« What Were the Early SBC Leaders’ View of Salvation? by Emir Caner, President, Truett-McConnell College Cleveland, Ga. | Main | Breaking News: President Ergun Caner announces the reopening of the music school at Brewton-Parker College »

Apr 24, 2014

Comments

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

Scott Shaver

Inductive logic does not compute with these guys.

Robert Avant

Thanks for posting your post along with the entirety of Dr. White's video. Upon viewing the video Dr. White gives a complete logical and biblical refutation of Dr. Harwood's lecture. Perhaps a debate would a good idea.

Max

"I had a moment when I sorta felt sorry for him ..."

Yes, a sad state of affairs when someone becomes so defensive of theological position that their spiritual brains fall out. Revelation cannot cut through such muddle, leaving the greatest intellects with nothing but points to ponder over and over. There is much in Scripture about the sovereignty of God. There is much in Scripture about free will and personal responsibility. It all works together in a way that is beyond human comprehension. To put the mind of God into a neat theological box is to stand in arrogance before our Creator. The Gospel is really simple enough for a child to understand. Try as we might to weave Truth into a complex system, we are ultimately left with "Jesus loves me, this I know."

JND

"They don't want to talk about Kosmos."

Well, that certainly settles it.

peter lumpkins

Robert,

Well, a "complete logical and biblical refutation" is a value judgment standing with its feet planted firmly in mid-air I'm afraid. White's main point is Harwood is "simplistic"; Allen is "simplistic"; these Southern Baptists are "simplistic." Going from White's conclusion that "simplistic" is "not good...not good" to a "complete logical and biblical refutation" is warranted in what way exactly?

Now as for a "debate" on the atonement, why don't you see if White could arrange a debate with say, Bruce Ware, at Southern seminary? Let's see if White is willing to publicly castigate Ware's view on the atonement as sub-biblical simplistic theology.

With that, I am...
Peter

Lydia

"White makes clear that "the Biblical view" is his view--strict Limited Atonement. According to White, when it comes to the atoning work of Christ, there is either a) the Reformed view or b) universalism. "

And there is the problem. Start with a wrong premise, end with wrong result.

So the choices, according to JW, are determinism/determinism. Because Reformed and Universalism are both deterministic. No Human input/response really needed in the process. Which means we do not need White to explain it to us as it is all determined anyway according to the two positions White claims are the only ones available.

Talk about simple. :o)

peter lumpkins

Well, I'm certainly not shy in talking about Kosmos. I put up an entire series on Kosmos-- for example, see here.

Fact is, Non-Calvinists glory in dealing with exegetical concerns. In fact, I have a standing challenge in the series above: I challenged anyone to post a single linguistist authority which substantiated the routine assertion by strict Calvinists that the NT authors used Kosmos synonomously with "world" or "world of the elect" as extreme Calvinists like James White asserts but no one could do so. I think I know why. There are none which do so.

While Kosmos is documented as having different nuances in the NT, no Greek linguistic authority about which I'm aware substantiates the extreme Calvinist interpretation that Kosmos means "world of the elect." If Calvinists want to offer their "theological" reasonings why Kosmos must be interpreted and taken as "world of the elect," fine. Let them do so. But let's be entirely honest: offering philosophical or theological reasoning is far different from offering biblical-exegetical proof. Strict Calvinists like James White routinely overlay presupposed conclusions onto Scripture rather than allowing the biblical text to say what it says. Ironically Kosmos is one of those biblical terms which many Calvinists theologize rather than exegete. Why White would assert "they don't want to talk about" Kosmos remains curious.


With that, I am...


Peter 

peter lumpkins

Lydia

You cited one of the philosophical hubris habitually thrown toward determinists by their nemesis indeterminists. If determinism is true, then being indeterminist is unavoidable. But if being indeterminist is unavoidable, then why do determinists insist indeterminism is wrong? Indeterminism is as determined as determinism. Makes one a little dizzy...:^)

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

Yes, and just how does White avoid his own "simplicity" when he reduces the question to two options-- Limited Atonement or Universalism? White appears oblivious to the fact that both Carson and Ware, whom White tries to summon to his side, flat disagrees with him! For them, it's much more complicated. In other words, were Carson & Ware to use White's language, they very well might say, "White's view is simplistic."

With that, I am...
Peter

Lydia

"You cited one of the philosophical hubris habitually thrown toward determinists by their nemesis indeterminists."

