationism) adherents.  I sometimes describe myself as a “disappointed young-earther.”  By that I mean I started out holding to the young-earth position but the shortcomings of most YEC arguments and the shenanigans of certain YEC advocates forced me to move to the OEC position.  I am not aware of any SBC seminary faculty who advocates theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism (EC).  Many (including me) are involved with or express sympathy to the intelligent design movement (ID).

So what are some of the concerns we have with evolutionary creationism as typically presented by the BioLogos Foundation?  Briefly, they are:    

1.       Concerns about theological method:  Christians cannot do theology in a vacuum.  Perhaps it is more accurate to say that theology is never done in a vacuum, and we should not pretend that it is.  And the BioLogos Foundation is correct in arguing that evangelicals cannot ignore the latest advances in biology, geology, and other related fields.  Our goal should be more than merely finding a way to reconcile Genesis with the latest discoveries in genetics.  Rather, our task as pastors and theologians is to present a theology of Creation that provides a solid worldview for Christians to work in the natural sciences with integrity for the glory of God.

One gets the impression at times that evolutionary creationism is a theory in search of theological justification. It’s easy to see why believing scientists who hold to evolution would want to find ways that evolution could be compatible with orthodox Christian doctrine.  However, theologically speaking, the danger of the tail wagging the dog is very real.  Can one start with the Scriptures and arrive at anything resembling theistic evolution? Are we to start with a scientific conclusion and then look for biblical sanction?  I don’t think most scientists would want to do science the way evolutionary creationists seem to be asking theologians to do theology.

2.       Genesis has only so much hermeneutical elasticity: Genre and hermeneutics (the science of interpretation) have always been difficult topics.  In the early days of the church, from Basil of Caesarea to Augustine, scholars struggled with the proper way to understand the creation account in Genesis.  Lately, however, the concordist and non-concordist approaches to the first 11 chapters of Genesis seem to be of unending and ever-increasing variety and complexity.  Theistic evolutionists have contributed to the conversation.  Certain evolutionary creationists ask us to accept more and more fanciful interpretations of Genesis.    

Take for example, the account of God creating Eve from Adam’s rib:

 “So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.”—Gen 2:21-22 (ESV)

Should we understand, as some theistic evolutionists suggest, that the real message of these verses is that God gave a female hominid the same awareness of the divine that He gave to a male hominid?  Is this the intended meaning of the account?  I just don’t see how we can arrive at such an understanding with integrity.  The textual skin of Genesis 1-3 does not readily fit over an evolutionary drum.

Some evolutionary creationists treat the creation accounts in ways that are not far from the allegorical interpretations of Origen.  Hans Frei observed that such methods often hide an embarrassment about the biblical narrative.  They allow one to play fast and loose with the text while appearing to take the Bible seriously.  The BioLogos community has yet to convince Southern Baptist scholars that they are correctly handling the Genesis accounts.  

to be continued...

Last week I had the privilege of preaching at the commencement of the Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Santiago, Cuba.  I hope I was a blessing to them; they definitely were a blessing to me.  After being in the Cuban churches, meeting their pastors, and spending time with their people, I think I now know what a spiritual awakening looks like.  A true church planting movement is occurring there.  I would love to give greater details, but this is a public forum.  Our Cuban brethren have almost none of the resources we consider indispensible.  But they have the Gospel, and they prove that that’s enough.

This is part 6 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.)

Charge: Occupying a certain piece of geography does not save people.
Critics will sometimes imply that the hearers are given the impression that they will be saved by the fact that they have come “to the front.” 

Reply:  This is a straw man. 
No Gospel preacher worth his salt even hints that a person is saved by the act of going forward.  Gospel preachers make clear that salvation is not in any public act or repeating any prayer.  Salvation is Jesus Christ.  We publicly invite people to come to Him.  No method of giving an invitation is sacrosanct and sensitivity to the particular situation in which the minister finds himself is in order.  But what must be upheld is the principle of calling the hearers to a decision and expecting the Spirit of God to do His work.

Charge: Free choice is an illusion.                   
Engelsma states that true preaching “to the unconverted will never tell the audience that their salvation depends upon their free will, decision for Christ, acceptance of the offered salvation, opening their heart to let Jesus come in, and the like.”[1]

Reply:  However one understands the work of the Holy Spirit Who enables a lost sinner to choose, at least all agree that God commands man to do so. 

The examples of the preaching of Moses, Joshua, and Elijah, just to name a few, make this clear.  From Augustine to J.I. Packer, many of those who held to a strict view of predestination also recognized the danger of "defend[ing] God's grace as to deny man's free will."[2]

The Baptist Faith and Message understands that this balance must be kept when it states:

            Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, 
            sanctifies, and glorifies sinners.  It is consistent with the free agency of man, and 
            comprehends all the means in connection with the end.[3]

God's sovereignty must never be stressed in such a way that it (intentionally or unintentionally) denigrates human agency.

The mysterious coincidental work of God and human choice is seen throughout the Scriptures (Acts 2:23 and Acts 13:48-14:1 are just a few examples).  The doctrine of election is not given for us to speculate about the order of the divine decrees, but to assure us that God’s great plan of salvation will be accomplished.  Instead of discouraging the practice of intentional evangelistic methods such as soulwinning and giving invitations, it should make us just that much bolder.  When Christ appeared to Paul in Corinth, what did Jesus say to encourage him to continue his missionary work?  “Do not be afraid…. for I have many people in this city" (Acts 18:9-10).  We should preach with anticipation, eager to see our Lord’s “many people” respond during the invitation. 

Make no mistake: to oppose giving invitations is to oppose confrontational evangelism in general.  When one or two are urged to come to Christ it is called soulwinning, but when the same appeal is made to one or two hundred it is called an altar call.  In principle both are the same thing.  Giving an invitation is simply calling upon the congregation to do what God commands all to do: clearly, definitely, and publicly choose.

Conclusion:
The backwardness concerning evangelism of those who espouse Englesma’s position should inform us as to whether we want to embrace this brand of theology. Any view that intentionally or unintentionally impedes confrontational evangelism must be rejected.

We would do well to compare and contrast the track record of the Particular Baptists and the Separate Baptists.  The blunt, unvarnished truth is that if Baptists had continued to employ the reticent and reserved methods of the Particular Baptists, most of us would still be waiting to hear the Gospel.  The exuberant and intentional evangelistic style practiced by the Separate Baptists transformed Baptist life.  Operating within the tempered Calvinism of their spiritual mentor, George Whitefield, it is the Separate Baptist of the Sandy Creek tradition who made the invitation the capstone of Baptist preaching.

A word of personal testimony is due here.  I must confess that this issue affects me deeply.  In October 1975, in a revival at Tabernacle Baptist Church in Piedmont, MO, I was converted under the stern preaching of Evangelist Clifford Rice.  "Stern" is the only word that can accurately describe his preaching.  The second night that I heard him, I responded when he gave the invitation.  I still remember him smiling as he led me to Christ.  He has my eternal gratitude.

I owe my listeners the same opportunity.  The need of the hearers is desperate; the power of the Gospel is effective.  So without apology I will continue to invite men to Christ.  How can a preacher do otherwise?