« Agreed: Have a Fun Week by Peter Lumpkins | Main | How Infathomable the Humanity of Christ: Mark Driscoll vs. G. C. Berkouwer »

Nov 04, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451a37369e20120a6529e55970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Baptist Calvinism is Exclusively Five Point Calvinism: Or is it? by Peter Lumpkins :

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

David R. Brumbelow

Very interesting. And I agree that Jesus died for all.
David R. Brumbelow

Tony Byrne

Broaddus can be downloaded and read here. He seems to be another guy who distinguishes between "atonement" and "redemption," with the former being the substitionary accomplishment for all, and the latter being particular. The careful student will find the same categories and labeling of those categories in Andrew Fuller [later in life], Charles Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd, and R. L. Dabney. These men were also critical of the "pecuniary" or literal payment view, and therefore criticize the "double payment" argument.

Notice what Dagg says here as well:

"The adaptedness of Christ's death to serve as a ground for universal gospel invitations, constitutes it in the view of some persons a universal redemption. . . Other persons who maintain the doctrine of particular redemption, distinguish between redemption and atonement, and because of the adaptedness referred to, consider the death of Christ an atonement for the sins of all men; or as an atonement for sin in the abstract."

J. L. Dagg, Manual of Theology (Harrisonburg, VA.: Gano Books, 1990), 326.

What people don't know today is that there is a variety of "particular redemption" that maintains that Christ was an "atonement" for the sins of all men. Their categories are the same as Calvinists who maintain "universal redemption," but they just label it differently, preferring to use the term "redemption" for the application alone, instead of using it for the ransom price paid on the cross as well.

The key question to be asked in this debate is: For whose sins was Christ punished? Or, as Fuller states it, "The only subject on which I ought to have been here interrogated is, 'The persons for whom Christ was a substitute; whether the elect only, or mankind in general.'” [See Andrew Fuller, “Six Letters to Dr. Ryland Respecting The Controversy with the Rev. A. Booth: Letter III on Substitution,” in The Works of Andrew Fuller (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 2:706.] Fuller's answer is: for mankind in general. Incidentally, Fuller [as well as Ralph Wardlaw and Gardener Spring] even answers one of Dr. Greg Welty's own objections at the end of this writing by distinguishing between moral and natural barriers, which I may eventually elaborate upon elsewhere.

Fuller eventually moved in to the classical Calvinistic position, but if you try to advocate this position among the "Founders," you'll be treated with hostility. Fuller even argues in his letter on "Substitution" that you can't have a sincere gospel offer from God to all without an objective extrinsic sufficiency, or univeral substitution, in Christ for all men. Again, if you try to press the "Founders" with that particular Fullerite point, you'll be treated with hostility and/or get marginalized. Moreover, it's likely that James P. Boyce agreed with Fuller and Charles Hodge [and their labels], not with Owen's limited imputation of sin to Christ, or a limited substitution.

Nota Bene: If all men are not saveable due to Christ's death, then all men are not offerable. Offerability pressuposes salvability, and there cannot be universal salvability without Christ bearing the punishment that all men deserve.

Tony

Tony Byrne

I might also add that the common notion among Calvinists today is that unless you hold to the strict view of "particular redemption," you're sub-calvinistic at best, or they'll just slap the "Amyraldian" label on you, in order to marginalize your belief as not really "Reformed." Dan Phillips [on TeamPyro] engages in that very kind of behaviour. See my interaction with his critique of Driscoll's moderate atonement position near the bottom of the comments. I [a moderate Calvinist] even quoted Godfrey, Muller and Trueman [all strict Calvinists] on confessional boundaries and Amyraldianism and I was still treated in a disrespectful way, after making valid and cogent historical points. In order for Dan maintain his assessment of Driscoll's atonement position, he not only has to disagree with Godfrey, Muller and Trueman, but he also has to disagree with John Owen's assessment of Richard Baxter and Francis Turretin's assessment of Saumur theologians, like Amyraut. For crying out loud, Dan Phillips, using his strict criteria, would have to say that Zacharias Ursinus and Heinrich Bullinger were not really "Reformed"! These men believed in a form of non-Amyraldian "hypothetical universalism," as Dr. Richard Muller describes it, which is to say they believed in a form of universal redemption. When this astounding level of historical ignorance, stubbornness and hostility prevails among Calvinists themselves, it's no wonder the SBC is having difficulties in its ranks.

