peterlumpkins.com

Augustine and Southern Baptists: Part 6B: Augustine's Critics and Legacy by Dr. Jim Gifford

Dr. Jim Gifford

This is the final installment of Dr. Gifford's series on Augustine and Southern Baptists. I want to thank him for lending us his scholarship and pursuing this series at SBC Tomorrow. Be assured that the engagement in the comments did not accurately reflect either the number of readers Gifford's series had nor the significance of the series for future discussions about Original Sin, imputed guilt, original guilt, total depravity, free will, divine sovereignty, determinism, or any number of other subjects usually under the head of philosophy of religion or biblical anthropology. What is more, this subject may very well intimidate many of us who are not as conversant in patristic Christianity as we would like to be. Whatever the case, Dr. Gifford has made a significant contribution in understanding the impact of Augustine on the Reformed faith, and consequently, through the Reformed faith, on the Southern Baptist Convention.

And now, below is Part B: Augustine's Critics and Legacy by Dr. Jim Gifford: 

Augustine and Southern Baptists Part 5: Augustine's Exegetical and Hermeutical Method by Dr. Jim Gifford

Dr. Jim Gifford

This next-to-last post will examine the exegetical and hermeneutical method Augustine employs in constructing his teachings on grace and providence. Before I begin, I want to state my deep indebtedness to Donato Ogliari and his fine work Gratia et Certamen [Grace and Struggle]. Most of the real research in this section is his and I have only summarized it. One may wonder why this section comes later in this series of posts than his assumptions and the examination of the sources of those assumptions. It should be clear that the driving force behind Augustine’s theological construction that leads him to the precipice of determinism is neither Scripture nor the received tradition—rather it is his reaction to and accommodation to his pagan past. Now the Christian Augustine must be able to reconcile his imported assumptions with the teachings of the faith he now embraces. In order to do so, it seems he attempts to bend Scripture to fit his already-existing theological ideas, and seems content to read what he desires into the text of Scripture rather than draw his theological conclusions out of it. When it comes to biblical exegesis and theological reflection, Augustine certainly places the proverbial cart before the proverbial horse.

Augustine and Southern Baptists Part 3B: Infralapsarian Humanity by Dr. Jim Gifford

Dr. Jim Gifford

 

A further difficulty in Augustine's thinking has been aptly pinpointed by John Rist. He writes, "The problem, as Augustine would rephrase it, is not, 'Why does God not save everyone?'; but 'Why does God save anyone?'; for we are all justly condemned. The problem would not be God's justice, but God's mercy which would seem unjust, or at least at the expense of justice".¹⁷

James White critiques Ronnie Rogers' book, “Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist” by Peter Lumpkins

  

UPDATE: As expected, James White responded to this piece on his follow-up "Radio Free Geneva" podcast. Well, let me be clear: it really wasn't a response to this piece so much as an acknowledgment of it.  During the first few minutes, he talks about "almost forgetting" about old "Petey" (And, we want to assure James White we've not forgotten about him, either!) Then, he and Rich Pierce ridiculed the video I put up because of the number of views, etc. comparing my traffic to his. What a hoot! Like giddy, junior high boys giggling, poking fun, and wrestling around over the floor, White & Pierce give us a little show as if the video itself did not bother them. However, what they fail to note is, within minutes of my video being posted on youtube, Rich Pierce, Vice President of Alpha & Omega Ministries, logged on and demanded (or shall we say, "politely asked") I take the video down since it breached copyright law!⁹ Well, views or not, James White appears really sensitive when his views are openly criticized.

Check out my notice from youtube¹⁰

In addition, White states the collection I put together was ripped from each snippet's respective context suggesting the words on my video skewed his meaning. As I said in the post below, I gave the link to the entire podcast so anyone may check to see if I did skew the context. One tires of this cheap response (which is really no response unless one can show how the context is skewed). 

Consider one change when listening to White's second mention of Rogers' "anti-Calvinism book" on his "Radio Free Geneva": White's tone, attitude, and commentary on the second podcast reveal an undeniably marked difference compared to his first one. Observe his unemotional, straight-forward presentation when he mentions Rogers' book. He neither ridicules nor scorns as he did in the first podcast. And, yes, I do believe he changed his approach due, at least in part, to the criticism below contra persistent claims otherwise.

===================================================================  

Below is my response to James White's hour-long "Radio Free Geneva" review of Ronnie Rogers' newest book, Reflections Of A Disenchanted Calvinist: The Disquieting Realities of Calvinism.  It's long. It's necessarily long. For that, I apologize in advance. By the way, note also SBC Today is presently running a series of posts on Rogers' book beginning with an author interview.  In addition, the current post is the second of four installemnts which will eventually constitute the entire 16th chapter (part I).

Now, on to James White's book "review"  >>>

Calvinists recruit W.A. Criswell to their cause by Peter Lumpkins

Dr. Tom Ascol is Director of Founders Ministries, the largest network of Calvinists affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. Founders Ministries maintains that since Southern Baptists have “lost the gospel”, it apparently will be up to like-minded Calvinists like themselves to assist us in finding the gospel*    >>>

*I remain very much aware I broke my own ususal standard in posting such a long piece. I only hope I have not presumed upon my readership for whom I am always thankful...

