A Parable of a Gardener Appealing to an Expert About Gardens

Mark McCulley

An Invitation from Dr. Mohler to the Apostle Paul to join the Southern Baptist Church and the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

m: I have come from Louisville here to Galatia to invite you and all the people here to join with us Southern Baptists in taking the gospel of the cross to the whole world. I am the president of a seminary: it used to be very liberal where the professors denied the inerrancy of the Bible. But that tribulation is now past us and the proof is that I am now the president of the largest seminary of the largest Protestant denomination in the most Christian country in the world.

p: John 5:39-44 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and in these you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of me. But you are not willing to come to me that you may have life. I do not receive honor from men...

m: wait a minute there Paul: I don’t even know you yet and you are quoting Scripture TO ME? I have a PHD in theology from a liberal seminary (well it and already you sound like the expert. How can we work together unless you first have a more loving attitude toward me? Many men do hate me: they call themselves “moderates”. Would you not agree that without an inerrant Bible we have no message, and that inerrancy is a basis for fellowship?

p: No. Inerrantists may think they have life. Inerrancy is like “uncircumcision”. Inerrancy is nothing if you don’t have the love of God and God’s gospel in you. If you deny inerrancy, then Christ will be of no profit to you. Because Christ’s gospel in the inerrant Bible is what we believe in, not in the honor which comes form men. After the resurrection, the disciples were converted as they heard Christ teach them from the inerrant Bible. But inerrancy is nothing, unless you have the love of God in you. John 5:41--- I do not receive honor from men. But I know you that you do not have the love of God in you. I have come in ....

m: But I do not receive honor from those feminists and liberals I fired from teaching at the Seminary. and another thing, Paul, you may not have heard: we Southern baptists are hated all over the place. We are hated by Mormons because our convention last year took the gospel of the cross to Mormons. We are hated by Jews because we love Jews enough (even we Calvinists, Romans 9:1-3) are taking the gospel to the Jews. And now we are hated by the Catholics and the National Council of Churches folk , for our plans to take the gospel to Chicago next year. While you sit here in Galatia comfortably being an expert and writing precise things about doctrine, we Southern Baptists are suffering the offense of the cross all over the world.

p: John 5:43 I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me; if another comes in his own name, him ye will receive...

m: stop. You do you think that I should not receive?

p: This person famous even here in Galatia, his name is Billy Graham, is he not a Southern Baptist?

m. Indeed, Dr Graham may not be a doctrinal expert like yourself, and there are some Calvinistic adjustments I personally would make to his message, but I am honored that our seminary has a practical side called the Graham School of evangelism. Despite picky doctrinal niceties, we all know that Dr. Graham preached the gospel, and we can see that in how God has blessed his preaching with success. Don’t be such a “sheriff”. God is sovereign and can take care of himself; if Graham’s gospel were not of God, it would not be so successful. People of Galatia, both Graham and I believe and preach the same message as Paul here does. Though Graham might not be as good as explaining the five points of Calvinism as you, I am, and I am glad to fellowship with DR Graham and to go with him on the CNN Larry King show and preach the same basic gospel to all the world.

p: John 5:44 How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor which comes only from God”

m: You must be envious of his success, and maybe even of my success. Both Dr Graham and I are careful to give God all the credit for what God has done through us. And as I said, if our gospel were not the basic simple gospel everybody can understand, then God would not have given our preaching of the cross the great success it has had.

p. So you think that everybody not only can understand the gospel but that this gospel is attractive to them.

m. You sound like a pessimist. Dr Graham is year after year voted the most popular man in America, and even in the world. And for that I give God the credit. Remember: I am a Calvinist like you; I am careful to give God the credit for everything. Except sin, suffering and death: I am infralapsarian and recognize the tension and paradoxes of the Bible. Which is perhaps why I can rejoice in the basic simple message preached by Dr Graham. If you deny that God is sovereign enough to use Graham’s preaching, you are limiting God more than I do. Give God the credit for humbling Himself enough to save people through his simple message, even if it’s not exactly as kosher as you think it ought to be.

p; Would you say the same for those who teach the errancy of the Bible, or who deny the virgin birth or miracle, or Mormons or Catholics? God saves through their preaching as well?

