A Response To Dr. Adrian Rogers’:
“Why I Am Not A Five Point Calvinist”
Delivered on November 10, 1997
Response by Les Newsom
What follows is an address given by Dr. Adrian Rogers to the students involved in the college ministry at
Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, TN. The indented portions of the text are responses to Dr. Rogers’
message. I would like to say at the outset, however, that I feel the exercise of theological self-reflection,
so far from being a negative thing, ought to be viewed as an aspect of Biblical sanctification. If, indeed,
we are to be transformed by the “renewing of our minds,” then reflection upon matters theological is far
from optional for the Christian desiring to know the mind of Christ. And in an age when meaty
theological discourse is often jettisoned for subjective experience-centered faith, the open discussion of
the Church’s thinking about their God is as timely as it is pragmatic.
Let me say, also, that I understand the awkwardness of this forum. Dr. Rogers’ delivered this
message, no doubt, without the faintest idea that it would be critiqued in this fashion. A line-by-line
critique is probably quite unfair. For that reason, I have tried to limit my comments to the substance of
Dr. Rogers’ argument and not what appear to be asides, parenthetical expressions, and jibes.
Finally, let me say that as a native Memphian, I am well aware of the massive impact that God
has seen fit to allow Dr. Rogers to make on the spiritual life of this city. His effects on the spiritual
temper of the citizens of Memphis would be hard to exaggerate. I, for one, would like to applaud and
honor Dr. Rogers’ tireless efforts in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and acknowledge that it is probably due in
some measure to HIS influence that has provided the context for MY OWN salvation. For that I am
eternally grateful. In saying that, I am saying that we are partners in ministry. We both affirm a
fundamental belief in the saving work of the Lord Jesus Christ as the only hope for naturally born sinners
in this community. We both affirm a commitment to an infallible, inerrant, inspired Scriptures.
Therefore, my intention in the discussion that follows is driven by a hope that in the future, the
discussion that we have here will result in the furthering of that Gospel in Memphis, TN. And that souls
would come to know and love the Lord Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior as a result of it. It is the
driving force behind all our efforts.
DR. ROGERS’ ADDRESS
I am grateful to be here, and a little nervous. Not used to crowds like this. I
really do love you and I want to apologize for not coming sooner and I do want to come
back real soon. I’d like to talk about some other things other than Reformed Theology,
but we’ll talk about that tonight. Bellevue Baptist Church exists for the purpose of
magnifying Jesus through worship and the Word. And then moving believers in Jesus
to maturity in ministry. Then last of all, making Jesus known to our neighbors and
the nations. So that’s what I want to talk to you about. My life is wrapped up around
a verse that you all know, Mt 28:18, “And Jesus came and spake unto them saying,
‘All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go, ye therefore, and teach all
nations, baptizing them in that name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And,
lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.’” And my life ever since Jesus
saved me as a teenage boy, when I was about 15 years of age, has been to share the
gospel, to be a soul winner, and to get people saved.
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 2 of 30
Now what is Reformed Theology? And do I believe in Reformed Theology? Or,
Am I a Calvinist? I don’t call myself a Calvinist. I believe some of the things that
Calvin believed. But… I don’t think we have to call ourselves Armenian (sic), or
Calvinistic, or even Baptist for that matter. In fact the name Baptist was given to us
to ridicule us, to make fun of us. The name first of all was Anabaptist, which means
re-baptizers. And they said, “oh that bunch of folks wants to baptize you by
immersion after you get saved, those re-baptizers, those Anabaptists.” Then after a
while they dropped the prefix A-N-A, and said, Just those old Baptists. It’s really not a
name the Baptists chose. It’s sort of a nickname, kind of like calling a fat man skinny,
or a bald man curly. It was a name given in ridicule.
But I am not interested in a name given to a theology, or being called a
Calvinist or a Baptist or whatever. I’m committed to what the Bible teaches. If we
have any “Baptist” doctrine, we need to get rid of it. And if we have any “Presbyterian”
doctrine or “Methodist” doctrine we need to get rid of it. We need to see what the Bible
teaches, and just zero in on the Word of God.
Dr. Rogers here has provided a wonderful starting point for us. There is in Modern
Evangelicalism a low grade disdain for all things labeled “theological.” The notion goes
something like this, “We are too steeped in theology. What we really need to get back to is our
Bibles. I am not a theological whatever, I just believe the Bible.”
To this notion, I can say nothing more than “Amen.” Would that there would be a return
to the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and practice. Indeed, it is one of the banners of the
Reformation, “Sola Scriptura!” cried the likes of Luther, Calvin, and Knox. Scripture alone is to
be our guide. With this, we could not have more whole hearted agreement.
However, I cannot help but think that Dr. Rogers has misconceived the matter. If he is
saying that it is possible for an individual to spend too much time in the practice of formal
theology and not enough time in the consideration of God’s Word as just that… God’s word, then
we would agree. However, to throw out “doctrine” is to be confused. The truth of the matter is
this: whenever any individual, Dr. Rogers included, sits down to read the Scriptures, he does so
with some kind of mental grid which he uses to process what he reads. Even the most popular of
Bible verses (for instance, John 3:16) cannot be understood without an interpretive scheme. “For
God (which God, who is He, what is he like?) so loved (what is love, how is it different from our
love, etc.) the world (what is the world? Is it every man that every lived or a principle of enmity
against God?) that he gave his only begotten Son (who is his son? What does it suggest about
God’s nature to say that he has a “son”?)….”
Whenever a person answers these questions, like it or not, you are in the realm of
theology! Theology, our thoughts about God, is inevitable. You might comment, “But wait, I
don’t answer all those questions when I read John 3:16…” Not consciously perhaps, but you do
have some conception of what they must mean. There is no such thing as taking a random verse
at “face value.” We all bring some kind of interpretive scheme to our reading and understanding
and applying of the Scriptures. The question that must me considered is, “Is the theology that I
already have consistent with the teaching of the ENTIRE Scriptures?”
Now, in times past there have been those who have tested these notions. Theologians
have set out to summarize and systematize the teaching of the whole of Scripture. This is the
business of theology. Therefore, the truth of the matter is that we, if we are going to call
ourselves Christians, MUST be about theology.
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 3 of 30
DR. ROGERS CONTINUED
I want to say at the outset, I believe in the sovereignty of God. Man doesn’t
believe in the sovereignty of God, he’s a sheer fool. And I believe that not a blade of
grass moves without God’s permission. I believe he knows that name of every star, he
put them all there. He is all-mighty. I believe that. I believe in fore-ordination, I
believe in predestination, I believe in calling, I believe in election. I believe in all of
that. Why do I believe in that? Because I can read the Bible. Anybody that can read
the Bible has to believe in all that, because it’s right there, black print on white paper.
And you can just sit down and read that and… see I have no difficulty with that.
But I want to talk to you about Calvinism in its extreme form and tell you why I
am not a five point Calvinist. Now, there are five points in historic, extreme Calvinism,
some call it hyper-Calvinism.
This is a confusing point. I can only guess that Dr. Rogers is reading something into what he has
read AGAINST the Calvinistic framework. No one in Reformed theological circles would
consider the five points an example of Calvin’s teaching “in its extreme form.” That is simply a
misconception. To say that anyone who has embraced the five points of Calvinism is a “hyperCalvinist” is simply false.
It could be that Dr. Rogers is projecting onto all Five Points Calvinists an historical
controversy that sprung up in the mid to late 19th century among Calvinistic churches. In England
during that time there arose certain Calvinists who, because of faulty reading of the Scriptures,
assumed that no real invitation to salvation could be given in the presentation of the Gospel.
They reasoned that it was possible that their audience had within them those who were not elect
and therefore could not be genuinely offered the gospel
C.H. Spurgeon, noted Baptist Calvinist of that day, led the charge against this movement.
Spurgeon rightly asserted that the foundation of all gospel invitation is the warrant of faith. There
was no need to try to discern who was and who was not “elect.” The gospel was to be freely
offered to all without discrimination. And this coming from the pen and mouth of an avowed
Five Point Calvinist!
Dr. Iain Murray, noted historian of Spurgeon’s life, makes this keen observation:
The latter term [hyper-Calvinist] is sometimes used as though it were simply a stronger
formulation of Scriptural doctrines- something beyond a ‘moderate’ position- but this is incorrect
usage, for the system deviates seriously from Scripture and falls short of Scripture. Another
wrong usage of the term, which is even more common, is for the label ‘hyper’ or ‘ultra’ Calvinist
to be attached to those who are in fact opposed to Hyper-Calvinism. Being ignorant of the distinct
theological differences which separate Hyper-Calvinism from the faith of the Reformers and
Puritans, and being unaware of its different historical origins, some critics use the phrase as
though it were the most suitable to describe anyone who is earnest in opposing the tenets of
Arminianism. But while this may be a convenient way to brand ‘extremists’, it reveals the
spiritual muddle of those who thus use it. 1
It is certainly not our intention to defend historical hyper-Calvinism. And yet neither are
we agreed that anyone who embraces the Five Points is necessarily a hyper-Calvinist. It is our
intention to defend the “faith of the Reformers and Puritans” who certainly embraced the Five
Points AND whole-heartedly believed, and practiced, a free offer of the Gospel of Christ.
It is conceivable that at this point, someone might counter, “Well, we believe that the
Five Points inevitably leads to this lack of desire to make a free offer of the gospel.” And it just
so happens that this is exactly the issue at hand. To make the response brief, which we hope to
expand upon throughout the document, we wholeheartedly affirm that so far from negating and
1
Murray, Iain. The Forgotten Spurgeon. (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth Trust), pg. 51. For an extended
treatment of Spurgeon’s rejection of and defense against the Hyper Calvinist positions, see Murray’s Spurgeon Vs.
The Hyper Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching (Banner of Truth Trust).
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 4 of 30
nullifying our evangelical zeal, the Five Points of Calvinism, when understood and consistently
applied to the life, upholds, establishes and inspires that zeal. This is the heart of our position.
DR. ROGERS CONTINUED
And there are five points, they spell T-U-L-I-P. That’s a little memory device.
1. The “T” stands for Total Depravity- that means we are just about as bad as
we can get. Total depravity, to be depraved means to be evil.
2. The “U” stands for Unconditional Election- that is that salvation begins in
the heart and mind of God and it is without any conditions whatsoever, God
determines it. Unconditional election, God just simply elects some individuals
to be saved.
3. The next thing is the “L” which is Limited Atonement- These people believe
that Jesus Christ did not die for all, he died for the elect. So the Atonement is
limited to the elect. Limited atonement.
4. And then the “I” stands for Irresistible Grace- If God is going to save you,
there’s nothing you can do about it. His Holy Spirit’s going to zap you, and
you’re a gone-er. Because that is irresistible, there’s no way that you can resist
the Holy Spirit of God. And if you’re one of the elect, then you’re going to be
saved, and there’s nothing you can do about it. And if you’re not one of the
elect, then there’s nothing you can do about that either. And so that is
Irresistible Grace.
5. And the last, “P” stands for Perseverance of the Saints- Once you’re saved,
then you persevere, then you go on to heaven.
Now, that’s T-U-L-I-P. You know, every road has two ditches, on the one side
there is Hyper-Calvinism, on the other side there is Armenianism (sic). Armenius (sic)
taught that you could be saved and you could lose your salvation. I guess that rather
than tulip, it was “daisy.” He loves me, he loves me not, he loves me, he loves me not.
(laughter) Either way, you don’t have to wreck the car on either road, you just stay on
the road which is the Bible Road.
Please refer to the comments above concerning the false dichotomy that Dr. Rogers has set up.
And yet, it is our contention that there is a middle road (a tertium quid) and it is called Historic
Calvinism of which the Five Points is an adequate distillation. Also, since each of the Five
Points will be discussed at length below, we are not going to take the space to deal with them
here. That said, I laughed out loud at the ‘daisy’ reference. We are apparently united in our
opposition to such ‘back and forth’ theology.
