So grows the Lotus

Back in May of 2014, I wrote about “Tulips, Roses, Poinsettias and Lilies: a veritable theological garden.” Now ten years later, I have discovered a new flower growing in the acrostical soteriological garden – the Lotus.

Apparently “LOTUS” is the brainchild of Daniel Weierbach, pastor of Open Door Baptist Church in Prattville, Alabama. According to his book LOTUS: A Free Grace Response to TULIP (Daniel Weirbach, 2024), Weierbach wanted to create a five-letter acronym, based on flower name, that would “counter” the Calvinistic acronym TULIP, point-by-point, in sequential order. Here grows the Lotus:

• Liable Depravity - Each person is liable for their own sin, but not so depraved that they can’t choose to believe in the Gospel.
• Occupational Election - Election is never unto salvation, but is to an office, position, service, or blessing.
• Total Atonement - The death of Jesus Christ was sufficient to pay for the sins of the entire world, not only the “elect.”
• Unlimited Grace – God’s grace is unlimited in the sense that it extends to all people who have to decide to receive or reject it.
• Security of the Saints -A Christian has eternal security because of the power and promise of God.

The Lotus’s weak version of depravity encapsulates the spirit of the age, and sets the flower in array against the Bible itself. I quickly lost interest in any beauty it might have.

While looking into the LOTUS, I ran across another acrostic – PROVIDE. Not a flower this time, but evidently created by Southern Baptist theologian Leighton Flowers.

• People sin: Which separated all from fellowship with God.
• Responsible: Able-to-respond to God’s appeals for reconciliation.
• Open door: For anyone to enter by faith. Whosoever will may come to His open arms.
• Vicarious atonement: Provides a way for anyone to be saved by Christ’s blood.
• Illuminating grace: Provides clearly revealed truth so that all can know and respond in faith.
• Destroyed: For unbelief and resisting the Holy Spirit.
• Eternal security: For all true believers.

Provisionist Southern Baptists and Independent Baptists seem to be going of the cliff in rejecting total depravity. Regardless of any abuses of the terminology, we are totally depraved sinners whose only hope is Jesus Christ and not ourselves. Separated from God. No way back on our own. All of us. Totally. Hereditarily.

Theologically, LOTUS and PROVIDE seem to be two peas in a pod.

In other words, some isms

• Adoptionism, noun. A (heretical) theological teaching within Christianity that holds that Jesus Christ was essentially nondivine, but that he was adopted by God the Father (e.g., at his birth, or at his baptism).
• Bibliophilism, or Bibliophilia noun. The love of books.
• Complementarianism, noun. The religious view that men and women are equal in value before God but that their God-given roles in the family and the church are distinct (e.g., that some governing and teaching roles in the church are reserved only for men).
• Credentialism, noun. Undue emphasis on credentials (such as college degrees) as prerequisites to employment or promotion; Excessive trusting credentials in deciding what is correct or incorrect.
• Egalitarianism, noun. The religious view that men and women are equal before God and that any and all the functions and roles in the church are open to men and women alike.
• Exorcism, noun. The religious or spiritual practice of evicting demons and/or other malevolent spiritual entities from a person or place.
• Experientialism, or experimentalism, noun. The doctrine or teaching that all our knowledge has its origin in experience, and must submit to the test of experience; the practice of relying on experimentation empiricism, or empirical evidence.
• Mormonism, noun. A religion that originated with Joseph Smith in the United States in the 19th century, with teachings based on the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price; more formally known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
• Open theism, noun. A movement that denies the historic Christian view of God’s omniscience; a teaching that God does not know the future exhaustively, because he cannot know for certain the choices and actions of free moral agents.
• Pacificism, noun. The belief or teaching that peaceful relations should govern human intercourse and that methods such as arbitration, surrender, or migration should be used to resolve disputes; the rejection of all forms of warfare.
• Presentism, noun. Interpreting the past or past phenomena in terms of current attitudes and experience; the belief that only current phenomena are relevant.
• Presuppositionalism, or presuppositional apologetics, noun. An approach to apologetics that starts with the foundational axioms of the existence of God and his divine revelation given in Scripture.
• Schism, noun. A separation or division into factions; in Christianity, a formal breach of union within a religious body.
• Unitarianism, noun. A theological view that there is only one God (that is, as opposed to a Trinity) and that Jesus Christ was not divine, at least not in any literal sense.
• Yahwehism, noun. The modern movement to replace Jehovah as the name of God with Yahweh as the name of God.