Wow, I cited a "philosophical hubris" without realizing it?

I, as an indeterminist, am "determined" to tell my friends!

LOL

Josh

Hi Peter,

Thanks for being willing to have JW's argument right alongside your own, that was really helpful in comparing the two. Sadly no Starbucks card for me, I lost track of the number of simplistics. :)

In regards to kosmos, isn't the Calvinist argument that the usage in John 3:16 is the same as in 1 John 2:15, i.e. It's not using the broadest definition of 'world'? (Obviously " do not love the world..." Does not mean "do not love all men", just like "For all that is in the world..." Doesn't literally mean that "the lust of the flesh/eyes/pride of life" are exclusively "all" that is in the world in it's entirety?

peter

Josh

Thanks. Well take a look at several mainstream Calvinists and you tell me what they say Kosmos means. I linked them above..

Rick Patrick

There is a profound difference between "simple" and "simplistic." For example, the literary style of Jesus was "simple" in that He used sentences with very few dependent clauses—unlike Paul, for example. We can dismiss as a foolish notion the concept that rationally complex ideas are somehow *smarter* than ideas capable of being stated more simply.

Frankly, Calvinists are required by the very nature of their system to engage in more complex mental gymnastics than Traditionalists. There are fewer parts to our equation. We have fewer vocabulary words—not needing to modify terms like "free will" with qualifiers like "libertarian" or "compatibilist." Similarly, we need not explain the difference between God's "revealed" will to save everyone, and His alleged "secret" will only to save a predetermined few.

The simple combination of God's foreknowledge and man's free will appears to many Calvinists as a raw and undeveloped thought structure requiring much more sophisticated elaboration. But why would God come all the way to earth and become a man to make matters clear to us, only to obscure His Plan of Salvation behind a theologically complex system requiring us to grasp highly abstract philosophical concepts?

Calvinists should ask themselves if they are not making Christianity harder than it needs to be, and more importantly, harder than God has revealed it to be in His Word.

Scott Shaver

According to the Baptist Survival Dictionary:

The Greek work kosmos as applied in Neocalvinism, by rule, has meaning which can be best described as dualistic. The primacy of the religio-political agenda dictates both meaning and function. Resultantly, "kosmos" can refer either to the human population of the world in general or, more selectively, to that referenced by Scripture as "ecclesia" or "the elect", being more consistent with the characteristic terminology applied in Neocalvinism.

Must read for every Southern Baptist.

Eric

greetings,
No, Calvinist do not make the gospel message harder than it needs to be. At least those in my reformed baptist camp. I can't speak for all Calvinist.
And if you ask James white if he thinks the gospel message is hard or complicated to understand, I have no doubt he would say the message of salvation, and understanding what one must do to be saved, is so simple that a child can understand it. He did not say otherwise in the post.

We all must agree that there are issues in Gods word that can be a challenge to understand, though not beyond our grasp. I fully understand Whites use of the term simple.

What's more, White would call all men to repentance and faith.

peter lumpkins

Sorry, Eric. You're not going to find a lot of sympathy for your view of White's critique here.

Nor did you catch the point White was making about the nature of the theology presented by Adam Harwood. He most certainly *did not suggest* either Harwood's presentation or his theology was simple. Rather White over and over slammed Harwood (and other Southern Baptists) for perpetuating "simplistic" understanding of Scripture. And, for White, it's clear "simplistic" reduces to "sub-biblical."

Perhaps you'd do well to go back and listen carefully to White's criticism...

With that, I am...
Peter

Lydia

"But why would God come all the way to earth and become a man to make matters clear to us, only to obscure His Plan of Salvation behind a theologically complex system requiring us to grasp highly abstract philosophical concepts?

Exactly! Well said.

Luke

Well, when I saw that no one took you up on your offer, I decided to give it a shot. By my calculations(hope I didn't miss any), simplistic and its variants occurred a total of 15 times.

Since I don't drink coffee, you can enjoy the Starbucks. :)

luke

peter lumpkins

Luke

Thank you! And, yes, I will enjoy it bro. If White used it 15 times, that means he used it about every 2 minutes. What a Georgia hoot!

Luke

And that's kinda funny too since I was taught in Bible College and Seminary to KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid.

Scott Shaver

KISS was axiom we learned in seminary as well.

Looks like the seminary curriculum emphases have changed.

Lord help the folks in the pews.

The comments to this entry are closed.