DR. ROGERS CONTINUED
TOTAL DEPRAVITYI want to tell you tonight, why I am not a five point Calvinist. Let’s take first of
all, total depravity. I believe that a man is a sinner, I believe that he’s a sinner by
birth, sinner by choice, a sinner by nature, a sinner under condemnation, a sinner
deserving hell, totally depraved. I do not believe what some Reformed Theologians
believe, some Hyper-Calvinists believe, and that is that a man in that condition cannot
hear God until he’s first regenerated. They say it’s like speaking to a dead man, a
dead man has to have life before he can hear. And some people get themselves in the
position of saying that somebody is regenerated before they believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ. Well that’s getting it backwards.
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 5 of 30
They say, “Well, a dead man cannot hear.” Of course a dead man can hear.
When Adam sinned, was he dead in trespasses and sins? Of course he was. He was
dead in trespasses and sins “…and the day you eat of it you shall surely die.” God
came walking in the garden, and God said, “Adam, where art thou?” Of course he
could hear.
The problem comes when we talk about death. They say, “Well, what can a
dead man do?” Well, a dead man can do a lot of things. You need to understand what
death is in the Bible. There’s three kinds of death that are mentioned in the Bible.
For example, in Luke 16, it talks about a rich man who died. And in hell, he lifted up
his eyes being in torment. And he said, “Father Abraham, send Lazarus that he might
dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in torment in this flame.”
He was dead but he was not annihilated. He was still conscious. Again, you could
read in I Timothy 5:6, and the Bible speaks there of a woman who is living in sin, and
the Bible says that she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she lives. Now, she might
be walking around the city of Memphis. She’s dead. She can certainly hear, she can
certainly talk, she can certainly feel, she can certainly think. You see, death in the
Bible is not, uh… annihilation. It never calls you a corpse. Your body is just what
you live in. You always have consciousness.
And then the Bible speaks of the second death in Revelation 20:14, the second
death. That is, when a person dies and goes to hell. The Bible says that there in hell,
they have no rest day nor night. So in hell there is the second death. What I am
trying to say is this, sometimes people come to me and say, “Well, how on earth could
a dead man hear until he’s first given life?” Of course the dead can hear, and unsaved
people can know truth.
Turn to Romans 1 for just a moment. Look at verse 19. And, if this gets too
deep, and you say, “What difference does this make…” Well, just listen anyway.
(laughter) And let’s begin in verse 18, God speaks of his wrath, “For the wrath of God
is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold
the truth in unrighteousness.” And the word here literally means, “that hold back the
truth.” That smother the truth, that stifle the truth. “Because that which may be
known of God is manifest in them, for God hath showed it unto them.” We are not
talking here about regenerated people, he’s talking about sheer raw pagans. “God has
shown it unto them, for the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world are
clearly seen.” These are dead people, these are dead people that he’s talking about,
spiritually dead, pagans. “The invisible things of him, that is God’s spiritual nature
are clearly seen having been understood by the things that are made, even his eternal
power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” Some hyper-Calvinist have
gone so far as to say, “Well, man has to be regenerated before he can even believe,
because if God didn’t give him life, what could a dead man do?” No, a dead man can
hear. A dead man can know God, a dead man can resist the truth. I didn’t say he’s
saved, but when they knew “God they glorified him not as God.” They know who God
is, they are without excuse. You must believe first in order to be saved. The Bible
makes that so clear. Romans 5:1, “Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace
with God.” Faith first. John 1:12, “…as many as received him to them he gave the
power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.”
I believe that man is depraved. I don’ t believe that any man can come to God
except God enable him to come. I don’t believe that we seek God, God seeks us. I
don’t believe that we could have faith unless God gave it to us. I don’t believe that we
could repent unless God granted us repentance. But I reject with all the unction,
function, emotion of my soul that a man is regenerated before he believes. That’s just
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 6 of 30
totally contrary to Scripture. Now, you can’t come unless the Lord draws you. That’s
very clear. I base my whole ministry on that, that’s the reason why before I preach I
get on my knees. I mean, I have a place where I kneel every Sunday, and I pray, “Oh
God, open hearts, open understandings.” Because Jesus said in John 12:32, “No man
can come unto me, except the Father that has sent me draws him.” But you know he
does draw him. How many does he draw? Just the elect? John 1:9, “Christ is that
light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” He’s the light that lights
every man. Every person has that light.
Robert L. Dabney, theologian of the 19th century, once said of the Five Points of
Calvinism, “…the debate about them all will hinge mainly upon the first question, whether man’s
original sin is or is not a complete and decisive enemy to godliness…”2 That is to say, the
doctrine of total depravity is the “hinge of the debate;” it is essential.
So immediately we need to clear up Dr. Rogers definition of Total Depravity. In the
section above he says of total depravity, “…that means that we are just about as bad as we can
get.” Well, in fact, that is decidedly NOT what the doctrine of total depravity states. Reformed
Theologian Louis Berkof states in his Systematic Theology, “…it [total depravity] does not
imply: 1) that man is as thoroughly depraved as he can possibly become…(emphasis mine)”3 We
are not saying that the natural man is as bad as he can get.
We are saying, in the words of Chapter 9, section III the Westminster Confession of
Faith, that “Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual
good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and
dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.”4
Dr. Rogers then begins his defense against this doctrine with a peculiar stance. He seems
to be confusing what we have said about spiritual deadness for spiritual annihilation. We claim
nothing of the sort. Nor have we ever even heard of any Reformed theologian claiming as much.
Spiritual deadness is just that, spiritual deadness. Total depravity does not refer in any way to the
faculty of spirituality in the individual, it refers to the abilities of those faculties. We are not
saying that man in his natural state has no spirit, we are saying that the spirit that he has cannot
hear God, because it is dead in sins (Ephesians 2:1).
At this point, Dr. Rogers makes a curious admission, “A dead man can know God, a dead
man can resist the truth…” Well, of course he can. That is exactly what we are saying. And it is
his spiritual deadness that causes it to be so. We commit acts of sin because we are at base
sinners, not the other way around.
He ends this first part of the discussion with an admission that God has to draw before
someone can come to Christ. And well he should since it is clearly said to be so in John 6:44,
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him…” However, this brings us to
2
Dabney, R.L. The Five Points of Calvinism. (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications) pg.6. The whole of
Dabney’s revealing quote adequately expresses our fears in the midst of these discussions, “Let any plain mind
review these five changes and perversions of Bible truth [referring to the original so-called Five Points of
Arminianism] and he will see two facts: One, that the debate about them all will hinge mainly upon the first
question, whether man’s original sin is or is not a complete and decisive enemy to godliness; and the other, that this
whole plan is a contrivance to gratify human pride and self-righteousness and to escape that great humbling fact
everywhere so prominent in the real gospel, that man’s ruin of himself by sin is utter, and the whole credit of his
redemption from it is God’s.”
This is simply to say that though we are brothers discussing Biblical truth together, the stakes are high. The
essential integrity of the Gospel that we both seek to proclaim is at issue. And no amount of zeal for its
proclamation can make up for a lack of precision concerning its essential character. Ignorant zeal is no virtue. In
Romans 10:2 Paul decries those who have, “a zeal for godliness but not according to knowledge.”
3
Berkof, Louis. Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.) pg. 246.
4
Westminster Confession of Faith. (Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications) pg. 52
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 7 of 30
the heart of the issue. Draw us how, Dr. Rogers? Or how much? A little drawing? A lot of
drawing? Let’s say God drew us 99% to himself. Does the Scripture say that if God took us 99%
of the way to salvation that we have the ABILITY to finish the job?
Clearly the testimony of Scripture is a resounding, “NO!” When Adam and Eve were in
the Garden, God’s warning to them was the certainty of DEATH if they disobeyed (Genesis
2:16,17). Adam disobeyed and thereby brought death to all his posterity (Romans 5:12,
Ephesians 2:1-3, Colossians 2:13). As a result of this fall, men are blind and deaf to spiritual
truth. The minds are darkened by sin; their hearts are corrupt and evil (Genesis 6:5, Genesis 8:21,
Ecclesiastes 9:3, Jeremiah 17:9, Mark 7:21-23, John 3:19). Romans 8:7,8 demonstrates vividly,
“For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit God’s law, indeed it
cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”
This same sentiment is reflected in I Corinthians 2:14, “The unspiritual man does not
receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand
them because they are spiritually discerned.” Also see Ephesians 4:17-19, Ephesians 5:8, Titus
1:15. Dr. Rogers has quoted from John 6:44; however, later on in that same passage, Jesus makes
explicit what he began in verse 44. 6:65 seems to be the clearer statement, it says, "'This is why I
told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.'"
The reign of sin is universal (II Chronicles 6:36, Job 15:14-16, Psalm 130:3, Psalm 143:2,
Proverbs 20:9, Ecclesiastes 7:20, Isaiah 53:6, Romans 3:9-23, I John 1:8,10). These men, the
Scriptures teach are unable of themselves to repent, to believe the gospel, or to come to Christ.
Job 14:4 says, “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one.” Again,
Jeremiah 13:23, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Neither can you do
good who are accustomed to doing evil.” See also, Matthew 7:16-18, Matthew 12:33, John 6:44,
John 6:65, Romans 11:35,36, I Corinthians 2:14, 4:7, II Corinthians 3:5.5
Clearly the Bible speaks unequivocally. Man in his natural state is so negatively affected
by sin that he is unable to do anything about his own moral standing before God. Even if God
were to “meet him half way” or 99% of the way, man would still have no concern for God. This
is what is meant by total depravity.
DR. ROGERS CONTINUED
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
Alright, let’s move to the second one. And I’ll let you ask some questions. We
were talking about Total Depravity, man is totally depraved but he can hear God, even
if he’s a raw pagan like Romans 1. Therefore, I reject that hyper-Calvinist view of Total
Depravity. I also reject the hyper-Calvinist view of Unconditional Election.
When God gives us salvation, there are no strings attached. God doesn’t say to
you, “I’ll save you if you perform certain good works or whatever.” It comes out of the
grace of God to the praise of the glory of his grace. Sometimes people talk about
sovereign grace, like they’ve just discovered sovereign grace. My friend, God is
sovereign and we are saved by grace, and anybody who doesn’t believe that has been
baptized seven times in ignorance. We are saved by the sovereign grace of God.
But never interpret unconditional election as the fact that if we have faith that
is something that we DO for salvation. That’s playing with words and that’s
ridiculous. God puts no condition, but there’s always a condition for humans, from
our viewpoint. And that condition is faith. That condition is faith, you’ve got to
5
The preceding passages are gathered into a wonderful little volume entitled The Five Points of
Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas. It is highly
recommended for the Bible student.
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 8 of 30
believe. Again, John 1:12, “He came unto his own and own received him not, but as
many as received him, to them he gave the power to become the sons of God.” If I
were to give you these keys, and say you can have the car that goes with them (I’m not
doing it…) But if I did, and said, “It’s just a gift, unconditional…” You still have to
receive it. If you didn’t receive it, it would do you no good at all. Man does have a
condition in order to be saved, Acts 16:31, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou
shalt be saved.”
It is possible that at this point, we have come to some agreement with Dr. Rogers. He
readily admits that we are “saved by the sovereign grace of God.” Then he states that God puts
no condition, but “there’s always a condition for humans.” I can find no where in any Reformed
literature a denial that man must exercise faith. We too heartily affirm that man must indeed
exercise faith in time. That point it not at issue.
What is at issue in this discussion is how does the individual exercise faith? Does the job
rest upon them to produce faith in their own hearts? If it is a combination of God’s effort and
mine, then what are the percentages? 50-50? 99-1? Which?
Clearly the Scriptures are clear that faith too is a gift from God and can only be exercised
by the individual that has been born again. Contrary to Dr. Rogers claim, regeneration by the
Spirit of God does indeed precede the exercise of faith. Granted, stating the “order of salvation”
in this form is scholastic at best and overly scientific at worst. However, the priority of
regeneration over faith is of immeasurable value to the Christian. This gets to the heart of the
issue. Who is responsible for the faith of the believer… ULTIMATELY?
The answer to that question is BOTH. God produces faith in the life of the believer,
AND the believer exercises faith in obedience. God, in a sovereign work of grace, regenerates
the heart of the believer making him WILLING to believe and have faith. Therefore, God forces
no one to do what they don’t want to do; rather he changes what they want. Therefore, their
choice to exercise faith is done in full accordance with their own wishes and desires. Being
precedes doing.