In other (theological) words

• adiaphora, noun. Actions or beliefs which are neither commanded nor forbidden in scripture; theological or moral issues of which scripture does not speak definitively.
• Apollinarianism, noun. A 4th-century Christological teaching (by Apollinaris of Laodicea) that Christ had a human body and a human soul, but not human mind.
• apophatic theology, noun. A method or way of describing God by saying what he is not (also called via negationis, by or through denial, negation).
• Ausgangstext, noun. The initial or earliest source text of the Scriptures; the one ancestor of all the extant Greek copies (nor or not necessarily the autographa).
• decretive will, noun. A sovereign and efficacious will by which God brings to pass whatever he pleases by his divine decree; the plan of God which contains everything he has determined to bring to pass (also called sovereign will or secret will).
• ecclesiology, noun. The branch of theology that investigates what scripture teaches about the church or assemblies of Christ.
• eschatology, noun. The branch of theology that investigates what scripture teaches about final things (or last things, e.g., the return of Christ, the millennial kingdom, the final judgment).
• Eutychianism (or monophysitism), noun. A 5th-century Christological teaching (by Eutyches of Constantinople) that Christ had only one nature, a nature that was a mixture of divine and human nature that resulted in a third kind of nature.
• Frankentext (or Franken-text), noun. Reconstructed textual readings which can be found in no extant manuscripts; – textual units (e.g., a verse) of the Greek New Testament that cannot be found in any extant Greek manuscript (portmanteau of Frankenstein and text).
• Nestorianism, noun. A Christological teaching (identified with Nestorius) that taught that Jesus was two distinct persons, a human person and a divine person.
• norma normans non normata (or norma normans), noun. (Latin: the norm of norms that is not normed) The one standard which has no higher standard; a description of Scripture as the standard by which all other standards or rules of the Christian faith are measured.
• pactum salutis, noun. (Latin: salvation agreement) An agreement or covenant made in eternity past among the three persons of the Trinity to save a people (also called the covenant of redemption).
• perichoresis, noun. A theological term, derived from the Greek, used to express the intimate union of the three persons in the Trinity as they mutually indwell or interpenetrate each other.
• pneumatology, noun. The branch of theology that investigates what scripture teaches about the person and work of the Holy Spirit.
• preceptive will, noun. The will of God as related to his revealed law or commandments; what God has declared that we should do (also called revealed will).
• scariant, noun. Any textual variant that people are very worried (portmanteau of scary and variant).
• smudge, noun. A stain, fingerprint, drip, or other found splotch in/on a manuscript.
• soteriology. noun. The branch of theology that investigates what scripture teaches about salvation.
• worldview, noun. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world; a network of ultimate beliefs, assumptions, values, and ideas about the universe and our place in it, held by an individual or a group.

Hyper…ism

In religious speak, various views are often labeled some type of “hyper-ism” – Hyper-Calvinism, Hyper-Dispensationalism, Hyper-Arminianism, and so on.[i] 

“Hyper…ism” can be a useful description. The English prefix “hyper” means excess or exaggeration. It comes from the Greek ὑπέρ (huper), which means over or above. Some belief systems go “over and above” what is normally described by certain theological terms, such as Calvinism or Dispensationalism. A “hyper” belief may take some point of a particular theology to excess. Hyper-Calvinism probably most generally and historically describes a view that says it is unbiblical to exhort someone to repent and believe the gospel unless the preacher has some evidence that the person so exhorted is one of God’s elect.[ii] Hyper-Dispensationalism normally describes a belief that the church age or New Testament age does not begin until sometime in the middle of the book of Acts or later. This can get really confusing because some people divide these “hyper” views into “Hyper-Dispensationalism” (church begins Mid-Acts, e.g., Acts 9 or Acts 13) and “Ultra-Dispensationalism” (church begins in Acts 28 or later).

“Hyper…ism” can be an unhelpful description, because it often has no set meaning. The meaning often is determined by its distance from or relation to the speaker or writer using the term. For example, some non-Calvinists may speak of any type of Calvinism as “Hyper-Calvinism.” A non-dispensationalist may speak of any kind of dispensationalism as “Hyper-Dispensationalism.” Such uses are usually pejorative and polemic. It is also problematic because such a description is usually used about or against someone rather than it being how a person or group describes themselves. In other words, a church or denomination will not likely say, “Oh, yes, of course we are ‘hyper…ists.” They see their view as correct, not hyper. “Hyper…ism” is describing by comparison and according to the extreme, whether correctly or not.

When used for the better, a “hyper” issue is an overemphasis on a part of the Bible or theological teaching while disregarding a corresponding part of the Bible or theological teaching. The terminology exists and cannot be avoided. Nevertheless, it is probably best used sparingly, and when using it we should carefully define what we mean.

---

[i] “Hyper-Arminianism” seems never to have gained much traction, though sometimes it might be applied to Easy-Believism, Pelagianism, Open Theism, and such like.

[ii] Additionally, one must deal with “High Calvinism” and “Low Calvinism.”

The slow method of insulated assault

George Junkin addresses the problem of gradually removing biblical support for a doctrine versus the outright denial of that doctrine.

Before proceeding in the matter of this charge, allow me three observations. 1. It is possible to teach error by denying the truth—to take away sound doctrine positively, by a series of detail in the negative, ex gr.: Certain texts of Scripture, say twenty in number, have been depended on to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. I wish to reject that doctrine and yet do not feel it to be prudent to do it openly. It may be done more successfully and safely by denying in the detail, that it is taught in any of these passages. I put a gloss upon the passage which contains a history of Christ’s baptism, and conclude, by saying, whatever may be the truth or falsehood of the doctrine of the Trinity, it is not taught here. I take up the words used at baptism, “in the name of the Father, &c.” and gloss over and conclude, that doctrine has no foundation here. And so throughout the whole. Have I not really denied the doctrine of the Trinity! And yet I have not in any one instance said “It is not true—it is not taught in the Bible.” Is there a more effectual mode of attacking truth than this partizan war; this slow method of insulated assault?