Tony

Tony Byrne

Some of W. G. T. Shedd on the atonement can be read here, for those interested.

peter lumpkins

Tony,

Thanks, brother. You ever bring salient points to light. Founders Ministries caters specifically to Dortian Calvinism adherents (Dort as exclusively interpreted by them) and extends little theo-support to anyone else.

I've read the sad exchanges you've had on the Founders blog, even with the bloghost. The dismissal of your strong convictional Calvinism is so evident and so patently obvious, only a person with a fatal dose of dumb could miss it.

I've said often and will continue to say:

Founders' Calvinism is presently being poised to wreck the Southern Baptist Convention.

And, those in bed with Founders' leaders--whether Calvinists or non-Calvinists--are nonetheless full co-belligerents in accomplishing the Founders Ministries' skewed vision: to "reform" the SBC, pastor by pastor, church by church, until the "gospel" [that is, the gospel through their non-negotiable, particular Calvinistic lens] is "restored" to Baptist life.

With that, I am...
Peter

volfan007

Hey everyone, if you want to hear me preach, go to my blog... fromthehillsandhollers.blogspot.com and you can hear me preaching last Sunday. I just figured out how to put videos on my blog. I know, I'm computer challenged. But anyway, I just figured that some of you might like to hear this, that you might be interested in putting a face to volfan007, and hear him preach in a Church setting. I'm preaching thru the book of 1 Corinthians at my Church right now, and this sermon is part of my preaching thru chapter 1.

Anyway, I just thought I'd let yall know.

http://fromthehillsandhollers.blogspot.com/


David Worley

Jerome

Another telling statement from Virginia Baptist Ministers (1860), edited by SBC Founder (first Secretary of the Foreign Mission Board) Rev. James B. Taylor:

From the bio of Rev. David Jessee:

"In the early part of his ministry he advocated the high-toned Calvinistic view of that subject; but in the latter years of his life he supported the view now generally adopted by the Baptists, viz., that the atonement is general in its nature."
http://books.google.com/books?id=nC43AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA289

peter lumpkins

Jerome,

Great quote. Thanks!
With that, I am...
Peter

Chris

I'm thinking the devil is quite pleased to have so many in our day splitting hairs over the different aspects of this issue and spending so much irrecoverable time on it. I do think the extent of the atonement can be a profitable discussion and is a very interesting issue, but unfortunately for some it is THE defining issue. The cage stage seems to last much longer than 2 years for some. In some cases it is evidently a permanent or indefinite affliction that lasts for decades.

Bible translation is an interesting issue too. Similarly, sometimes I wonder if the devil hasn't sponsored a few translations himself and precipitated the debates that often follow.

Personally after being in Calvinistic circles for the better part of the past decade, I'm sick and tired of it and am today happy to leave the Reformed label to those who think it's something worth arguing over. I'm most comfortable with what some might call the 4.5 point views that have been mentioned earlier in the thread. To say that that makes me Arminian is absurd. But if some hyper or some puffed up internet theologian wants to do that, at this point I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

These kinds of arguments (not this post, but the kind of wrangling with high Calvinists Tony notes above) are one reason I hardly blog anymore. It is way too time consuming for me. Better to get more involved in the local church and community, in my opinion.

That being said, the posts on the subject on this blog, Tony's and a few others are necessary based on the sometimes inaccurate or incomplete picture that is portrayed by many contemporary Calvinists.

The comments to this entry are closed.