The issue is therefore not whether a Five Point Calvinist believes that one must exercise
faith. Of course, he does. It is the priority and relationship between God’s working and my
working. In Dr. Rogers’ scheme, man is either totally responsible for his salvation, or he is
partially responsible. Either way, the final verdict rests with the individual, and we have already
heard the Scripture speak to the issue of man’s ability to do this.
DR. ROGERS CONTINUED
Now, if you say that only certain people are elect, and only certain people
therefore can be saved, you can take all of the “whosoever-s” in the Bible and make
them a lot of mumbo-jumbo. The Bible is full of “whosoever will.” Turn with me to
Matthew 23 for just a moment. This is the story of Jesus on his way to Jerusalem and
the crowds are there and they are casting their palm branches and their garments in
front of him and they’re saying “Hail him.” And soon they are going to be saying “Nail
him.” They are going to be crucifying him. And Jesus knows what is about to
transpire. And Jesus begins to weep, great salty tears. And Jesus begins to lament
over Jerusalem, and this is what he says in verse 37, “Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem,
thou that killest the prophets, and stoneth them which are sent unto thee, how often
would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chicken from
her wings, and ye would not.” Now, friend, if they could not, rather than they would
not, this is the biggest charade in history. Jesus is weeping salty tears and he said, “I
would…” but you would not. That’s not unconditional election.
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 9 of 30
Dr. Rogers has chosen Jesus’ words in Matthew 23 to bring up a point that will come up
again in his presentation, but we will begin to deal with it here. Because the point could be made
a thousand times over in the Scriptures that there are comments made by the prophets, by the
Lord Jesus, even Yahweh himself that appear to say two different things. For instance, the same
Jesus that Dr. Rogers quotes in Matthew 23 says in Matthew 11 in a prayer to his heavenly
Father,
“I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things
from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was
your good pleasure. All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows
the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to
whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” (11:25-27, see also Luke 10:21)
Again, the Old Testament is replete with the same such instances. God says to Moses in
Exodus 4:21, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I
have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.”
The emphasis is mine, but important. “I will harden…” but Pharaoh “will not.” But in Ezekiel
18:32, “For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord.” Also, refer
to the following passages: Deuteronomy 4:20, 37-39,10:14-15, 14:2, Ezekiel 20:5, Isaiah 44:1-2
But the point here is not to argue that God chooses some over against God willing all.
The point is to say that SCRIPTURES TEACH BOTH. It will not do to exclude some verses and
not others. The point is to ask the question, “Since the Bible teaches both, what is the
relationship between God’s two desires here?”
John Piper, in his wonderful book entitled The Pleasures of God, deals with this question
head on and with unusual honesty.
My aim is to let Scripture stand- to let it teach what it will and not to tell it what it cannot
say. Sometimes I hear people say that we who believe in unconditional election are
controlled more by the demands of logic than by the demands of Scripture. As much as I
know my heart, I believe this is not so. On the contrary, it seems to me that more often
philosophical assumptions cause the rejection of election. For example, the statement,
“God cannot choose individuals unconditionally and yet have compassion on all men,” is
based on a certain kind of philosophical assumption, not on Scripture. Scripture leads us
precisely to this paradoxical position. I am willing to let the paradox stand even if I can’t
explain it…. I do not deny that Jesus wept over Jerusalem. I do not deny that God loves
the world of lost men- elect and non-elect. On the contrary, all I want to do is try to give
an account for how both of these Biblical teachings can be so- the plain teaching of the
Bible on election and the plain teaching that God has a sincere compassion for the nonelect which he expresses in various ways in the Bible. I do not allow some alien logic to
force me to choose between two teachings in Scripture.6
And Piper then does just that. His account of the matter is simply to assert that God’s
emotional life is, as the rest of his being, infinitely complex. Who am I to say that two stated
desires in the heart of God are contradictory? Again, from Piper,
…God has a real and deep compassion for perishing sinners. His expression of pity and
his entreaties have heart in them. There is a genuine inclination in God’s heart to spare
those who have committed treason against his kingdom. But his motivation is complex
and not every true element in it rises to the level of effective choice. In his great and
mysterious heart there are kinds of longings and desires that are real- they tell us
something true about his character. Yet not all of these longings govern God’s actions.
He is governed by the depth of his wisdom through a plan that no ordinary human
deliberation would ever conceive (Romans 11:33-36; I Corinthians 2:9). There are holy
6
Piper, John. The Pleasures of God. (Portland, Oregon: Multinomah Press) pg. 144.
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 10 of 30
and just reasons for why the affections of God’s heart have the nature and intensity and
proportion that they do.7
And this from a Baptist minister!
DR. ROGERS CONTINUED
The idea that a child is born into this world in the city of Memphis today,
having done neither good nor evil, and that child does not have one half of one chance
to go to heaven. That child is going to hell because that child is not one of the elect, I
totally, totally reject that. With every bit of my being that there’s a child born in this
city any time any day for God says there is no opportunity, none whatsoever, there’s
only certain ones that are unconditionally elected. Jesus said, “I would have… but ye
would not.”
The only reason that I take the time to deal with this passage is because of the sheer
frequency with which Dr. Rogers returns to the theme. One would think from his presentation
that Reformed Theologians might begin a Bible Study in this way, “Well, today class, we are
going to talk about how God sends lots and lots of babies to hell every single day.” Such
nonsense is difficult to respond to but is required in the challenge.
The Westminster Confession of Faith says this about the death of infants, “Elect infants,
dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and
where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being
outwardly called by the ministry of the word.”8
Now, the careful reader will notice that ALL the confession says at this point is that
“elect infants” are regenerated. One could ask at this point, “Well is there such a thing as a nonelect infant? The answer is given in silence, “We don’t know.” One of the tenets imbedded in
the Reformation banner “Sola Scriptura,” is that a Reformed theologian refuses to speak where
the Scripture is silent. The point is this: what is the implication of God’s teaching about his
sovereignty in election to the death of infants? We don’t know. That’s all that needs to be said
because that is all the Scripture says.
There is no sense in appealing to David’s reference in II Samuel 12:23 as a universal
statement regarding the conversion of all infants. The context of the passage clearly suggests that
David’s “I will go to him…” refers to the fact that he too one day will die.9 The logical bind in
which Dr. Rogers finds himself caught is that if all that die in infancy are elect, when is the point
at which the individual becomes accountable for the state of their soul.10 The popular response is
an appeal to an “age of accountability.” But again, this is ruled right out for lack of any
Scriptural support for such a notion.11
Ibid. pg. 146. Piper’s work is highly recommended. Preceding this paragraph, Piper offers a very informative
illustration from R.L. Dabney who wrestles with the same paradox in Scripture. His illustration comes from the life
of George Washington, our first president. It must be read.
8
WCF, Chapter 10, “Of Effectual Calling,” section III.
9
Keil, C.F. and Delitzsch, F. Commentary on the Old Testament in 10 Volumes. (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Eerdmans Publishing Company) pg. 393. The quote from these two sages of Old Testament scholarship on this
passage bears mentioning, “Ver. 23b is paraphrased very correctly by Clericus: ‘I shall go to the dead, the dead will
not come to me.’”
10
Another logical bind in which Dr. Rogers finds himself was brought to my attention recently. If we know for
certainty that all who die in infancy are going to heaven, then does this not provide the unbeliever with the
motivation to abort their children. "After all, the church says that the child is going to heaven no matter what, so
why not give it a better life than I can?" someone might hypothetically say. This idea also hides some of the horror
of the slaughter of children in pagan lands.
11
It might be said that this position of ignorance regarding the eternal state of infants leads one to a difficult pastoral
problem. What would a minister have for words of comfort to the grieving parents of deceased children? This is
7
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 11 of 30
DR. ROGERS CONTINUED
LIMITED ATONEMENT
Now we are going to tighten the focus a little more. Here’ the third thing.
Limited Atonement, the idea that Jesus only died for some people. Let me give you a
verse right now that just gives the hyper-Calvinist fits. I want you to turn to I John 2
with me for just a moment. Verses 1,2, “My little children, these things write I unto
you that ye sin not, and if any man sin we have an advocate with the father, Jesus
Christ the Righteous (he’s talking about Jesus who pleads our case before the Father)
and he is the propitiation for our sin (now that’s a big word, but it simply means he is
the satisfaction for our sins, that is the Lord Jesus is the one who paid our sin debt
and satisfied the righteous demands of the law… now watch this) and not for ours
only, but also for the sins (what does the rest of that say?) for the whole world.” I
believe that Jesus died for the whole world. I can’t help but believe that, there’s no
other way to say what black print means on white paper.
Now, what will a hyper-Calvinist say about this verse? Well, he’ll say, “Oh, the
whole world of the elect.” And he’ll write something in that isn’t there, “Well the whole
world of the elect.” Well, he’s not talking about the elect, when he says “the world.”
By the way, any text without a context is a pretext, you know that. What kind of a
world is he talking about? Well, go down to verse 16, “For all that is in the world, lust
of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, the pride of life, is not of the Father but of the world.”
He’s not talking about the world of the elect, he’s talking about an ungodly world, and
he’s saying that Jesus died for that ungodly world. And he’s not talking about Jesus
dying for the elect only. He says he is the propitiation for OUR sin, but not for ours
only, not just for the “chosen frozen.” He is, he is the propitiation for the whole world.
I could not pick up my Bible and read it… if there were no other verse, no other verse
in the Bible but this one, I could not be a hyper-Calvinist. I could not be a five point
Calvinist, let me put it that way.
Let me give you another verse. II Peter 2:1. Peter here is talking about
apostates, and if you know anything about apostates, you know they are on the road
to hell. They deny the Lord. Look in II Peter 2:1, “But there were false prophets also
among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall
bring in damnable heresy, even denying the Lord that (what?) bought them.” “The
Lord that bought them…” They were bought with the precious blood of the Lord Jesus
Christ. Yet they are heretics, bringing in damnable heresies, and going to hell, but
bought with the precious blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. How could a person,
therefore, believe in a limited atonement? What’s the first verse you probably learned?
John 3:16, “for God so loved the elect…” (laughter) “for God so loved the world that he
gave his only Son that if the elect would believe on him…” (more laughter) Hey, folks,
where I do believe the passage in II Samuel 12 has bearing. The Bible, though silent about the actual state of the
soul’s of infants, does have much to say about the privileges enjoyed by the infants of believing parents. The
promise, said Peter at Pentecost, was to believers and their children. (Isaiah 59:21, Jeremiah 32:38-40, Ezekiel
37:24-26, Psalm 103:17-18, Luke 1:48-50, Acts 2:39, Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:15-16, I Corinthians
7:14, Acts 3:25, Acts 16:14-15, Isaiah 65:32, Deuteronomy 7:9.) This does not suggest that children of believers are
automatically converted. It simply says that they are granted a status of privilege in the covenant community of
believers. The pastoral counsel, then, to give to the grieving parents is to give attention to the state of their own
relationship to the Lord Jesus and rest in his covenantal love for believers and their children. The best work that I
know that deals with God’s purpose for infants within the covenant community is Douglas Wilson’s To A Thousand
Generations: Infant Baptism, Covenant Mercy For The People of God, (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press).
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 12 of 30
again… plain English. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son
that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
No, I don’t believe in a limited atonement. Go to II Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not
slack concerning his promise as some men count slackness, but is long suffering to
usward not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
It’s not God’s will that any man go to hell. God’s will is not always done. Did you get
the idea that because God is sovereign that God’s will is always done? You think rape
is God’s will? You think sodomy is God’s will? Do you think blasphemy is God’s will?
NO, God gave man a will. God himself is not willing that any should perish. But God
gave man a will, and some do perish, but the love of God will follow that man to hell
with tears if he goes.
The issue of the passages in Scripture which teach that Jesus died for “all” or that he died
for the sins of the “world” will be dealt with below. However, here, we wish to deal with what
we have dealt with formerly concerning God’s paradoxical wills. Refer to the above discussion
that the emotional life of God is immensely complex and that there MUST be some purpose that,
in his infinite wisdom, is higher than another. The fact that I cannot explain how the two wills fit
together is nothing more than admitting what the Scripture has already told me. Namely, that
there are “secret things” which belong to the Lord our God (Deuteronomy 29:29), and I am not
Him!