But then it will be said in reply, “I have only removed certain texts which have been usually supposed to prove the doctrine of the sinners inability,” there are yet scores of others left. Very true, but the same process may take away the rest. Now my position is, that when a writer displays a disposition to take away the Scripture props from any doctrine, it is evident he dislikes the doctrine itself.

George Junkin in The Vindication, containing a History of the Trial of the Rev. Albert Barnes, George Junkin, Philadelphia, PA: W. S. Martin, 1836, pages 41-42.

Two Old Paths

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

Introduction

In many of our like faith churches, when we begin to speak of “the old paths,” our minds often run immediately to church truth, local & visible congregations, immersion is baptism, strict communion, etc. And rightly so. However, in the 21st century, we find ourselves in a quandary where we must go back to the beginning, to two “old paths” that are older than (before) the rest: (1) The doctrine of God, and (2) The doctrine of Scripture.

Our church statement of faith lays out two foundational truths, from which all our church doctrines grow: We believe that God is, and that he has revealed himself in the sixty-six books we call the Holy Bible.

1. God is eternally self-existent. Genesis 1:1; Exodus 3:14; Hebrews 11:6.
2. The Bible is inspired by God. Psalm 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

The doctrine of God

God is the Creator.

a. The Bible begins on that note, in Genesis 1:1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. It does not stop there, but continues to reiterate the message. Isaiah 40:28

Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

b. His creation is to and for his own ends or purpose.

Proverbs 16:4 The Lord hath made all things for himself:

c. He sustains and upholds the world by the power of his might

Hebrews 1:3 who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power

God is Sovereign.

a. He does whatsoever he pleases in heaven and earth Psalm 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased. Psalm 135:6 Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places.

b. Who can say anything against him? Romans 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

c. God is true; he is truth alone. Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar

Nebuchaddnezzar recognized the sovereign God. Daniel 2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

God is our Saviour.

a. There is one God. Isaiah 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the Lord? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

b. There is one Saviour. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

c. Neither is there any other. Acts 4:12  Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

We must reject the unknown God of the Athenians, the unknowable God of the Deists, the “no” God of atheists and agnostics, and return to the God of the Bible, the God of our fathers, the God who sees and knows all things, who does all things as he pleases and does them all well!

The doctrine of Scripture

God revealed himself to Moses from a burning bush, and to us from a burning Bible. Jeremiah 23:29 Is not my word like as a fire?

Scripture is inspired.

a. God gave the word (Psalm 68:11); God breathed the word. 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

b. The Holy Ghost moved the prophetic speakers and writers. 2 Peter 1:20-21 knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Scripture is preserved.

a. God gave his word as he wanted, without addition or subtraction. Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure… Add thou not unto his words

b. His purpose in giving his words stands in his purpose to preserve his words. Psalm 33:11 The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations. Psalm 12:6-7 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

c. God stands by and watches over his word; it will not return void; it will stand; it will not pass away. Ezekiel 12:25 For I am the Lord: I will speak, and the word that I shall speak shall come to pass… Isaiah 55:11; Matthew 24:35; 1 Peter 1:24-25

d. We will be judged by his forever words. Revelation 20:12 and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books…  John 12:48

Scripture presents the Saviour.

a. The holy scriptures make one wise unto salvation 2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. When Eve saw the tree in the midst of the garden was a tree to be desired to make one wise (Genesis 3:6), she partook of it. Rather than making she and Adam wise, it made them dead in trespasses and sin.

b. The holy scriptures testify that eternal life is in Jesus Christ. John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard? (Isaiah 40:28) Yes, we have heard and we know because we have the inspired preserved Scriptures which testify of the Lord Jesus Christ.

In Why I Preach from the Received Text, Tanner Dikin wrote, “If the reliability of the holy Scripture is in question, we have no solid ground for our faith.” I agree, and would add, “If we cannot trust that God has kept his word, which says he keeps our souls, how can we trust that he keeps our souls?” Where is the end of rejecting the inspired preserved word of God? Despair. What is the answer to despair? Jesus. John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Conclusion

Psalm 11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? Perhaps we at times have been like a man defending his roof and walls, blissfully unaware of the attack on the very foundation itself. We must return to these two old paths and aggressively contend for this part of the faith once delivered to the saints.

When...I went into the sanctuary of God...

The house of God is, always has been, and always will be the best place to do theology.

• Psalm 27:4 One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to enquire in his temple.
• Psalm 55:14 We took sweet counsel together, and walked unto the house of God in company.
• Psalm 73:16-17 When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me; until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end.
• Psalm 92:13 Those that be planted in the house of the Lord shall flourish in the courts of our God.
• Psalm 122:1 I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the Lord.
• 1 Timothy 3:15 but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
• 1 Peter 2:5 ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Black Rock Address, on Theological Institutions

The Black Rock Address is a statement adopted September 28, 1832 by a group of Baptists convened at the Black Rock meeting-house in Baltimore, Maryland. The statement reflects their thoughts on several innovations gaining popularity in that time. The following opinions were given on Theological Institutions.