m; Of course. That does not mean we shouldn’t teach against the errors of the Mormons or the liberals or the feminists and make the necessary adjustments. But God is sovereign and can save even through a message has some error in it. We all live in the not yet, as my Calvinist friend Dr Gaffin puts it: we move in the eschatological interim of gray. Though we may ourselves prefer the light found in Vos and Calvin, we can see some light in Tozer, Finney, Wesley and Graham. They were all evangelicals and we on the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals sure won’t get very far reforming anybody if we take your triumphalistic approach,

p: so the statement you made just now: was it itself triumphalistic or was it...eschatological interim gray? Why would you want to impose your precise doctrines on evangelicals when you yourself relativise truth in the name of the not yet?

m: I do NOT relativise truth. I am active in conferences now against “postmodernism”. Have you heard of that here in Galatia? It’s when liberals learn to say that even liberalism is not the truth. So that truth is a matter of power, of what works for you...

p: and the message that Graham preaches works...for you?

m: what do you have against him, or against his message? He preaches John 3:16 and the cross of Jesus: not works but faith

p: faith in what? Faith in the cross or faith in faith?

m: faith in the cross of course, not in church membership. We Southern Baptists are clear on that: not in baptism or in church membership. Faith in the cross. He preaches that. You preach that.

p: I preach election: have you read Romans 9? I preach that jews or anybody else who try to establish their own righteousness and who do not submit to the righteousness of Christ are under the curse of God: have you read Romans 10:3? I preach that Christ died for the church, for the elect only and not for the reprobate: have you read Ephesians 1 and 5?

m: sure, we get into all that in my Calvinism class at seminary, and some of the people in that class were converted in Billy Graham crusades and are now learning to give God ALL the credit for believing the message THAT THEY HEARD FROM DR GRAHAM. It is the same basic message of the cross you preach.

p: Have you read my book of Galatians? Do you know that you are not the first one to come here to Galatia claiming to preach the same Christ and same cross? Before you came from Louisville, there were some from Jerusalem. Like you they were Calvinists. They did not make the mistake that Graham make of saying that Christ died for everybody, even for Cain and others who reject the gospel. These guys from Jerusalem were as “Calvinist” as you are. They did NOT say that Christ does 99% and your faith does the 1% which makes the difference. They taught particular atonement, that Christ died only for those who believe the basic simple message preached by all Christians. Do you remember that book, Galatians?

m: sure it is a very important Reformation document. It was the book that Wesley read when he got saved, the book that got Luther saved. It teaches justification by faith, which is one of the doctrines we at the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals want to give an emphasis. But neither Dr Graham nor I teach circumcision. We teach against legalism, against trying to gain favor from God with your performance, even in your sanctification. What do you think, Paul, don’t you think Galatians is also about sanctification not only about justification? I think we agree about this: grace alone!

p: Let me tell you Dr Mohler, about those who came from Jerusalem with trouble. Bear with me. I might get excited. I might start crying. I might even get angry and sarcastic. The poison they brought with them caused some here to "draw back" from the chastisement which comes with being a Christian. I want to talk about that suffering a bit later, and look at Hebrews 12 (even though I didn’t write that) and the Sermon on the Mount in Luke 6 (even though I didn’t write that) and I Peter (brother Peter had to learn that the same way I had to learn it, God MADE HIM LEARN IT...

m; but those teachers from Jerusalem were not Southern baptists: they were into rules and sabbatarianism and other OT stuff. Though not all of us Southern Baptists teach a tribulation for the Jews before the second coming (ha ha) , we do know the difference between living under law and living in the NT.

p: You used a word there, Dr Mohler, that I want to talk about: tribulation. That is what we Christians in Galatians faced when they came from Jerusalem. Though they preached that grace in you caused you to do a little something you could do to help yourself, they were also inerrantists, they were not feminists--they had strong family values but they were not Mormons or Catholics. They sincerely believed both in the cross and the resurrection of Christ. Which is what made it so tough for me to say that they were lost.

m: Not being an apostle, I don’t like to get into who’s lost and saved because I can fellowship with anybody who’s saved. And we Southern Baptists do NOT think that “there’s a little something to do”. We do things the right way, not by works, but by faith, just the way you teach in Galatians 3.