However, it is possible that Dr. Rogers has proven too much in his defense. If God’s will
is not responsible for the evil things that happen in life as well as the good things, then who is?
The Devil? Then we live in a dualistic universe where Good (God) is eternally pitted against Evil
(Satan) and no amount of wish projection can create certainty as to the outcome. It is horrifying
to think what someone who rejected God’s sovereignty over evil must pastorally tell an individual
who has just experienced loss in a tragedy. If God was not ultimately in control of the event, then
who was? A nameless, faceless Fate that somehow can subvert the eternal plan of the Almighty
God? The thought is as blasphemous as it is disheartening.
The problem of evil in the world is of infinite mystery to the Reformed theologian as well
the Arminian. But at least the Reformed theologian has the courage to admit when he has left his
own finitude and begun to contemplate things “too wonderful for him,” rather theologically
subject the universe to arbitrary chance.
The Bible is all too clear here as well. Amos 3:6b says explicitly, “…When disaster
comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?” There are far too many passages that say the same
thing. Only the following will be mentioned: Proverbs 16:33, Matthew 10:29, I Timothy 6:15-16,
Psalm 33:10-11, Psalm 115:3, Isaiah 46:9-10, Daniel 4:34-35, Proverbs 21:1, Genesis 50:20, Job
42:2, Isaiah 45:7, Psalm 135:5-7, Lamentations 3:37-38, Acts 4:27-28, Revelation 17:17, I
Samuel 2:6, Deuteronomy 32:39.
DR. ROGERS CONTINUED
Now, here’s the way the hyper-Calvinist explains it. Here’s a farmer. That
farmer has a swimming hole on his farm. He puts a sign that says, No Swimming
Under Any Circumstances. Private Property. Stay Out. Three boys come in there and
they begin to swim. They get out in the middle and they are drowning. He drives by
on his tractor, and there’s three boys over there. Do they deserve to drown? Yea. Is
God obligated to save them? No. Didn’t he put up the sign? Yes. Is he unjust if he
lets them drown? (I’m talking about hyper-Calvinism) No. No, he’s not unjust. He
said don’t do it, they did it, they chose. Could he be blamed if they drown? No. So if
he wants to he can be perfectly just and drive right on by. But suppose he says, “Oh,
I’m going to have mercy on the boy in the blue trunks.” So he throws him a line. Oh,
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 13 of 30
he doesn’t have to have mercy on any of them. So he just decides, “Well, I’m going to
choose THAT one.” And he chooses that one and says to other two, “You can drown.
You deserve to drown. I choose that one.” And he throws him a line because he’s the
elect. And he’s the one that is saved.
Somebody says, “See, that’s consistent with the nature of God, God’s still
perfectly just if he does that.” That’s not consistent with the nature of God, because
not only is God just God is love. God is love. “For God so loved the world that he gave
his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish…” Do you
think that God, a God of love, would not choose to save all three of those?
Now, suppose the farmer throws a line to all three boys and two of them say,
“No, thank you I think I can make it to shore.” He says, “No, take the line.” They say,
“Nope, I’m going to do it myself.” And they perish. But does that mean that his love
was not real or ineffectual? Not at all. Look at John 1:29. John the Baptist saw the
Lord Jesus Christ coming toward him, and he said, “Behold the lamb of God that
taketh away the sins of the elect…” (laughter) No. “Behold, the lamb of God that
taketh away the sin of the world…”
Do you know what motivated the Apostle Paul? Do you know what made Paul
the greatest missionary soul-winner that ever lived? It wasn’t hyper-Calvinism. I’ll tell
you what it was, you turn to II Corinthians 5. (Boy, I really appreciate hearing these
pages turn, this is neat.) Look with me in verse 13. Now, they said that Paul was
crazy. They said, “Paul you are out of your mind. You are beside yourself.” And he
says, “Whether we be beside ourselves, or whether we be sober it is for your cause, for
the love of Christ constraineth us, because we thus judge that if one died for all, then
were all dead.” How many did Jesus die for? All, all the dead. If one died for all, then
all were dead. That he that died for all that they which lived should not henceforth
live unto themselves but unto him that died for them and rose again. Now what Paul
is saying is, “This is what motivates me. I’m not crazy.” They were all dead and Jesus
died for all. He died for all. And if you don’t say that Jesus died for all, you might as
well, with the same logic, say that all were dead, that in Adam all did not die. But the
Bible says that in Adam all died, even so in Christ are all made alive. Friend Jesus
death was there.
Dr. Rogers has assumed that the Calvinist’s only way to deal with the aforementioned
passages is to import something which the text does not say, namely, the reference to the all “the
elect.” It is not our intention to suggest that the passages say anything more than what is plainly
written in the Scriptures.
For a far clearer picture (and an exhaustive treatment) of the following defense of the
Reformation doctrine of Limited (or Particular) Atonement, please refer to John Owen’s classic
work The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.12
Formally, we are, indeed, saying that the Atonement of Jesus Christ was sufficient for 10
worlds. It was infinite in its value. However, the Calvinist’s position is that though his death was
sufficient for all, it was effective only for the elect. Christ did not die with the intent of dying for
every individual in the whole world. In died in order to secure infallibly the full salvation of all
the elect. In this way his atonement was not general, it was particular; it was not unlimited, it is
limited.
12
Owen, John. The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth). This volume,
though at times rather tedious and difficult to work through, is of inestimable benefit for anyone seeking a clearer
understanding of this key doctrine. The introductory essay, written by James I. Packer, on the state of contemporary
Arminian evangelism is worth the price of the book.
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 14 of 30
But what about the passages that directly say that Christ’s death was for “all” or for the
“world?” Dr. Rogers is certainly aware of the power of preconceived notions on one’s reasoning.
How often do we find ourselves in situations when we find that we have read a certain passage in
one light, in accordance with what we already believe. That is, our spiritual world view has
blinded us to seeing the text’s true meaning.
This is true concerning these texts. The word “world” in the passages that Dr. Rogers
has listed is the word “kosmos ( in Gk.).” This word, in these passages refers to
“humanity, fallen creation, and the setting of salvation history.”13 That means that often the word
refers to “not only the Jews only, but also the world. In other words, it is not a measure of
quantity but of contrast. And the word in the famous John 3:16 makes much more sense, and is
much more powerful, when it is read as a statement of amazement. That is, Jesus died for those
who were his enemies, the world, as if to say, “How could a holy God love the world, of all
things?!”
Again, the “all” passages (Romans 5:18, I Corinthians 15:22, II Corinthians 5:14, I
Timothy 2:4,6, Titus 2:11, Hebrews 2:9, and II Peter 3:9) simply, in many cases, cannot mean all
people that ever lived. The passages mean all without distinction. That is, all kinds of people
will do such and such. It doesn’t necessarily mean all without exception.
Therefore, since there is ambiguity in these passages, we are obliged to take the clear
reading in other places in the Bible. In John 10:11 Jesus says "I am the good shepherd; the good
shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." The point is that Jesus lays down His life for HIS
SHEEP, that is, his people. BUT not everyone is "His sheep" as is made clear in the context of
the passage [10:26] where Jesus says to some of the Jews who were standing around "you do not
believe, because YOU ARE NOT MY SHEEP." Now, if Jesus lays down his life (atones) only
for his sheep, then we have here a passage which teaches "limited atonement."
In Matthew 20:28 Jesus says I "did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give my
life as a ransom for many." Now if Jesus died for all, that is, atoned for every person, was a
ransom for every human being; how could he say that his life was a ransom for MANY? Even if
that "many" were 97%, it still not all!
In John 17:9 Jesus prays "I ask on their ('the men whom You gave Me out of the world'
17:6) behalf; I DO NOT ASK ON BEHALF OF THE WORLD; but of those whom you have
given me; for they are yours." Jesus prays for the full redemption of His disciples and those who
will believe in Him through them but NOT FOR THE WORLD. This whole chapter is crystal
clear on the scope of Jesus' redeeming work.
But let's suppose for a moment that we take Dr. Rogers rigid interpretation of the word
"all" to be true in every passage in which the word occurs. What would this do to passages like II
Corinthians 5:14? "For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all,
and therefore all died." It seems that Dr. Rogers has proved too much. If we take the passage to
mean every individual in the whole world, then every individual in the whole world is saved, and
Dr. Rogers has fallen into the heresy of Universalism, the belief that everyone who lives will be
saved.
In connection with this idea, Romans 5:10 states that, "For if we were God's enemies, we
were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled,
shall we be saved through his life!" This explicitly teaches that everyone for whom Christ died
will be saved. This is the fulfillment of the prophecy spoken of Christ in Isaiah 53:10 that says,
"…he will see his offspring…"14
13
Bromiley, Geoffrey W. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in one volume. (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Eerdmans). This work is an abridgment of a multi-volume work edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard
Friedrich.
14
I am grateful to Rev. Grover Gunn, pastor of the Presbyterian Church in America in Carrolton, MS, for bringing
the last two insights to my attention as well as many other points within this paper.
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 15 of 30
Previously, Dr. Rogers referred to II Peter 2:1 as a demonstration that Christ died for
those who are not saved. However, it does nothing to violate the plain meaning of that text to
realize that the apostates to whom Peter is referring denied the Lord who bought them according
to their profession. That is, the apostates are merely claiming that the Lord had bought them, but
by their actions they are proving that he did not.
Jesus makes it explicit throughout the Scriptures that the purposes of the Father and the
Son are exactly the same. God elects, the Son accomplishes the salvation of his Father’s gracious
choices. To pit the two against each other borders on anti-Trinitarianism.
DR. ROGERS CONTINUED
Now, the hyper-Calvinist, the ultra-Calvinist will say, “No, if you say that Jesus’
death was for all and all don’t get saved, then that makes his death ineffectual. It
means he’s not sovereign.” Well, I want to ask you a question, When God fed the
children of Israel with manna in the wilderness, do you think all the manna was
eaten? You think some of it lay on the ground, didn’t get picked up? Did that mean
that God didn’t do it or that God wasn’t showing love and mercy just because some
manna was not taken and if God offers his love and his love is not received, that
doesn’t mean that God has failed that means man has failed. God is love.
I must confess that I sincerely have no idea how Dr. Rogers is relating the issue of
whether or not manna was fully picked up to the idea of the effectual work of Christ’s death. In
other words, it really doesn’t matter if I “think some of it lay on the ground, didn’t get picked up.”
The question is whether the Bible tells me that there was manna left over. Besides, it was God’s
command that they gather “enough for that day.” (Exodus 16:4) So if there was any left over, it
was simply in response to God’s command to do so.
Nevertheless, Dr. Rogers has stumbled upon what is the most forceful argument for a
particular atonement. The question is this: Did Jesus die to make salvation possible for man, or
did Jesus die to actually accomplish the salvation of his people? The Scriptures are almost too
many to list. A sample: Matthew 1:21, Luke 19:10, II Corinthians 5:21, Galatians 1:3,4, I
Timothy 1:15 (“The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the
world to save sinners. And I am the foremost of sinners.”), Titus 2:14, I Peter 3:18, Romans
3:24,25, Romans 5:8,9, I Corinthians 1:30, Galatians 3:13, Colossians 1:13,14, Hebrews 9:12, I
Peter 2:24, Ephesians 1:3,4, Philippians 1:29 (“For it has been granted to you that for the sake of
Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake.”), John 6:35-40, John
10:11,14-18, 24-29, John 17:1-11,20,24-26, Acts 20:28.
This doctrine is of enormous benefit for pastoral reasons. What better news can their be
for an awakened sinner who knows himself to be rightly condemned and under the wrath of God
that there is no amount of effort that he can exert that can save him from his sinful state. “Good
news,” the skeptic asks, “how can that be good news.” Very simply because we find that Christ
came for just those kind of people, the “sick” and not the “healthy.” (Mark 2:17) How else can
the hymn writer truly exclaim,
“Jesus paid it ALL, ALL to him I owe,
Sin had left a crimson stain, he washed it white as snow.”
The pastoral benefits of these doctrines, however, will be discussed at length below.