Colleges and Theological Schools next claim our attention. In speaking of colleges, we wish to be distinctly understood that it is not to colleges, collegial education, as such, that we have objection. We would cheerfully afford our own children such an education, did circumstances warrant the measure. But we object, in the first place, to sectarian colleges, as such. The idea of a Baptist College, and of a Presbyterian College, &c., necessarily implies that our distinct views of church government of gospel doctrine and gospel ordinances, are connected with human sciences, a principle which we cannot admit: we believe the kingdom of Christ to be altogether a kingdom not of this world. In the second place, we object to the notion of attaching professorships of divinity to colleges; because this evidently implies that the revelation which God has made of himself is a human science, on a footing with mathematics, philosophy, law, &c., which is contrary to the general tenor of revelation, and indeed to the very idea of a revelation. We perhaps need not add that we have for the same reason strong objection to colleges conferring the degree of Doctor of Divinity, and to preachers receiving it.—Thirdly, We decidedly object to persons after professing to have been called of the Lord to preach His gospel, going to a college or academy to fit themselves for that service.—lst. Because we believe that Christ possesses perfect knowledge of his own purposes, and of the proper instruments by which to accomplish them. If he has occasion for a man of science, he having power over all flesh, will so order it that the individual shall obtain the requisite learning before he calls him to his service, as was the case with Saul of Tarsus, and others since; and thus avoid subjecting himself to the imputation of weakness. For should Christ call a person to labor in the gospel field, who was unqualified for the work assigned him, it would manifest him to be deficient in knowledge relative to the proper instruments to employ, or defective in power to provide them. 2nd. Because we believe that the Lord calls no man to preach his gospel, till he has made him experimentally acquainted with that gospel, and endowed him with the proper measure of gifts, suiting the field he designs him to occupy; and the person giving himself up in obedience to the voice of Christ will find himself learning in Christ’s own school. But when a person professedly called of Christ to the gospel ministry, concludes that, in order to be useful, he must first go and obtain an academical education, he must judge that human science is of more importance in the ministry, than that knowledge and those gifts which Christ imparts to his servants. To act consistently then with his own principles, he will place his chief dependence for usefulness on his scientific knowledge, and aim mostly to display this in his preaching. This person, therefore, will pursue a very different course in his preaching, from that marked out by the great apostle to the Gentiles, who determined to know nothing among the people save Jesus Christ and him crucified.

As to Theological Schools, we shall at present content ourselves with saying that they are a reflection upon the faithfulness of the Holy Ghost, who is engaged according to the promise of the great Head of the church to lead the disciples into all truth. See John xvi. 13. Also, that in every age, from the school of Alexandria down to this day, they have been a real pest to the church of Christ. Of this we could produce abundant proof, did the limits of our address admit their insertion.

Inclusivism in religion

Inclusivism in religion by definition is “the view that all religions have a partial truth” – that in the relationship between religions, while there may be a set of beliefs that is absolutely true, all religions are at least partially true. Exclusivism, on the other hand, asserts that there is only one true way of belief and all other religions are in error.[i] For example, exclusivism in Christianity states that the Bible is God’s truth and Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation. Inclusivism finds good in all religions, with the result that one may be “saved” by whatever way he or she seeks for or relates to God. Inclusivism in practical terms, among those I know who are inclusivists, usually resorts toward the end of the spectrum that all beliefs are equally valid.

I find it interesting how broad and how narrow the inclusivist view can be. Inclusivism stresses that all beliefs are equally valid, but will not validate the exclusivist view. Therefore, anything and everything that seeks God can be good, except the view that there is only one God and one way to seek him! How inclusive is that?

The Bible teaches there is only one true God (e.g. Deuteronomy 6:4-5; Isaiah 37:16) and that there is only one way to know the true God, through Jesus Christ (e.g. John 14:6; Acts 4:12). For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Selah.

---

[i] Not that every single thing they say or teach is in error, but specifically the way to God.

All uninspired writings are liable to contain error

The Scriptures accompanied by the aids of the Holy Spirit are the only source, which the servant of God can derive or desire that instruction which is requisite to qualify him for teaching the great truths of Religion...as all uninspired writings are liable to contain error, though the productions of pious men, they should be consulted with great caution, lest errors be imbibed with truth...in case one wishes to consult any of these helps on any significant point, he should first examine the Scripture thereon, carefully comparing Scripture with Scripture, and thus get as good understanding upon it as possible himself, unaided by any other book other than the Bible. He will then be prepared to read to advantage men's views; and will know far better to receive his truth and reject his error...the establishment of a Theological School which shall require any given amount of knowledge to be acquired, and any specific length of time, to be spent in Biblical studies, will not tend to promote the scriptural prosperity of the connection. 

-- "Proceedings of the Freewill Baptist Convention," Acton Maine, January 15, 1840

Theology--Ought Not to Be Petrified Scripture

"Teeth are needlessly broken over the grit of systematic theology, while souls are famishing. To turn stones into bread was a temptation of our Master; but how many of His servants yield readily to the far worse temptation to turn bread into stone! Go thy way, metaphysical divine, to the stone-yard, and break granite for McAdam, but stand not in the way of loving spirits who would feed the family of God with living bread. The inspired Word is to us spirit and life, and we cannot afford to have it hardened into a huge monolith or a spiritual Stonehenge—sublime but cold, majestic but lifeless; far rather would we have it as our own household book, our bosom companion, the poor man's counsellor and friend." -- From the book Feathers for Arrows; or, Illustrations for Preachers and Teachers, by Charles Spurgeon, pp. 243-244

Systematic Theology question

Q: “Who in the Baptist tradition have written Systematic Theologies?”