p: but doesn’t Graham teach that Christ died for everyone, but that only the ones who believe in Jesus will get the benefit of what Jesus did?

m: I must tell the truth. In recent years, on Larry King in fact, he said that those who had never heard of Jesus but who had lived right and had some faith, that he felt better about those kind of people. I certainly would not endorse that statement, and if I am not mistaken, his office has put out an explanation of how that was taken out of context both times he said it, both on Larry King and on Robert Schuller. But I would not endorse that, and the very fact that he has spent his whole life taking Jesus to the world proves that he thinks you need faith.

p: yes, that’s what he said: live the best you can and then have faith.

m: We do need to say faith in Christ, not just faith in any religion.

p: So if we have faith in Christ, then can we have faith in our faith?

m: Now maybe some of the “carnal Christian” Southern Baptists, like brother Dr Stanley, teach that, but not me: we have to live right too.. p: so you agree with Graham: live right and faith?

m: Faith in Christ, not just faith in any religion.

p. Do the Mormons have faith in Christ?

m: Some may, but their teaching is bad.

p. Do the liberals you fired have faith in Christ?

m: Again, some may, but their teaching is bad, and we now have many Calvinists on our faculty who teach Pauline theology.

p: so they don’t agree with Graham that Christ died for everybody?

m: Right, but they don’t go on Larry King talking about that. They would not be invited back, and their saying that would only cause an unnecessary offense to the basic simple message we all agree on.

p: Like Mormons and liberals?

m: Leave them aside now: I mean those who take the miracles literally, as Dr Graham said he decided early on: ask no question, take them by faith. Not by works. Those guys from Jerusalem were into works, not faith alone.

p: That is NOT what they told the people here in Galatia. They believed in the miracles. One of them NT Wright was so smart that he could make the resurrection attractive even to liberals. And they taught faith alone. They said that circumcision was a “work of faith” not a “work of law”. They called theirs the “new perspective to Paul”. They said they agreed not with Luther but with Paul. They were concerned to understand Paul’s concern with unity.

m: But weren’t they into legalism, into works, and the OT?

p. They said no. I concluded that circumcision would mean being obligated to do all the OT laws. But they didn’t see it that way. They saw it as a matter of unity, of not forgetting that we all come from one tree. You can read their interpretation of Romans 9:11 in a book by evangelical James Dunn called The parting of the Ways. They said that circumcision wasn’t about entering the covenant, which they agreed the Galatians believers were already in. But they were concerned with a “role reversal” in which we would say that jews were not even saved. So they urged upon us circumcision as a work of faith.

m: so they argued that Jews were saved , that Jews did not need to believe in Jesus, not even in the tribulation or the millennium?

p: No. They were not mixed up about eschatology. They were mixed up on the gospel. They DID agree with us that jews needed to believe in the simple basic message about Jesus. And their basic message about Jesus was a lot more right than Dr Graham’s. They knew and believed what the OT taught about election.

m; So how were they mixed up on the gospel? They said grace and faith , but denied faith alone? That is a concern we at the Alliance of Confessing...

p: So you are willing to risk the unity and suffer persecution over faith alone?

m: The truth is, and for this we give God the credit, our project has been honored not by all but by many evangelicals. Dr RC Sproul tells the story in Getting It Right. The truth is that some of these men, even the famous ones, are not as sophisticated in their theology as you and I and Dr Sproul, but when we showed them the right doctrine they were glad to endorse us. Which shows the wisdom of our being careful to-- without endorsing their theology -- fellowshipping with them even though we did have to write best-selling books for them to read for their correction.

p: So the trouble’s mainly over now, you are post-tribulational?

m: Of course not, we must always be reforming, but the creeds and the sacraments are right...did I tell you that no Southern Baptist teaches regeneration by water? And I praise God that our seminary is no longer liberal and that we have a broad coalition of Calvinist and Arminians who are willing to learn from Calvinists.

p: You seemed to have a lot less trouble than I did. Do you supposed I approached the situation here in Galatians wrong? let me tell you what I did: I didn’t just say not by works, but by faith. That didn’t seem to work, because the guys from Jerusalem said that too.

m: Didn’t you tell them that circumcision was a work?