Suffice it to say that we are beginning to see the dawn of good news in the doctrines of grace that
inspired Baptists of old like Charles Haddon Spurgeon to say,
And I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and
Him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is called Calvinism. I have my own
ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 16 of 30
the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we preach the gospel, if we do not preach
justification by faith without works; not unless we preach the sovereignty of God in his
dispensation of grace, not unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable,
conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it
upon the peculiar redemption which Christ made for his elect and chosen people….”15
DR. ROGERS CONTINUED
Limited Atonement, I reject that because of these Scriptures that are so clear
and so plain. He is the propitiation for our sin and not for our sin only, but also for
the whole world. Then the last one.
IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
You’re going to get saved if you’re elect, no matter what. God’s going to catch
you, God’s going to zap you. And you’re going to be saved. You cannot resist the Holy
Spirit of God. Turn to Acts 7 for a moment. Here’s Steven who is being stoned. I’ll tell
you why he got stoned, because of the message that he preached. He says to them in
verse 51, “Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the
Holy Ghost, as your fathers did, so do you.” Now, tell me that the Holy Spirit can’t be
resisted. Steven said he could. You do always resist the Holy Ghost. Sure the Holy
Spirit can be resisted. Remember when Jesus said in Matthew 23:37, “I would… but
ye would not…”?
There’s classic passage in Proverbs 1, turn there. I think that it makes it about
as clear as any passage, look at verse 22. God is speaking and he says, “How long ye
simple ones will ye love simplicity and the scorners delight in their scornings, and
fools hate knowledge? Turn you at my reproof. Behold, I will pour out my spirit unto
you. I will make known my words unto you, because I have called and ye refused. I
have stretched out my hand and no man regarded, but ye have set at naught all my
counsel and would none of my reproof. I also will laugh at your calamity and I will
mock when your fear cometh.” Isn’t this plain that he can be resisted? Go to verse
27. “When your fear cometh as desolation and your destruction cometh as a
whirlwind, when distress and anguish cometh upon you, then shall they call upon me
and I will not answer. They shall seek me early but they shall not find me, for that
they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord. They would none of my
counsel, they despised my reproof. Therefore, shall they eat the fruit of their own way,
and be filled with their own devices. For the turning away of the simple shall slay
them and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them, but whoso hearkeneth unto me
shall dwell safely and he shall be quiet from fear of evil.” It’s so clear. God speaks,
but God gives man the right to say “no.” This is not irresistible grace.
Suppose one of you girls has a boyfriend and he begins to pour the sugar in
your ear and tell you how much he loves you, but you don’t like him. But he says, “I
love you.” And then you get a little nervous, and you kind of want to get rid of him,
but he keeps following, and he says, “I love you. I love you very much.” You say, “Well,
fine but…” “No, no,” he says, “I REALLY love you.” “Well, so long.” “No, no. I love
you so much, I’m not going to let you go. I’m going to make you love me. (laughter) I
15
Selph, Robert B. Southern Baptists and the Doctrine of Election. (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications)
pg. 65. Needless to say, I will be referring again to this wonderful document. Mr. Selph more than adequately
demonstrates that Dr. Rogers rejection of the tenets of Calvinism is indeed a departure from historic Baptist doctrine
and a novelty to the late 19th and 20th century churches.
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 17 of 30
am going to MAKE you love me.” Now, friend, coerced love is a contradiction in terms.
There’s no such thing as coerced love. NO, the idea that God has some irresistible
grace, something which says, “Well, I don’t want to be saved.” “Well, you’re going to be
saved.” “Well, I don’t want…” (laughter) “I AM GOING TO MAKE YOU LOVE ME…”
No, that’s ridiculous. That’s not love at all. I mean, you become a robot. That’s not
love. God gives us the privilege of saying no, so that we can have the delight of saying
yes to him. But they call this irresistible grace.
Again, we must not allow caricatures of the Five Point of Calvinism to stand for the real
article. The word “irresistible” in the fourth point of Calvinism does not mean, as Dr. Rogers has
sarcastically put it, that “God’s going to zap you.”16 The word does not suggest that God causes
someone to do what they don’t want to do. God does not force, coerce, or do violence to man’s
will.17
“All that irresistible grace means is that God sends His Holy Spirit to work in the lives of
people so that they will definitely and certainly be changed from evil to good people.”18 What
this means is that man, in his choices, always acts according to the dictates of his own nature. He
does what he prefers. What God does in salvation is to change this natural state, by the work of
the Holy Spirit. Once this natural state is regenerated, the will of man “freely” chooses to repent
and believe the gospel. The issue, then, in much of these discussions has nothing to do with the
“freedom” of man’s will. Man is just as “free” as a sinner to choose God or Christ as an apple
tree is “free” to choose to produce oranges instead of apples. The point is that the tree’s freedom
is not the point. It is his ability that is in question. What Dr. Rogers finds himself running into,
again, is the Scriptures loud voice concerning man’s ability to choose anything good, much less
the drawings of the Holy Spirit of God.
The passages to which Dr. Rogers refers are obvious. Of course there is an outward call
to come to Christ (which only happens by the Holy Spirit). However, there is a difference
between an outward call of the gospel and an inward call of the Holy Spirit to regenerate the
heart. The first can, and often is, rejected by sinful man. But to the one which is accompanied by
the irresistible call of the Holy Spirit of God, it cannot be, for God does not stutter or speak too
softly. The passage in Acts 7 only proves that all men resist God's Spirit until the Spirit finally
regenerates them. As a matter of fact, this is a proof text for the Reformed doctrine of total
depravity.
It would be a telling question to ask Dr. Rogers about the last sermon in which he issued
an outward call of the gospel. Did all sinners present repent and believe the gospel? No? Well,
then what was the difference between the one who rejected the gospel and the one who responded
to it? There are only two possible answers: either man’s will or God’s will determined the
outcome. “Thus according to the Arminian, the reason one accepts and another rejects the gospel
is that man decides; but according to the Calvinist, it is that God decides. In the one case, faith is
man’s gift to God; in the other, it is God’s gift to man.”19
Of course the Christian knows better from the Scriptures:
16
This constitutes a curious mark of Dr. Rogers message. I have always known him to be the epitome of a Godly
man and a model for all those in his flock to follow. And yet in this message, I have never heard the kind of sarcasm
and open mockery that comes from his mouth. We (the so-called “hyper-Calvinists”) have already been referred to
as the “Chosen Frozen.” Later in the message, as the ad hominum accusations against the “five pointers” as “a
class” multiply, he will refer to us as “kick back,” “sophisticated,” “smug, satisfied, wine and cheese theologians.”
Quite frankly, this is beneath this great man.
17
WCF, Chapter 9, Of Free Will, Section 9, “God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is
neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined, to good or evil.”
18
Palmer, Edwin H. The Five Points Of Calvinism. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books) pg. 57-8.
19
Palmer, Five Points, pg. 60.
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 18 of 30

John 1:12,13: “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to
become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the
will of man, but of God.”
 Titus 3:5: “…he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of
his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.”
 I Peter 1:23: “You have been born anew, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through
the living and abiding word of God.”
 John 5:21: “For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to
whom he will.”
 Ephesians 2:1,5: “And you he made alive, when you were dead through the trespasses and
sins…. Even when we were dead through our trespasses, [God] made us alive together with
Christ…”
See also: Matthew 11:25-27, Luke 10:21, Matthew 13:10,11,16, Luke 8:10, Matthew
16:15-17, John 6:37,44,45,64,65, I Corinthians 2:14, Ephesians 1:17,18. The following passages
are especially enlightening on this account: Acts 5:31, 11:18, 13:48, 16:14, 18:27, Ephesians
2:8,9, Philippians 1:29, II Timothy 2:25,26.
Finally, we would point out the passages in Scripture that refer to the Spirit's work in our
life as the new birth, as a new creation, and a resurrection demonstrate what we are saying (John
3:7, Romans 6:1-11). Why would God choose these metaphors, all of which are irresistible, as
illustrations of the Spirit's work in salvation?
DR. ROGERS CONTINUED
If God’s Holy Spirit is irresistible, would you explain to me what the
unpardonable sin is? Explain what the unpardonable sin is. You see the Lord speaks
of the unpardonable sin, you turn to it in Matthew 12 for a moment and look at it.
Beginning in verse 22, “then was brought unto him one that was possessed by the
devil… (what Jesus is saying is, “I’m not in collusion with the devil, I’m in collision
with him.”) The point is, God was speaking. And the Lord had done a miracle and the
Lord was speaking. But then Jesus goes on to say in verse 31, “Wherefore, I say unto
you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy
against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men… (etc.)” Now, that’s the most
extraneous passage of Scripture I’ve ever seen, if people can’t be forgiven anyway. I
mean, if they’re not part of the elect, I mean, what is the sense of that? I mean, what
difference would it make if a person blasphemed against the Holy Ghost or if he didn’t
if he’s not of the elect. It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. There’s no
rhyme, no reason, no nothing to that. The so-called unpardonable sin doesn’t make
sense at all, if that’s what it’s all about.
For an understanding of the unpardonable sin, I yield to the great Southern Presbyterian
theologian James Henley Thornwell’s wonderful definition found in the first volume of his
Collected Works,
The sin, therefore, must be a sin which pertains directly to Christ as He is manifested in
the Gospel, and manifested by the Spirit to the minds of men. With this key the
celebrated passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews unlocks the mystery as far forth as we
can ever expect to have it unlocked in the present life. It is there described, and in this
exposition I but repeat the sentiments of Calvin, Turrettin, Maresius, Marck and the great
body of Reformed theologians, that it is a total apostasy from the true religion (with a full
conviction supernaturally produced that it is the truth of God), arising from intense and
malignant opposition to the truth itself- an opposition so intense and malignant that it
would delight to repeat the tragedy of Calvary out of mere hatred to Christ, and actually
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 19 of 30
vents itself in bitter reproaches, and, as it has opportunity, bitter persecution of all true
believers. It is the spirit of the Devil incarnate.20
That is to say, it is the unified voice of the Reformed of the ages, that those who
consistently refuse the outward call of God’s Holy Spirit unto salvation can so harden themselves
that they set themselves beyond repentance and God passes over them in their unbelief. It is
readily admitted that there is great mystery here, for “one will ask, ‘Why then does God still
blame us? For who resists his will?’” But to answer the Biblical question with a Biblical answer,
“But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,
‘Why did you make me like this?’” (Romans 9:19,20- this is a passage that will be dealt with at
some length below.) The depth of the knowledge of God is unsearchable, so this teaching ought
to produce in us a holy fear lest we too fall into such temptation.
DR. ROGERS CONTINUED
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS
Now the last is the “P” the perseverance of the saints. I believe in the eternal
security of the believer. Just as I believe in election, foreordination and
predestination. But I really don’t even believe its the perseverance of the saints, I
believe it’s the perseverance of the spirit. Philippians 1:6 says, “He who hath begun a
good work in you will perform it unto the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.” The
hyper-Calvinist says this, “If you claim to be a saint, and at the end of your life have a
spiritual blow-out, you’re going to hell, because you did not persevere.” They believe
only the elect persevere. So those who do not (sic) elect, don’t persevere. This sounds
so much like Armenianism, it’s crazy. But that’s what they believe, and they will tell
you this. If right at the end, if you have a spiritual blow out, if you fail, or do this or
that, then you just weren’t one of the elect, and so you didn’t persevere.
But, oh, friend, if it’s the perseverance of the spirit (He that hath begun a good
work in you will perform it) and so really… I take all five points of T-U-L-I-P, in its
extreme form, and I just reject that.
There are two issues to be dealt with here. The first is Dr. Rogers own inconsistent
position, and the second is his caricature of the fifth point of Calvinism. The first issue is this:
since Dr. Rogers has admitted that salvation ultimately depends upon the effort of the believer to
have faith and repent (even if that effort of only 1% to God’s 99% effort), then it must follow that
the salvation of the believer can, at worst, be lost and, at best, eternally doubted. In other words,
Dr. Rogers might readily confess that a man cannot lose his salvation, but is it not true that if I
have made some kind of profession of faith and have been taught afterwards that my salvation
was dependent upon my faith then I can always doubt that experience. You don’t have to be a
philosopher to know that ANY experience that we have can always be reinterpreted. “Did I
really believe then? Did I really sincerely ask Jesus into my heart? Was my repentance good
enough?” These questions are inevitable in Dr. Rogers scheme. So we contend that though in
creed, Dr. Rogers believes in the eternal security of the believer, in practice, he has subjected all
those under his pastoral care to ultimately depend upon themselves for the assurance of their
salvation, a notion which is completely antithetical to the Biblical Gospel. This Gospel teaches
us to take our eyes off of ourselves and put them entirely on Christ as our hope. Dr. Rogers has
led us, instead, back to ourselves.