A: I knew of some, and searched online for others. Here is what I found:

• Bancroft, Emery H., Christian Theology, Systematic and Biblical, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976
• Boyce, James Petigru, Abstract of Systematic Theology, Louisville, KY: SBTS Press, 2013, First published in 1887
• Cloud, David, Give Attendance to Doctrine, Port Huron, MI: Way of Life Literature, 2002
• Cobb, Jesse Emeziah, Brief Studies in Christian Doctrines, Little Rock, AR: Baptist Publications Committee, 1957
• Conner, Walter Thomas, A System of Christian Doctrine, Nashville, TN: Sunday School Board of the SBC, 1924
• Dagg, John Leadley, Manual of Theology: a Treatise on Christian Doctrine, Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, 1871
• Dargan, Edwin Charles, The Doctrines of Our Faith: a Convenient Handbook for Use in Normal Classes, Sacred Literature Courses and Individual Study, Nashville, TN: Sunday School Board, Southern Baptist Convention, 1905
• Enns, Paul P., Moody Handbook of Theology, Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1989
• Erickson, Millard J., Christian Theology, 3rd Edition, Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 2013
• Forlines, F. Leroy, The Quest for Truth: Theology for Postmodern Times, Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2001
• Fortner, Donald S., Basic Bible Doctrine, Boise, ID: Go Publications, 2004
• Garner, Albert, Defense of the Faith; or Christian Doctrine, Texarkana, TX: Bogard Press, 1997
• Garrett, James Leo, Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Evangelical, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, (Volume 1, 1990), (Volume 2, 1995)
• Gill, John, Gill’s Complete Body of Practical and Doctrinal Divinity: being a System of Evangelical Truths, deduced from the Sacred Scriptures, Philadelphia, PA: Delaplaine and Hellings, 1810 (originally published in 1767 and 1770, respectively)
• Gowens, Michael L., Basic Bible Doctrines: Systematic Theology for the Person in the Pew, Shallotte, NC: Sovereign Grace Publications, 2015
• Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology: an Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007
• Hovey, Alvah, Manual of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics, Boston MA: 1877
• Johnson, Elias Henry, and Henry G. Weston, An Outline of Systematic Theology and of Ecclesiology, Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, 1895
• McClendon Jr., James William, Ethics: Systematic Theology Volume 1, 1986; Doctrine: Systematic Theology Volume 2, 1994; Witness: Systematic Theology Volume 3, 2000; Nashville, TN: Abington Press
• McCune, Rolland, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, Detroit, MI: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, in three volumes, Vol. 1 (2009), Vol. 2 (2010), Vol. 3 (2010)
• Moody, Dale, The Word of Truth: a Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981
• Mullins, Edgar Young, The Christian Religion in its Doctrinal Expression, Philadelphia, PA: Roger Williams Press, 1917
• Pendleton, James Madison, Christian Doctrines: a Compendium of Theology, Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1878/1980
• Pepper, George Dana Boardman, Outlines of Systematic Theology, Philadelphia, PA: J.A. Rogers Co., 1873
• Sargent, Robert J., Landmarks of Baptist Doctrine (4 Volume Set), Oak Harbor, WA: Bible Baptist Church Publications, 1990
• Sarrels, Reuben Vance, Systematic Theology, Azle, TX: Harmony Hill, a Primitive Baptist Foundation, 1975
• Simmons, Thomas Paul, A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine: a Logical Arrangement and a Diligent Treatment of the Teachings of God’s Holy Word, Ashland, KY: T. P. Simmons Memorial Foundation, 1996
• Strong, Augustus Hopkins, Systematic Theology, Rochester, NY: E. R. Andrews, 1886

I have not worried about whether these books will fit everyone’s definition of a systematic theology book. Some may be beginnner level and some advanced. I have tried to research to be sure all these are or were Baptists. As far as I can tell all listed above were Baptists of one brand or another, at some time or another. There is no pretense that the list is exhaustive.

Listing a book that meets the qualifications is not an endorsement of any merit of the book. Caveat lector.

[Note: Systematic Theology presents all scriptural teaching on specific doctrines, gathered by subject and presented one at a time. In it the teachings of the Bible are organized into categories – e.g. the doctrine of God, the doctrine of salvation, the doctrine of baptism, etc.]

* Thanks to Peter Lumpkins for book suggestions.

Open Theism: a Conclusion

C. S. Lewis once wrote, “Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow.”
 My, how things have changed.

While Open Theism isn’t on the radar of many Baptists in their local churches, it is growing in popularity in the theological world. Both the Christianity Today periodical and the Evangelical Theological Society seem to be promoting its acceptance (at the least not warning against it). It is founded in ideas of radical libertarian freewill, and appears, in part, to be an adverse reaction to strong views on the predestination, decrees and purpose of God. It seeks to “reconcile” God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. It is a growing issue, as Martyn McGeown notes, “Open theism is not on the lunatic fringe in Christendom. Leading evangelicals espouse this heresy.”

Open Theism presents an unbiblical view of God. A warped view of God can distort other doctrines, such as God’s wrath, God’s righteousness, the substitutionary atonement, salvation by grace and others. A biblical view of God embraces “God and the Three O’s” -- omnipresence (all present; Proverbs 15:3), omnipotence (all powerful; Revelation 19:6); and omniscience (all knowing; John 21:17). Open Theism disputes most directly God’s omniscience, but this affects thoughts on his omnipresence and omnipotence as well.