P; Actually I told them circumcision was nothing AND that uncircumcision was nothing.

m: I remember. We all have the same basic message, which is that doing right is what matters . And that includes not only being against feminists and gays in the military but also simple faith in the basic Jesus of the gospel. So why DID YOU get so nasty about circumcision?

p: Circumcision is nothing. A lot of people are not circumcised but are still lost.

m: But they don’t believe in Jesus, right?

p; No. A lot of people are not circumcised and think they believe in Jesus to whom Jesus will say I NEVER elected you.

m: without getting into the bad news of reprobation for God’s glory, I do agree that there are liberals and even many professing Southern Baptists who don’t really believe in Jesus. But surely you are not going to tell me that people don’t believe in Jesus just because they don’t agree with us about the five points of Calvinism?

p: the five points are nothing.

m: what did you say? How can you say but then question the salvation of Billy Graham just because he happens to deny particular redemption?

p; uncircumcision is nothing,. It’s people saying “faith alone: ok then we’ll do it by faith”. You can say that with no experience of regeneration or the “hearing of faith” of which I write in Gal 3.

m: ok, if you want to get technical about regeneration, I am sure we agree. But my point is that God is sovereign and humble enough to save people who listen to the basic gospel, even if they don’t know about regeneration, even if the preacher doesn’t know about regeneration...

p: even if God doesn’t get glory from the message? They are saved and have the love of God in them?

m: We give God all the credit when people get saved.

p: Even though he tells seekers that God will not violate their freewill and that God will not MAKE THEM believe?. Let me tell you: I was such a sinner that God had to MAKE me stop hating Him and start loving HIM. and then those “new perspective” people said that was my “individual experience” and that I should not build a entire theology on it. They knew lots of circumcised people who, even though they didn’t have faith in Jesus yet, would be very likely attracted to Jesus if we talked to them about the politics and morals of Jesus. And that circumcision was one way of getting them to love the messenger and then love our message. And that I would ruin everything with my no circumcision, not even as a “work of faith”. And so there was some attempt to have a compromise between me and the folks from Jerusalem , since it was said that we had the same basic message.

So some people (who were not only Calvinists btw but “new covenant” non-nomistic ones) )agreed with me not to be circumcised but they also wanted to keep an united front with the teachers from Jerusalem, who did believe the same message, justification but only wanted to put that doctrine in its place. And then, as you remember, I became somewhat “sectarian” and said, it sounded to them like I was at the top of my voice and not very nice in saying it: CAST OUT THE BONDSWOMAN. It’s either me or them. Except I said it this way: it’s either the gospel or them. It’s either Christ or them. Exclude them.

m; I remember that at the beginning of the church there was a need for men like you, even though you can be difficult at times. And to tell you the truth,. I feel the same: it was not easy to fire that liberal woman professor. I got a lot of flack for it. But then again I must remember that God has caused many to honor me for it as well.

p; This is what some wanted me to do: not to endorse the inerrantists who taught circumcision, never that, but to endorse an unity program in which inerrantists who taught faith alone could work alongside inerrantist who taught circumcision. So that I could write some more best-selling books which would help even the circumcise to get it all right. I mean that policy seems to work for some: since Dr Sproul resisted ECT and Catholics teaching he has been blessed in getting it right by having many famous Arminians endorse his own less basic not so simple gospel. Of course he would have never got that endorsement if he had insisted on effective atonement as part of the gospel. He has kept his honor by not endorsing universal atonement and also been blessed with honor even from those who do teach universal atonement. But I would not do it. The Pharisees wanted to worship Jesus as Messiah until He told them that THEIR WORKS WERE EVIL ( John 7:7). So I let them see more of Jesus in my life: I would NOT live in peace with those teachers from Jerusalem.

m: So why didn’t you? I hear you don’t have a wife to support? Do you enjoy the idea of persecution and death? How are you going to teach people if you start off by telling other people that they are lost?

p: Why did I tell them that if even I began preaching what the Jerusalem guys were teaching, that this would mean that I was lost? (1:8) The answer is ( 1:10) if I pleased men, I would not be a servant of Christ. I could have said faith alone, not by works, and kept everybody happy. Even those who taught circumcision were against pride and agreed that God didn’t need us to help God a little bit. It was when I went negative and said that they didn’t believe what they said that the trouble started.