Secondly, the Westminster Confession of Faith states the doctrine this way:
20
Thornwell, James Henley. Collected Works of James Henley Thornwell, Volume One. (Carlisle, Pennsylvania:
Banner of Truth Trust) pg. 441.
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 20 of 30
They whom God hath accepted in his beloved, effectually called an sanctified by his
Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly
persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved. This perseverance of the saints
depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election,
flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the
merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit and of the seed of God
within them; and the nature of the covenant of grace, from all which ariseth also the
certainty and infallibility thereof.21
Surely even a cursory glance at the above definition should dispel any idea that a five
point Calvinist believes that someone goes to hell “because you didn’t persevere.” Salvation, in
the Calvinist’s position, is “of the Lord” entirely. He is the author and the finisher of our faith.
Therefore, since God is unable to make mistakes, the “good work” that HE began in me is certain
for no other reason than the fact that HE did it. The Scriptures are clear: Isaiah 43:1-3, Isaiah
54:10, Jeremiah 32:40, Matthew 18:12-14, John 5:24, John 6:35-40, John 17:11,12,15, Romans
5:8-10, Romans 8:29,30,35-39, I Corinthians 1:29, II Corinthians 4:14,17, Ephesians 1:5,13,14,
4:30, I Thessalonians 5:23,24, II Timothy 4:18, Hebrews 12:28, Jude 24,25.
What Dr. Rogers seems to take issue with is what this doctrine implies about those who
deny the faith after their profession of faith. What am I to believe about the eternal state of
someone’s soul if at the end of their lives they have denied that Jesus Christ is Lord and that He is
their only hope of salvation? The Scriptures are clear concerning those that “turn back” from the
way of truth:
 II Peter 2:22- “Of them [apostates] the proverbs are true: ‘A dog returns to its vomit,’ and ,
‘A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.’” They are still dogs and pigs
in their nature, though their outer nature might appear clean.”
 I John 2:19- “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had
belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them
belonged to us.”
 Matthew 10:22- “All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands to the end will be
saved.” Jesus’ words are unequivocal.
Therefore, we see that we would heartily agree with Dr. Rogers that indeed it is the
perseverance of the spirit that is essential. However, does Dr. Rogers intend to suggest that as the
spirit perseveres in the life of the believer that the individual could actually deny the Lordship of
Christ and deny his faith in him? What does this say about the salvation that supposedly the
Spirit is sustaining?
Pastorally speaking, it would be dangerous to ever claim to have certain knowledge of
someone’s salvation. I cannot say with certainty that so-and-so was or was not a Christian
(excepting, of course, my own salvation). However, I can say that someone was or was not living
the kind of life that is marked by those who know Christ.22
21
WCF, Chapter 17, Of The Perseverance of the Saints, Sections 1 and 2.
This discussion is reminiscent of a great debate that took place in the mid to late 1980’s. The so-called “Lordship
Salvation Debate” was publicized with the publishing of John MacArthur’s excellent book The Gospel According to
Jesus. In it he argues that modern evangelicalism has fallen into a dangerous practice of preaching an “easy
believism.” That is, he rejects the idea that someone may make a public “profession of faith” and then go on living
in any way that they want to. This is, to quote a phrase from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, preaching cheap grace. In other
words, the grace of Christ is cheapened when we frame it in such antinomian terms.
These charges were rather weakly challenged by some of the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary at the
time. Zane Hodges and Charles Ryrie countered by publishing rebuttals. After all was said and done, MacArthur
succeeded in re-establishing the fact that a hatred of sin is imbedded in the very definition of what it means to
embrace the Gospel. You cannot have one without the other.
22
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 21 of 30
DR. ROGERS CONTINUED
Now, let me just say a few words in conclusion and then we’ll ask some
questions and look at some other Scriptures that seem to teach contrary to what we
have said. I want to say that God is sovereign, you agree with that? A sovereign is a
king, he’s king. You won’t vote him in, you won’t vote him out. God is sovereign.
Election and predestination are Biblical. Election is based on foreknowledge. Turn to
I Peter 1:1,2, “Peter an apostle of Jesus Christ… elect according to the foreknowledge
of God.” Elect according to the foreknowledge of God. Now, God lives in eternity. We
live in time. Don’t get the idea that eternity is just a whole lot more time. WE get that
sometime when we sing songs like Amazing Grace. “When we’ve been there 10,000
years bright shining as the sun, we’ve no less days to sing God’s praise than when
we’ve first begun.” That’s just poetry, that’s not Bible. When you get up into eternity
time is irrelevant, it doesn’t pertain. We say that God is sovereign, but there’s some
things God can’t do. For example, God can’t lie. Isn’t that true? God also can’t learn
anything. How can God learn anything, God knows it all. God knows the beginning
and he knows the end, he knows the middle, he knows it all he sees it all. If God were
to learn something, he would not be omniscient. God knew I was going to scratch my
head. He knew that before the world came in. Has it ever occurred to you that
nothing ever occurs to God? (laughter) GOD IS GOD. He knows the beginning from
the end.
Yet God gave you a will. And God is already known what you are going to do
with that will. And because God knows what you are going to do with that will, you
are elect according to the foreknowledge of God. Now, because God knows it doesn’t
mean God caused it. There’s a man named Haley, who studied about a comet, and he
knew exactly when the comet was going to appear. But knowing when the comet was
going to appear didn’t mean he made it appear. Haley’s comet just appeared right on
time because he had foreknowledge that the comet would appear. And God’s
foreknowledge of my salvation doesn’t mean that God gave me irresistible grace. And I
am a part of a special elect group, that he did not die for the whole world. The order is
foreknowledge, election, and predestination. Election looks backward to
foreknowledge. Predestination looks forward to destiny. You see, God saw a street
fighting boy in West Palm Beach, that’s me. Fifteen-year-old kid. Been getting in a lot
of trouble, skipping school, getting in fights, telling lies, cheating, using bad language.
God saw that boy repenting of his sin. And he said, “That’s one of my elect. God saw
him trusting Jesus, and said that’s one of my elect. And he’s going to be like Jesus.
It’s predestined.” “Whom he foreknew, him he did also predestinate to be conformed
to the image of his Son. I Peter 1:2, “…we are elect according to the foreknowledge of
God.”
Dr. Rogers here has fallen into the sticky philosophical trap of foreknowledge. There is
much to be said about the philosophical suicide that Dr. Rogers definition of foreknowledge
suggests.23 However, for the sake of our discussion, we will only deal with two salient points.
First, Dr. Rogers view of divine foreknowledge contradicts what we have already shown
that Scripture clearly teaches. First, that no man has the power to exercise faith in his own power.
23
Schreiner, Thomas R. and Ware, Bruce A. editors, The Grace of God and the Bondage of the Will. (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books). This wonderful two volume work deals academically with many of the historical,
theological, Scriptural, and philosophical challenges delivered against Calvinism. For the discussion on
foreknowledge, see the essay “The Philosophical Issue of Divine Foreknowledge” by Paul Helm, volume 2, pg. 485.
In it, he deals capably with most of the present day formulations of divine foreknowledge including Alvin
Plantinga’s creative “middle knowledge” notion.
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 22 of 30
We have also shown that such power is a gift from God, and is given to those chosen of God for
the gift. We also feel that this point, though ostensibly relieving the “problem” of God’s eternal
election, does violence to the omnipotence of God. It, by definition, limits his power.
For instance, we might ask an Arminian two questions: 1) Does God know for certain
what will happen before it happens? All Christians would no doubt say yes. 2) If God knows
that a thing is certain to happen before it happens, we may then ask, by what power is it made
certain? There can be but one answer: God makes it certain. “We are unable to escape the
conclusion that God foresees with certainty only because he guarantees the certainty” by his
power.24
Secondly, Dr. Rogers should know that the word we have translated “foreknowledge” in
the above quoted passages does not mean mere intellectual awareness or foresight. The word
(proginoskein [ or prognosis [ actually has an affectionate tone and
means “to take knowledge of one with loving care,” or “making one the object of loving care or
electing love.” In other words, the foreknowledge of God is not arbitrary cognizance of a future
fact. God’s foreknowledge means that he looked out through time and set his electing love on
those whom he loved. It refers to “a selective knowledge which regards one with favor and
makes one an object of love, and thus approaches the idea of fore-ordination, Acts 2:23; Romans
8:29; 11:2; I Peter 1:2. These passages simply lose their meaning, if the words be taken of simply
taking knowledge of one in advance, for God foreknows all men in that sense.”25
DR. ROGERS CONTINUED
Now, you say, “Pastor, why’d you take all this time to come up here and…” By
the way, let me just say this about this thing, if you take this kind of doctrine and tell
some people, I mean this hyper-Calvinism, it’ll make infidels out of them. It’ll cause
them to turn against God all together. Tell you why. Think about little babies that
die. How many babies die in the world today? Think about all the little babies that
are aborted every year, about a million and a half. Well, let me ask you a question,
“Are the little babies that die that are not part of the elect, do they go to hell?” They
didn’t know their name. They never did any good or evil. Some of them never even got
born. I have a little baby boy in heaven, I’m sure he’s there. But I couldn’t be sure if I
didn’t think he might not be one of the elect. “Well,” you say, “maybe your little boy’s
not in heaven. Maybe he wasn’t one of the elect.” I don’t want to serve a God who let
my little baby die and fry. You think I believe that? So you say, “Well, mother, all the
little babies that die are elect… (end of side one…)
As stated earlier, theological reflection is an aspect of Biblical sanctification. We believe
that the earnest inquiry into the things of God concerning matters pertaining to our salvation is a
vital and important exercise for all Christians. It is our intention to produce light, not heat. It
24
Williamson, G.I. The Westminster Confession of Faith For Study Classes. (Phillipsburg, New Jersey:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing) pg. 32. It was in this extremely helpful little volume that I was first
introduced to this line of argument. As an aside, I once asked an Arminian student these two questions. Their
answer to the second question was, “Well, my power.” “If then, it is by YOUR power alone,” I asked, “then how
can God know it for certain? For if he cannot have the power to bring it about, then how can he know what is going
to happen in a true contingency?” If you are going to take this view, I believe that at one point you are forced to
sacrifice God’s knowledge of the future. And indeed, that is what we find many contemporary Arminian scholars
doing, namely Clark Pinnock and others. (cf., The Openness of God, edited by Clark Pinnock, et al) The word
“heresy” comes to mind.
25
Berkof, Systematic Theology, pg. 112.
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 23 of 30
should be obvious to all that references like “it’ll make infidels out of them,” and babies that “die
and fry” are far from being marked by Christian gentility.
As to the charge of the five points of Calvinism creating “infidels,” we would simply
refer to Dr. Rogers to any volume of Puritan piety and see what fire this Calvinism lit in the lives
of these great men. Men like McCheyne, Newton, Goodwin, Brainerd, and Owen (especially
Owen) were so filled with the grandeur of God as to make our present day efforts at piety and
worship seem emaciated. We would also refer him to a simply historical study of the First Great
Awakening and help him identify names like Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, and Samuel
Davies who, “five pointers” all, turned the world upside down by preaching Christ and him
crucified to souls whom they were convinced were dead in their trespasses and sins. They
believed that God had elected an untold number from the crowds to whom they preached, and so
far from “stultifying” their efforts, they were empowered all the more to preach with just that
much more energy and tirelessness. The charge of making infidels has lost both Biblically and
historically.
The empty and irreverent charge of the eternal state of infants has already been answered.
Please refer to the discussion of the same above.
DR. ROGERS CONTINUED
It will stultify evangelism and missions. It’s the reason why I began this thing
by reading the great commission, that says we’re to take the Gospel to every creature.
You live in Memphis, TN. You can get a Bible in every department store almost.
Church on every other corner, you’ve heard the gospel. I’ve just come back from India.
Are you just going to say God just bunched up all the elect over hear? It’s
geographical? Is that what you’re going to say? Friend you think about it. I mean, let
your mind begin to work on that thing. And see what that will do to your reasoning.