Reformed Theology coming under more published scrutiny by Peter Lumpkins

  The publication of Whosoever Will (edted by Drs. David Allen and Steve Lemke) was the result of The John 3:16 Conference held at the Woodstock First Baptist Church November 6-7, 2008.  Contra some Southern Baptist Calvinists' unwavering confidence, the scholarly contributions in Whosoever Will demonstrated that Reformed theology is not the only, viable theological kid on the block. In fact, the composite thrust of the contributors to Whosoever Will makes it fairly clear that strict Calvinism as a system must be abandoned for a more robust biblicism  >>>

Mark A. Rathel on the Calvinist-Arminian divide in the Southern Baptist Convention by Peter Lumpkins

Dr. Mark Rathel is Associate Professor of Theology and Philosophy at The Baptist College of Florida. Rathel is a graduate of William Carey (B.A.), New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary (M.Div, Ph.D), and Biola University (M.A.)  >>>

William Lane Craig on Matthew 27:52-53

Below is a clip from a debate between William Lane Craig and James Crossley. In the course of Craig's presentation, he referenced the resurrected saints in Matthew 27. At the Q/A time in the closing segment, a questioner appealed to Craig to explain his understanding of the resurrected saints about which Matthew mentions. Craig's answer is enlightening:

Norm Geisler defends Al Mohler by Peter Lumpkins

Dr. Norman Geisler offered a stunning rebuttal to Mike Licona's critique of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president, Al Mohler. Geisler concludes  >>>

J. Budziszewski on engaging the homosexuality issue by Peter Lumpkins

The Family Research Council sponsors an annual Witherspoon lecture symposium dealing with public policy, political philosophy, and moral issues. Those who give lectures are among the most accomplished scholars in their respective fields. A decade ago, natural law philosopher, Jay Budziszewski delivered the Witherspoon lecture >>>

Evangelism: A Biblical Response to Today’s Questions: A Brief Review by Peter Lumpkins

J. D. Payne serves as a National Missionary with the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention and an Associate Professor of Church Planting and Evangelism in the Billy Graham School of Missions and Evangelism at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. Evangelism: A Biblical Response to Today's Questions ($17.99 Biblica Publishing, 2011) answers questions about evangelism from an admittedly Calvinistic perspective (47) >>> 

Bart Ehrman Honks James White's Nose by Peter Lumpkins

Internet apologetics is destroying conservative evangelicalism.  It's only a matter of time.  How do I know this?  Take 10 minutes and listen to Bart Ehrman completely break down Reformed apologist, James White in cross-examination.  I know little to nothing about textual criticism. But I do know when someone is bluffing with an answer.  James White embarrassed evangelicals with this poor dialog with Ehrman. Ehrman walks away looking like an accomplished scholar. On the other hand, White crawls away like a whipped mongrel.

Hear for yourself:

Unfortunately the sound-bite I linked was a prirated copy and honoring the request of the original's owner, I took the link down.  If you are interested in the debate, you may purchase a copy of the entire debate from A&OMin.org for $6 (mp3 download)

This should be a wake-up call to our seminaries.  We'd better get beyond our love-affair with neo-Calvinism.  Smooth, erudite scholars like Ehrman *will* have an effect on thinking university students.  Our apologetics must go much deeper than memorizing the views of others coupled with clever debate tactics.  As one can see with White, it does not work in exchange with authentic scholars.

Maranatha.

Come Lord.

With that, I am...

Peter

Free Will, Ignorance, and Reformed Internet Apologetics by Peter Lumpkins

I don’t know if it’s unintended ignorance or intentional intellectual laziness on the part of many Reformed apologists, but options for theological accuracy coming from some of the more well-known websites are fast disappearing.  Alpha & Omega, the apologetic website of extreme Calvinist* James White, recently put up a piece on free will written by contributor, Alan Kurschner in which Kurschner flatly denied human responsibility implies the concept of “so-called free will.” I offered a brief critique, pointing out the obvious flaw in Kurschner’s reasoning (and most all strict Calvinists for that matter).

Founders Journal & Whosoever Will: Matthew Barrett on Steve Lemke: Part II by Peter Lumpkins

   We observed in Part I of our reflections on Matthew Barrett’s* response to Dr. Steve Lemke’s position essay on Irresistible Grace in Whosoever Will** that Barrett failed to deal with Lemke’s biblical data.  I concluded: “The fact is, Barrett didn’t deal with the texts Lemke cited in any substantial way. Rather he summarily dismissed them and substituted texts which were supposed to prove his own position.”

In this follow-up, I’d like to point out a few additional short-comings in Barrett’s paper showing, from my perspective, that Founders Ministries should have solicited the assistance of Southern’s scholars rather than her students.The reality is, Founders Journal’s response to the formidable argument presented in Whosoever Will stands as one academic flop.

Here’s more evidence why >>>

Founders Journal & Whosoever Will: Matthew Barrett on Steve Lemke: Part I by Peter Lumpkins

  Earlier  we noted our agreement with Tom Ascol’s intention for irenic “debate” over the issue of Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention.  The latest issue of Founders Journal was supposed to illustrate Ascol’s hope such an encouraging exchange is possible. Our lament was and remains that while Ascol may possess every intention of sincere dialogue with brothers on the opposite side of the issue, some of the language the essayists employed in the Founders Journal was, at times, both unduly provocative and unbrotherly* >>>