Open Theism should be pointed out, warned against and rejected.

God is not a man. He is not like us. “For he is not a man, as I am...(Job 9:32)” “...Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself...(Psalm 50:21).” “...I am God, and there is none like me. (Isaiah 46:9)”

Open Theism: What Is It?
Open Theism: Against God's Omniscience
Open Theism: Problem Passages

Open Theism: Problem Passages

There are some verses and incidents in the Bible that seem to contradict God's outright omniscience in all cases at all times. Let’s look at a few of these that are raised by Open Theists and others.

Did God know where Adam and Eve were hiding? 

• Genesis 3:8b-9 “...Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?” 
• Open Theistic Conclusion: God had to look for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, so he doesn't know everything. 
•  This example is actually a quite strange objection – very often mentioned but well understood textually even by most of those who don’t believe God is absolutely omniscient. Rather than a confused God who is looking for a couple he can’t find, God is asking a question to draw out the thoughts of his hearers, Adam and Eve. God uses this method again, recorded in Genesis 4:9-10 “And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper? And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.” It is unquestionably clear that God does not ask this question for his own knowledge, but to draw out the thoughts of his hearer, Cain. This is a common teaching technique.

Did God make a mistake in creating mankind? 

• Genesis 6:6 “And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” 
• Open Theistic Conclusion: God made a mistake, not foreseeing what would go wrong with his creation. 
• Genesis 6:6 doesn't delve into the arena of knowledge or foreknowledge. It relates what we would describe as “feelings”. On the other hand, verse 3 is about knowledge and foreknowledge, when God unequivocally states what he is going to do: “And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.” In “it repented the Lord” and “it grieved him” we find two of many biblical uses of anthropomorphic language.[1] When the Bible says that the sun rises and sets, it adapts to man-centered language -- rather than using God-centered language. From God’s perspective the sun doesn’t move. From man’s perspective the sun rises and sets. God does as he pleases (Psalm 115:3; 135:6), and in this case it pleased him to “repent” and “grieve” (Daniel 4:35). From their perspective, some men say God did not know what would happen when he created the world.  But Isaiah says he knows and declares the end from the beginning. The statement in Genesis 6 is not addressing the knowledge of God from an intellectual standpoint. It is, rather, addressing the concern of God for his creation -- expressing his great displeasure of sin and explaining why he would judge the whole earth.

Is God uncertain of the future? 

• Exodus 4:9 “And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe also these two signs, neither hearken unto thy voice, that thou shalt take of the water of the river, and pour it upon the dry land: and the water which thou takest out of the river shall become blood upon the dry land.” 
• Open Theistic Conclusion: God gave extra signs, since he didn’t know for sure which ones the Israelites would believe. 
• Did God know how the people would react? Yes. Rather than directly telling Moses that he knew they would not immediately respond to the signs, God is preparing Moses -- by demonstrating his power and supplying him with other signs to perform when they respond unfavourably to the first signs. The signs operated just as God designed and foreknew. The continual demonstration of his ample grace increases faith, first of Moses, and then of the children of Israel.

Did God change his mind about Israel because he didn’t know something? 

• Exodus 32:11-14 “And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.” 
• Open Theistic Conclusion: Because of unforeseen circumstances, God was about to wipe out the nation he was creating. 
• The Lord knows the way of the righteous and will bless it. The Lord knows the way of the ungodly and shall judge it (Psalm 1:6). God demonstrates both his fierce wrath and ample grace. In “the Lord repented” we again find the biblical use of anthropomorphic language, an expression of God’s “feelings”. In Exodus 32, from Moses’s perspective, God seemed to change. And in the sense of responding conditionally, he did “change” (see Jeremiah 18:5-11; “if that nation…turn from their evil, I will repent”). He answered Moses’s prayer. This is a series of actions demonstrating God’s justice and grace and not a lack of foreknowledge on God’s part (cf. Jonah 3:4b,10; 4:2).

Is there something that never entered God’s mind? 

• Jeremiah 32:35 “And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.”
• Open Theistic Conclusion: The thought of sacrificing children was something God was unable to foresee. 
• This is an expression of incredulity in the human sense, not a remark on God’s overall knowledge.  The statement emphasizes the presumptuous nature of their acts. God did not order it by his law or his prophets, and in no way approved of their actions. It was a grievous sin and an abomination.

Was God surprised by what happened? 

• Isaiah 5:3-4 “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?” 
• Open Theistic Conclusion: God expected something that did not come to pass. 
• Was God surprised by the progress of his vineyard?  This is a simple manner of expression of truth my means of a parable rather than conundrum concerning God's knowledge. “When I looked that it should bring forth grapes” speaks of the lack of proper and timely response to the work of God, as would by nature occur in a vineyard, and is not expressly saying something about God’s foreknowledge.

The above verses are a small sampling of some of those used by Open Theists to “prove” that God is not omniscient or all-knowing. A Google search will easily reveal other disputed verses, as well as answers to the Open Theist view much better than the ones provided here.

Open Theism: What Is It?
Open Theism: Against God's Omniscience


[1] Anthropomorphic language – “ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, especially to a deity” (Dictionary.com) Anthropomorphic language in the Bible presents God in human terms that we might have some human understanding of and empathy with his actions.