If I believed that it was already settled that people were going to heaven or hell and
there’s nothing we can do about it. I wouldn’t have gone to India, frankly, because it
was a painful trip.
Turn to II Timothy2. Look in verses 9,10. By the way, few people ever suffered
the way the Apostle Paul suffered. And notice what he says, “Therefore, I endure all
things (you know some of the things he endured? He was imprisoned, he was beaten,
he was stoned, he was left for dead, ship wrecked. Now watch this…) for the elect’s
sakes, that they also may obtain to salvation, which is in Christ Jesus in eternal
glory.” Hey, Paul if they’re going to be saved anyway, why don’t you just go fishing?
Why the ship wrecks, why the beating, why the flogging, why the jail, why the prison,
they’re going to be saved anyway. Paul said, “I do it for the elect…”
Now, I know some people who are hyper-Calvinists who are soul-winners. And I
know some people who believe as I believe and are not soul-winners. Let me tell you
something else, as a class… AS A CLASS the five pointers are not red hot soul
winners. They’re proselytizers. They move in on people who have been won to Jesus
in evangelistic services. And by the way, you’d be surprised how many more get
elected in a red hot evangelistic services. I said that in a Bible conference one time
and a man wrote me a letter and said, “You ought to know better than that, you ought
to know that’s not when they’re elect.” I said, “Of course, I know better than that.
You don’t understand tongue-in-cheek language when you hear it.” What I’m saying is
this: when we have a passion for souls we’re going to get people saved, and Paul said,
“I endure all these things for the elect’s sake…”
Turn to the book of Ezekiel 33: (Am I boring you? Voices say… no, no. laughter.
Can’t do anything about it anyway. More laughter. You can leave I guess) verse 8.
“When I say unto the wicked, ‘Oh wicked man thou shalt surely die.’ If thou dost not
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 24 of 30
speak to warn the wicked from his way, then the wicked man shall die in his iniquity,
and his blood I will require at thine hand.” Now, wait a minute. If he can’t go to
heaven anyway, how could I be guilty, how could his blood be on my hand, just
because I didn’t warn him. He didn’t have a chance to go anyway. The verse doesn’t
make sense. How could there be an unpardonable sin? It just doesn’t make sense.
What about the little babies that die? You see, the logical conclusion of this 5-point
Calvinism is fatalism. Now, I am not saying there are no 5-point Calvinist who are not
soul winners. I know some fine ones who are. I know some fine evangelists who are.
I’m talking about as a class. I’m talking about as a class. You will find the smug,
satisfied, the elite, the wine and cheese theologian, he likes that. Find the man with a
passion for souls, find the people who are pushing back the frontiers of evangelism,
find the people with the hot hearts, find the people in the inner cities sharing Jesus,
and you’re going to find those same people that have the heart beat of the Apostle Paul
says, “This I do for the elects’ sake…” They say, “The Lord is not willing that any
should perish.”
We are going to assume that, given the chance, Dr. Rogers would heartily take back the
above comments when he describes “as a class” that those who believe in the Five Points of
Calvinism are “smug, satisfied, the elite, the wine and cheese theologian.” For many reasons we
bring this out. First, this type of argument is known as an ad hominum fallacy. That is, when a
logician turns from the issue at hand and begins to attack the character of his opponent, he has
ceased to argue and has resorted to name-calling. Second, we doubt very seriously that Dr.
Rogers wishes to enter into a contest on whose tradition has produced the Godlier lot. Indeed, is
it possible for any Christian, who knows himself to be saved totally by grace, to take pride in or
celebrate his own spiritual accomplishments and still hold to the true Gospel? We think not.
According to the New Testament, evangelism is just preaching the gospel, the evangel.
The message of the gospel teaches that man is more sinful, wretched, and depraved than he could
possibly imagine; yet he can be more loved, accepted, and forgiven in Christ than he ever dared
dream. Despite the popularity of modern evangelism tracts, there are only two spiritual “laws.”
1) The Law is first which teaches us of our sin and guilty standing before God. And 2) Grace is
the free pardon that God bestows upon his people in response to their faith in his Son, the Lord
Jesus Christ.
The problem with evangelism, though, is just this issue of faith. How can a dead person
exercise faith? How can an evangelist ever hope to revive the lost soul of a sinner to look to
Christ for their salvation? The answer is simple, the evangelist has NO hope of reviving the lost
soul. The sinner’s offense before God is an infinite offense against an infinitely holy God. How
could a finite human being hope to give anything to bridging this great gap?
So what are we to do? We are to take our encouragement from the sovereignty of God,
from the fact that God is the author of salvation and not man, from the fact that when I go out to
share my faith, God has selected from among this world sinners to be saved from their damnation
and to partake of his glorious grace. Stated simply, my only encouragement as an evangelist is in
the predestination of some to salvation!
It is our view that not only does the doctrine of the eternal election of God’s people not
contradict our efforts at evangelism; on the contrary it upholds, establishes, encourages, enlivens,
invigorates, and promotes my most hearty efforts to go into the world making disciples of the
nations. Why? Because my master has gone before me and cleared the field! The battle belongs
to the Lord even in evangelism. Our position is consistent with that of J.I. Packer when he says,
What, then are we to say about the suggestion that a hearty faith in the absolute
sovereignty of God is inimical to evangelism? We are bound to say that anyone who
makes this suggestion thereby shows that he has simply failed to understand what the
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 25 of 30
doctrine of divine sovereignty means. Not only does it undergird evangelism, and uphold
the evangelist, by creating a hope of success that could not otherwise be entertained; it
also teaches us to bind together preaching and prayer; and as it makes us humble and
importunate before God. Is not this as it should be? We would not wish to say that man
cannot evangelize at all without coming to terms with this doctrine; but we venture to
think that , other things being equal, he will be able to evangelize better for believing it.26
And yet, over and over, this empty charge is leveled at the Five Point Calvinist. Though
frustrating, it is helpful to understand some of these objections lest we are deceived into thinking
that they have any substance. First, it is our experience that when a person says that the Calvinist
is not doing evangelism, often times they are referring to the fact that it is a rare, though certainly
not forbidden, occurrence in Calvinistic circles to have an altar call. (An altar call is an event
issued at the end of an evangelistic service in which those who wish to pray to receive Christ are
asked to either come forward, raise their hand, sign a card of commitment, etc.) Notice, we are
not saying that invitations are not offered. It is our contention that in any proper preaching of the
gospel, sinners are invited to respond to the desperateness of their sinful condition by turning in
faith to Christ as the only hope for their salvation. This point is not argued.
However, the Calvinist often does have problems with the modern altar call system.27
Without an extended treatment of this issue, suffice it to say that we are hesitant to assign the
sinner something to do when they have just been told that there is nothing they can do to about
their spiritual condition. It is their very helplessness that establishes the basis for their hope in
Christ (cf. Mark 2:17).28 This emphasis in evangelism does nothing to hinder the process. Just
because someone did not respond at a certain moment in an evangelistic service says nothing
about whether or not the Spirit of God is working in the heart of that soul progressively to lead
him to a moment of faith. Indeed it is the altar call that must be challenged. Does this method
not encourage confusion in the life of the believer as to what is the real issue in their salvation? Is
it possible that this very practice has led to the epidemic of personal Christian “testimonies”
where the convert meticulously describes the events surrounding their conversion and yet never
actually gets around to mentioning the Lord Jesus Christ as the focal point of his conversion?29
Secondly, it has also been our experience that when a person says that the Calvinist is not
doing evangelism that they often mean that a certain group does not engage in one of many
“popular” evangelistic systems or techniques for winning converts. This again is to confuse
evangelism with the method of evangelism. The issue of whether or not the Scripture teaches the
Five Points of Calvinism it not relevant to a discussion of which modern evangelistic
methodologies are the best.
Packer, J.I. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press) pg. 125-6.
This little volume is a wonderful exposition of the small topic that we have begun here. It too comes highly
recommended.
27
For more on this discussion, see Murray, Iain H. “The Invitation System.” (Banner of Truth). This small booklet is
a very gracious discussion on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of what the 20 th century has produced in modern
revivalistic techniques.
28
I have heard one minister put it this way, “Every other religion in the world tells you that it is your failure to
measure up that keeps you from God. Christianity is unique in that it proclaims that it is your failure to admit you
are a failure that keeps you from God.” The first option sets us on the roller coaster of human effort, the second
option sets us on the path to true freedom in Christ and reliance upon his grace.
29
In a informal “poll” recently taken of Christian university campus workers, it was noted that when a given
Christian student was asked about their faith, hardly ever was even the name of Christ mentioned at all. Though I
have been in campus ministry for four years, upon first meeting a student and attempting to get a “feel” for the status
of their spiritual lives, I have never had a student so much as mention the name of Christ even once in reference to
the question, “Why are you a Christian?”
26
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 26 of 30
On a personal note, Dr. Rogers has laid a charge at the feet of all those who would
profess to be Calvinists in their view of what the Scriptures teach. All we have to say to this
charge is that we too count ourselves among the Apostle Paul who said, “This is a trustworthy
saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners- of whom I
am the worst.” In other words, if Dr. Rogers has noticed sin in us, he doesn’t know the half of it.
But “thanks be to God- through Jesus Christ our Lord,” we are counted among those that don’t
trust ourselves for our salvation. We would have no hope otherwise were it not for Christ.
DR. ROGERS CONTINUED
Well, Adrian, why did I … (trail off) Let me give you verse. II Thessalonians 2.
Here’s a verse that these people love to use, so let’s look at it. verse 13. “But we are
bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren. Beloved of the Lord, because
God hath from the beginning chose in you to salvation.” Well, that looks pretty clear
cut doesn’t it? Some people just chose him for salvation. Again, classic, not finishing
a verse, not reading the entire verse, “THROUGH sanctification of the spirit and belief
in the truth.” (chuckle) The ones that are chosen for salvation the ones that the Holy
Spirit of God convicts, they believe the truth. You see, it’s 180 degrees, it’s not that
they believe because they were chosen, it’s that they are chosen through sanctification
of the spirit and belief in the truth. It’s 180 degrees from what people try to twist
those verses to mean.
Again, we feel that given the opportunity, Dr. Rogers would revise his statements and
perhaps choose verses which attempt to prove his point, not ours. The verse explicitly states that
we were chosen, “through sanctification of the Spirit and belief in the truth.” The point of the
verse is that our setting apart is something that can only be done by the Holy Spirit of God.
Belief is our response to that work. Biblical exegete Leon Morris has this commentary on the
verse,
Election is ‘for salvation’ and this is further defined as through the sanctifying work of
the Spirit and through belief in the truth. The first expression points us to the setting
apart of the whole person for the service of God, something that can be accomplished
only in the power of the Holy Spirit…. The second is concerned rather with the response
of faith to the gospel (understanding truth as in vv. 10,12). The combination brings out
the primary function of the Holy Spirit, but also the necessity for our response.30
This is precisely our point. Faith is the response of the whole person to the “sanctifying
work” of the Holy Spirit. This does not mean, however, that a person must wait until he “feels”
the Spirit of God working in his heart. His feelings are not the point. The point we are making is
that 1) the only ones who will come to Christ in faith are those who have first been regenerated
and, 2) those who are so regenerated always exercise faith in Christ. This is all we mean by the
statement.
DR. ROGERS CONTINUED
Classic verse is in Romans 9. Turn there for just a moment. Verse.. uh… let’s
talk a little bit about Isaac and Jacob and Isaac and Esau. Verse 10… [read] There it
is, they say. God said it. He’s going to save Jacob and damn Esau. I didn’t read that
there. It said nothing there at all about salvation. It says that the elder will serve the
younger. How do you spell salvation S-E-R-V-E? It doesn’t mention salvation at all. If
you will read this passage of Scripture, God is talking about his dealing with the
nation Israel. And this is national, not personal. He’s not talking about personal
30
Morris, Leon. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: I and II Thessalonians, revised edition. (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: InterVarsity Press) pg. 137.