I don’t mean they were insincere. The guys from Jerusalem were deceived themselves. They did say faith alone; but their faith was not in the cross alone but also in their faith, just like Dr Graham’s sincere faith is. They did say ”you can’t help God even a little bit” but they also said that the cross alone was not enough to save people but that God’s grace worked in people to get them saved.

m; Now what’s wrong with that? Don’t you believe in regeneration? Surely you are not a forensic imputation-only person, are you? Didn’t you write Phil 3 about the “true circumcision”?

p: We do need to talk about regeneration, even though you think it’s something you say that the basic gospel doesn’t have to get into. Dr Graham gets into it: he tells people: ye must be born again and then tells them what they can do to make it happen. But you don’t think that addition of error to the message ruins the basic message. You leave regeneration out of the good news you say that God humbles Himself to save people with. But to get back to the cross: I told the people here that I gloried only in the cross. The people who cried hosanna to Jesus later turned on him and put him on that cross, because he told them that they did not and would not ever have enough grace working in them to save them, even if they DID give grace and God the credit for the changes, for the “help”. Jesus told them their faith was evil, and instead of becoming ashamed of their faith, they--like the guys from Jerusalem who came here-- gave God the credit for their faith. And then they killed Jesus on the cross. And God predestined them to do it. And that’s what I told the guys from Jerusalem: that I glory not in just any Jesus, or in any cross, but in one and only one Jesus and one and only cross, and it was THAT CROSS, which told people it was the cross alone and not their faith. And then I explained it : the cross was only for some and not for others. It was the cross which brought faith to sinners, and not sinner which faith to the cross. Gal 2:20 not loved everybody but loved me. Gal 6:14 the world has been crucified to me and I to the world. That’s how I resisted the temptation to try to reform the guys from Jerusalem and insisted on excluding them as the "bondswoman”. The cross was not for everybody, and not for them, not unless they were taught by the Spirit to exclude even their faith from being the condition of salvation. And now you want to say that Billy Graham excludes his faith from being the condition of salvation, even though you SHOULD know that what he teaches is worse than what the guys from Jerusalem taught. Graham teaches universal atonement, and the failure of God to save all those for whom Christ died. The Jerusalem guys never were that wicked!

m: We have all come short of the glory of God. We all sin, even with our doctrine. Are you without sin now? Is you doctrine perfect?

p: the lady professor that you fired said no...

m: this is an imaginary situation: leaving aside the Bible...

p: that is what you do: after you defend the inerrancy and sufficiency of the bible and wax nostalgia for the good old classical days, when it comes to the gospel you count numbers and please men instead of teaching effective atonement. You say that there is a difference between Billy Graham and Larry King: one is a Jew and one is a Christian . But I wrote Gal 2:6 -- those who seemed to be something--whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows favoritism to no man..

m: but God does elect people to be saved, even if they don’t know the gospel exactly right BEFORE they even believe the gospel....

p: or even after they have preached it wrong for 50 years? Who told you that the Spirit of Truth uses a lie in the mouth of “practical gardeners” to save people than then uses Calvinists to wean them into the truth?

m: So you are saying you know it all now?

p: Are you saying you have to know it all to know anything? ARe you saying that if you don’t know everything, then you know nothing? If you don’t know what Hodge said about “only begotten”, that you don’t know the gospel either and thus everything is eschatological interim gray? Are you saying that if you don’t know it all, then you should not be so hard on Mormons and liberal feminists?

m: You can and should teach the truth, but you have to do it in the right way. And you won’t have even a little church here if you keep running people off all the time. You don’t have to endorse their error. You just don’t have to play sheriff all the time. God is the sovereign pastor of these people. If they are saved, they don’t need your doctrinal preciseness. If they are not saved, then maybe God will use one of those teachers you were so quick to exclude to get them saved. And then you can sell more books to them and the teachers. It’s like the don’t ask, don’t tell policy. Don’t endorse. But don’t anathematize either.