"The term “anthropomorphism,” in its restricted sense, refers to the representation of God with the forms of humanity (such as an arm or hand). “Anthropopathism” refers to the representation of God with the feelings of humanity. “Anthropopraxism” refers to the representation of God with the activities of humanity." -- From Recognizing and Interpreting Anthropomorphic Language

Open Theism: Against God's Omniscience

Hank Hanegraaff writes, “It’s not too surprising to hear non-Christians and even cultists deny that God is omniscient.[1] But what is surprising is that a growing number of theologians today who profess to be evangelicals also deny it.” Open Theism posits a view of God’s knowledge in which there are things which are unknowable to God. This is the big difference between Open Theism and more traditional views of God. Christians have usually professed that God knows all things.[2] Open Theism attempts to reconcile God’s knowledge, man’s free will and the “problem” of evil (while embracing some verses which appear to say that God did not know something). Like any other theological view, all points of Open Theism are not agreed even among those who hold the view. The consistent thread seems to be: God does not know the future exhaustively because the future depends on human libertarian free will choices – which do not exist until man makes them.

The Bible teaches that God is omniscient or all-knowing: 1 John 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. His omniscience extends throughout eternity, embracing past, present and future.

In the past

• “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
• “Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.” (John 1:48)
• “for thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.” (John 4:18)

In the present

• “For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven;” (Job 28:24)
• “And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?” (Matthew 9:4) 
• “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.” (Matthew 10:29-30)

In the future

• “Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.” (Psalm 139:16)
• “that saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;” (Isaiah 44:28-45:1)
• “Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.” (Matthew 26:34)

Man knows something of the past and the present, but only partially. He knows the future only as a possibility. God knows all things – past, present and future. The truth of his omniscience is seen in declarative statements of the Bible. He knows everything that will occur from the beginning to the end of human history (Isaiah 46:9-10). He knows our thoughts and words, even before we think or speak them (Psalm 139:4), knows our prayers before we ask (Matthew 6:8) and knows our hearts and their secrets (1 Kings 8:39; Psalm 44:21). His eyes are in every place (Proverbs 15:3), and his understanding is infinite or unlimited (Psalm 147:5). There is nothing that escapes God’s knowledge or notice (Psalm 19:6, Psalm 139:7-12; Proverbs 5:21). His knowledge of what’s going to happen in the future is seen in fulfilled prophecies (Isaiah 41:21-24; 42:9; 44:7), whether fulfilled shortly (1 Kings 22:28-38; Matthew 26:34) or many years later (1 Kings 21:23; cf. 2 Kings 9:36; Matthew 24:2).

Isaiah 46:9-11 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

Other verses to consider include: Psalm 115:3; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Isaiah 48:3-6; Jeremiah 1:5; John 16:30; John 18:4; John 21:17; Hebrews 4:13; 2 Peter 3:8.

Throughout the Bible, its writers in distinct ways regularly tell us that God knows everything. There are some verses and incidents that seem to contradict this. But when understood rightly in their context these cases are clarified and fit the overarching biblical theme of God’s omniscience. Let’s look at some of those tomorrow.

Open Theism: What is It?

[1] Omniscient – “having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.” (Dictionary.com)
[2] While there are variations of belief – such as debating about contingencies – orthodox Christians consistently maintain that God knows all things. Matthew 11:21-23 indicates that God knows what people would have done if he had put them in different circumstances (“...if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes...if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.”).

Open Theism: What is It?

What is Open Theism?

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines Open Theism as "the thesis that, because God loves us and desires that we freely choose to reciprocate His love, He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions. Though omniscient, God does not know what we will freely do in the future." Further that "Open Theists affirm that God knows all the truths that can be known, [but] they claim that there simply are not yet truths about what will occur in the 'open', undetermined future. Alternatively, there are such contingent truths, but these truths cannot be known by anyone, including God."

Responding on Rachel Held Evans's blog, Open Theist Greg Boyd writes, "If I had to define 'Open Theism' in one sentence, I would say that it as the view that the future is partly comprised of possibilities and is therefore known by God as partly comprised of possibilities...God chose to create a cosmos that is populated with free agents – at least humans and angels. To have free will means that one has the ability to transition several possible courses of action into one actual course of action...While God can decide to pre-settle whatever aspects of the future he wishes, to the degree that he has given agents freedom, God has chosen to leave the future open, as a domain of possibilities, for agents to resolve with their free choices." He acknowledges this view "conflicts with the understanding of the future that has been espoused by classical theologians."

According to Matt Slick at Carm.Org "Open Theism, also called openness and the open view, is a theological position dealing with human free will and its relationship to God and the nature of the future. It is the teaching that God has granted to humanity free will and that in order for the free will to be truly free, the future free will choices of individuals cannot be known ahead of time by God....that God can only know that which is knowable, and since the future has not yet happened, it cannot be exhaustively known by God."

Tim Challies defines open theism as "a sub-Christian theological construct which claims that God’s highest goal is to enter into a reciprocal relationship with man. In this scheme, the Bible is interpreted without any anthropomorphisms - that is, all references to God’s feelings, surprise and lack of knowledge are literal and the result of His choice to create a world where He can be affected by man’s choices. God’s exhaustive knowledge does not include future free will choices by mankind because they have not yet occurred." He quotes Open Theist Clark Pinnock saying, "Decisions not yet made do not exist anywhere to be known even by God. They are potential—yet to be realized, but not yet actual. God can predict a great deal of what we will choose to do, but not all of it, because some of it remains hidden in the mystery of human freedom."