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 27 of 30
salvation here. And I defy you to show me where it mentions personal salvation,
heaven or hell here, it does not. It mentions exactly as it happened. That the
birthright came to the younger. Esau, the mountains of Edom and so forth, became
subservient to Israel. And you say, “Well what about that part where it says that
there, ‘Jacob I have loved, Esau have I hated.’” Well, when did he say that? He didn’t
say that before the twins were born. He said that 1300 years later. It’s a quote from
the book of Malachi. That shows where God laid waste the mountains of Edom
because of the sin of these people. And when the Bible says that God hated. Even
there it doesn’t mean that God hates how we use the word hate, when we say “I hate
you.” Jesus said, If any man come after me and hate not father and mother, houses
and land and all that he has he cannot be my disciple. It means to prefer one against
the other, and God deals with the nations of the world. The Jews are God’s chosen
people. He’s talking here about nations. Read the whole thing, Paul is explaining the
nation Israel.
Dr. Rogers has “defied” us to show him where Romans 9 mentions personal salvation.
We would simply respond, “How about verses 1-5?” There Paul makes it plain that he would
almost wish to be cursed because his kinsmen from Israel are not saved. It is the whole point of
the passage. The entire context of Romans 9-11 relates to the salvation of Israel, their acceptance
of the Lord Jesus Christ as personal savior and Lord. And so since Paul uses this issue to set the
stage for 9-11, why in the world would he suddenly insert a discussion in chapter 9 about the
earthly promises given to Israel and then suddenly revert to the main issue of salvation in 9:3011:36? And why does Paul say in 9:6b, “For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.”
How else are you to understand this verse if it is not taken as reference to the salvation of Israel?
Earlier on in his presentation, Dr. Rogers referred to the “not reading all the verse” as a classic
mistake. We would agree and expand with an admonition to read the entire chapter as well.
We would also add another reason why the salvation spoken of by Paul in Romans 9 is
individual and not corporate. In Romans 9:15, Paul cites Exodus 33:19 which says, “I will have
mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” The
word whom (hon) is singular, indicating that specific individuals upon whom God has mercy are
in view. The singular is also present in the inference Paul draws from Romans 9:15 in 9:16.
God’s mercy does not depend on the “one who wills, nor the one who runs.” Even the conclusion
utilizes the same singular use in 9:18,19.
But even if we are to grant Dr. Rogers’ thesis here there exists another problem with his
explanation. Let’s suppose that Paul is saying that God only elects corporate nations, but is this
election then not from before the foundations of the Earth, and not based upon anything good in
the group, but according to God’s mercy? In trying to escape the admittedly difficult true
meaning of Romans 9, Dr. Rogers has wandered into another problem.
But if what I have said is correct, then one of the great attractions of the corporate view
of election vanishes. Many find corporate election appealing because God does not
appear as arbitrary in electing some to salvation and bypassing others. But if corporate
election is election unto salvation, and if that election determines who will be saved, then
God is no less arbitrary. It hardly satisfies to say that God chose some individuals to be
saved and passed by others but that it is true that he chose one group to be saved and
bypassed another group.31
Schreiner, Thomas R. “Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election Unto Salvation?” quoted in Schreiner, Thomas
R. and Ware, Bruce A. (editors) The Grace of God and the Bondage of the Will, Volume One. Most of the above
discussion was extracted from Schreiner’s article and is by no means exhaustive. Another excellent work dealing
with this passage is John Piper’s The Justification of God, Baker Books.
31
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 28 of 30
Therefore, it solves no problems to try to skirt out from under the issue that Romans 9
plainly teaches God’s eternal predestination before the foundations of the earth, and his doing so
is the same in the Old Testament as in the New.
DR. ROGERS CONTINUED
Well, I’ve gone enough. Let’s have some questions.
1. Student reads text note from an unnamed study Bible which explains that the
verse in Romans 9 is clearly not talking about nations, but about personal salvation.
AR explains that the text note is not scripture. He goes on to say that he could
get many theologians to say one thing. He is saying that he disagrees. “You see, it
has to do with how you interpret the Bible. Let’s take Church of Christ who believe in
baptismal regeneration. And they say that you have to be baptized in order to be
saved. Now where do they get that? Well, “repent and be baptized for the remission of
sins…” Well, the Greek preposition “for” (eis) means because of or with reference to, or
in order to. So it could mean be baptized in order to have your sins remitted or be
baptized because your sins are remitted. Well, which one should we believe? Well, I
would suggest that if it can be interpreted in both ways, interpret it in the way it is
interpreted in the rest of the Bible. If you’ve got a choice. If you’re walking down the
road and you pick up a piece of green glass, do you hold that glass up and say, “The
world is green?” Or do you put that glass in the sunlight and say, “The glass is
green?”
How would I look at Romans 9? Do you remember all those other Scriptures
that we looked at tonight? Do you remember all of those? Could I take all those and
cast them aside and then look at a verse and say, “This is what all those others mean,
or they don’t have any other meaning?” No. That’s the reason why “no Scripture is of
any private interpretation” it’s all part of one seamless garment. But read this ninth
chapter. Look at how it begins. [Read verse 1ff.] He’s talking about the nation Israel,
it’s a national thing. It’s very obvious that that’s what he’s talking about. And when
he says Esau and Jacob, he’s not talking about two individuals. Esau and Jacob were
dead and gone when that was quoted in the book of Malachi. When the Bible says
“Israel” do you think it means the man Israel or the nation Israel? You see when it
says “Israel” he’s speaking of a people. It’s a national thing.
Good question. And, hey, everybody’s got to make up there own mind,
ultimately. God gives us a will, and God gives us a choice, and God gives us a brain,
and we have to listen.
Dr Rogers has brought up a great point here. Indeed all of our Biblical inquiries should
be interpreted this way. Whether he realizes it or not, Dr. Rogers is describing the Reformation
doctrine of interpretation of Scripture, which is “Scripture interprets Scripture.” We use the plain
texts in Scripture to give light to the not so plain. However, we believe that we have
demonstrated that the Scripture is replete with references to the Five Points of Calvinism and
therefore is the clarity that illumines the rest of the Scriptures.
DR. ROGERS CONTINUED
2. Student tells about a friend that he has who said that he wants to be saved, but
that the pastor of his church has told him that he can’t be saved until he hears God
calling him. He asked him if he wanted to be saved and his friend said, Oh yes, I do.
“What do I say to him?”
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 29 of 30
AR: “Just read the Bible to him. Where the Bible says, whosoever will may
come. Let me tell you, people have been racing their theological motors to find out
who the elect are. I can settle it in three seconds. The Elect are the whosoever wills.
Those are the elect. Story about Harry Ironside. A man walking down a hallway.
Front side of the door says, whosoever will may come. In the room there is a banquet
with his name on it. he sits down and looks up at the door and the other side of the
door and it says, chosen before the foundation of the world. Now you say you don’t
understand that, I don’t either. I am glad we don’t have a God we don’t understand.
The Bible says the secret things belong to the Lord our God. The reason that we have
difficulty with this, is we are trying to see it as God sees it. God is in another
dimension. He sees the beginning from the end. And God doesn’t take away your
choice just because he knows your choice. God just simply knows it because he can
learn. God looks backward to foreknowledge.
I give my heart to bringing out the gospel. There seems to be a lot of confusion
here. I think we need to get back to soul winning. The Bible says he that winneth
souls is wise. People are losing a burden for souls, they are getting a little “kick back”
and sophisticated and argumentative a little intellectual. I’m not against
intellectualism, but I’d rather be in heaven saying my A-B-C’s than in hell spouting
philosophy. We need to get back to believing what the Bible says. Christ died for our
sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world. The Lord is not
willing that any should perish. And if you don’t want to believe that kind of a
theology, go to Calvary and look at Calvary for a while. And ask yourself, Are you
content to live a life of ease, sophistication, and smug intellectualism? I’ve been on
the trail for souls as a pastor for 46 years. I’ve torn my heart out for souls. And I’m
going to die telling every person I meet about Jesus. And I want you to do the same.
Thank you
We find it fitting that here at the end of the discussion, Dr. Rogers does all but concede
our point. The above example from Ironside is precisely the point that we have been making.
The Five Point Calvinist neither wishes to deny the responsibility of man to exercise faith in the
Lord Jesus Christ, nor is he willing to give up the eternal predestination of those souls by the
work of God.
The Five Point Calvinist, it must be stressed, does not claim to have resolved the issue of
how to explain the two realities. He affirms both. However, it must also be said that though the
two issues are real, one is foundational to the other, or as Cornelius Van Til once said, God’s
sovereignty is “back of” man’s responsibility. His sovereignty provides the foundation, yea, the
establishment of all our choices, decisions, and actions.
Dr. Rogers’s illustration is a wonderful way to say it because the unenlightened man
cannot understand the things of God for they are “spiritually discerned.” But once so
enlightened, he sees the world through the eyes of faith in God’s revealed, infallible, inerrant
Word. And he discovers the rich truths that inspired the hymn writer of old to sing:
I sought the Lord, and afterward I knew, He moved my soul to seek him seeking me.
It was not I that found, O Savior true, but I was found of Thee.
I find, I walk, I love, but, O, the whole of love is but my answer Lord to Thee.
For Thou wert long beforehand with my soul, always Thou lovest me.
Thou didst reach forth Thy hand and mine enfold. I walked and sank not on the storm-vexed sea.
‘Twas not so much that I on Thee took hold, but Thou, dear Lord, on me.
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 30 of 30
CONCLUSION
At the risk of sounding repetitive, it is our deepest desire that the above comments to Dr. Rogers
address be taken as a positive step toward the soul enriching exercise of Biblical reflection. It has been at
the forefront of our work to be as respectful and careful in our words as we could possibly be, in keeping
with Christian cordiality.
There are in conclusion some concluding notes that should be mentioned. It is our contention that
the most decisive issue in this discussion has been settled. The Bible is our final authority in all matters
and from the aforementioned Scripture texts, it is obvious that God’s Word teaches the Five Points of
Calvinism. It is obvious that the Reformers were correct when they represented their teachings as a
recovery of the teachings of Anselm, Augustine, the Apostle Paul, and most of all our Lord Jesus Christ.
Secondly, we also believe that the theological issue has been proven. We maintain that only a clear
understanding of the theological issues surrounding historic Calvinism can sustain the whole of a
Christian’s experience in faith and practice. And finally, we believe that the Five Points of Calvinism has
historically shown itself to be the only system of doctrine set forth as the true teaching of Scripture which
adequately protects the integrity, that is the gracious character, of the gospel. Indeed, the very heart of the
gospel is threatened when one does not teach the Five Points of Calvinism. For only here do we find the
absolute sovereignty of God as the focal point of all Christian faith and practice.
Let it also be known that it is the prayer and expectation of the authors of this document that, one
day some day, the world will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord and of his Gospel. We await
expectantly for the quick return of our Lord Jesus Christ who will come to take his bride, the Church, to
paradise. In the meantime, we will preach in season and out of season the Gospel of the Lord Jesus
Christ. It is to that end that we focus our most hearty efforts.
Response to Dr. Adrian Rogers
Page 31 of 30
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing, Inc. 1959.
Berkof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1941.
Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, Volume I. Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth.
1875.
Dabney, Robert L. The Five Points of Calvinism. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications. 1992
Murray, Iain. The Forgotten Spurgeon. Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth. 1966.
Murray, Iain. Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching. Carlisle, Pennsylvania:
Banner of Truth. 1996.
Noll, Mark A. (editor) Confessions and Catechisms of the Reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House. 1994.
Owen, John. The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth. 1959.
Packer, J.I. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. 1961
Palmer, Edwin H. The Five Points of Calvinism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. 1972.
Piper, John. The Justification of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. 1993.
Piper, John. The Pleasures of God: Meditations on God’s Delight in Being God. Portland, OR:
Multinomah Press. 1991.
Schreiner, Thomas R. and Ware, Bruce A. (editors) The Grace of God and the Bondage of the Will,
Volumes I and II. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. 1995.
Select Sermons of George Whitfield. Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth. 1958.
Selph, Robert. Southern Baptists and the Doctrine of Election. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications.
1996.
Steele, David N. and Thomas, Curtis C. The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented.
Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing. 1963.
Wilson, Douglas. To A Thousand Generations: Infant Baptism, Covenant Mercy For The People of God.
Moscow, ID: Canon Press. 1996.
Westminster Confession of Faith. Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth. 1646.