* I thought I had posted on this subject before, but cannot find that I have -- so am addressing it in a few posts.

A famous Lewis quote

C. S. Lewis: “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

Purpose in Disorder

"But now we see not yet all things put under him." Hebrews 2:8 

"Take a scriptural instance, the highest and greatest that we can give, to shew that where, to outward appearance, all is disorder, there the greatest wisdom and most determinate will reign. Look at the crucifixion of our blessed Lord. Can you not almost see the scene as painted in the word of truth? See those scheming priests, that wild mob, those rough soldiers, that faltering Roman governor, the pale and terrified disciples, the weeping women, and, above all, the innocent Sufferer with the crown of thorns, and enduring that last scene of surpassing woe, which made the earth quake, and the sun withdraw his light. What confusion! What disorder! What triumphant guilt! What oppressed and vanquished innocence! But was it really so? Was there no wisdom or power of God here accomplishing, even by the instrumentality of human wickedness, his own eternal purposes? Hear his own testimony to this point: "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" (Acts 2:23)." -- J. C. Philpot

God of Earth and Outer Space

“God of Earth and Outer Space” was written by Thad Roberts Jr. in 1970, and included in the 1975 Baptist Hymnal. Here is the hymn.

God of earth and outer space,
God of love and God of grace,
Bless the astronauts who fly,
As they soar beyond the sky.
God who flung the stars in space,
God who set the sun ablaze,
Fling the spacecraft thru the air,
Let man know your presence there.

God of atmosphere and air,
God of life and planets bare,
Use man’s courage and his skill
As he seeks your holy will.
God of depth and God of height,
God of darkness, God of light,
As man walks in outer space,
Teach him how to walk in grace.

God of man’s exploring mind,
God of wisdom, God of time,
Launch us from complacency
To a world in need of thee.
God of power, God of might,
God of rockets firing bright.
Hearts ignite and thrust within,
Love for Christ to share with men.

God of earth and outer space,
God who guides the human race,
Guide the lives of seeking youth
In their search for heav'nly truth.
God who reigns below, above,
God of universal love,
Love that gave Nativity,
Love that gave us Calvary.

This hymn has been "nominated" by several people as "the worst" or "the stupidest" hymn ever. Greg Adkins makes fun of it in his post The Baptist Hymnal, Hymn #20, All 4 verses, standing as we sing, writing "it is pretty amazing that someone was able to write a worship song including the words 'spacecraft', 'rocket', 'astronauts', 'outerspace', and 'thrust'." David Bruce Murray, author of Murray's Encyclopedia of Southern Gospel Music, calls it the Worst…Hymn…Ever….* He writes, "For me, the clear winner is hymn #20 from the 1975 version of the Baptist Hymnal...'God Of Earth And Outer Space'." It is apparent from some comments at David Murray's blog that the problem is not just with the words, but that they clearly have a distaste for minor music. The tune is Aberystwyth written by Joseph Parry in 1879.

In contrast Jonathan Pritchett writes In defense of “God of Earth and Outer Space”. He says "Not only should this song be sang more often, but we need more songs that combine themes of faith and science, creation, the sovereignty of God and His love revealed in Jesus Christ."

David Music notes that “God of Earth and Outer Space” and two other "space" hymns were written in the late 60 and early 70s -- "the most vigorous period of America's space exploration program" and that after "manned space flight began to be de-emphasized" these "hymns about space and its exploration quickly fell out of favor." ("I Will Sing the Wondrous Story": A History of Baptist Hymnody in North America, p. 473)

While a few things about the hymn strike me as a little odd, I suspect Music's observation best captures what happened. The song seemed relevant in the early 1970s, but after that it seemed a little weird to glorify God in the realm of space exploration. But the overall tenor of the hymn doesn't strike me as anywhere near hilarious, as is portrayed by some writers on the web.

Is this the "worst hymn ever" (as Murray)? Or does it combine themes that should be sung more often (as Pritchett)? Or does it fall somewhere in the middle? What do you think? 

* Murray qualifies his selection as a "worst" category choosing from hymns that made it into a popular hymnal.

Tulips, Roses, Poinsettias and Lilies: a veritable theological garden

Several years ago I posted on Calvinism and other acrostics. Since that time I’ve noticed a few other theological acronyms blooming. Here’s some of the old and new.

The oldest and most established flower, of course, is the Tulip.
* The Five Points of Calvinism

Others that have appeared in the soteriological hot bed, though not necessarily flourished, include:

Roses
* “Roses” (an Alternative to TULIP)

Two different Daisies (one of which sounds more like a caricature of Arminian theology than a flower planted by an Arminian)
* The Five Points of Arminianism
* DAISY: The 5 Points of Arminianism

The Lily
* Malcolm Yarnell’s Lily

Lilac (an “Arminian” list also crafted by a Calvinist)
* The Poisonous Petals of the Arminian LILAC

As if Calvinism needed another, there is always the Aster:
Absolute predestination
Specific atonement
Total inability
Effectual calling
Reliable promise

Perhaps the best supported of the new acronyms is the Poinsettia, sporting many more than the traditional five petals.
* Doctrinal Statement -- “Poinsettia: a new flower in the soteriological garden”