SBC & Calvinism: Three Events That Widened The Divide: A Brief Response by Malcolm B. Yarnell III

As an interim between Part I and Part II of my response to Tom Ascol, Executive Director of Founders Ministries, who recently made an open attack on  Dr. David Allen and the John 3:16 Conference platform, implicating them as "Anti-Calvinists," Dr. Malcolm Yarnell III, offers this brief response to Dr. Ascol and Founders Ministries. 

      Dear Peter,

Thank you for letting me post my last response to Tom Ascol at your place. I have learned three things from this short interchange on the blog of Dr. Ascol, whom I am glad to see is returning to full health after his recent difficulties. The three things learned from Dr. Ascol are:

 1.  Dr. Ascol holds to a view of history that must conform to an ideology; in particular, Dr. Ascol apparently believes that Baptist history must conform to Dortian Calvinism as the form of "orthodoxy." Dr. Ascol may be unaware of it, but such an ideologically-driven history demonstrates the entire historiography of the Founders' movement is at a crisis point.

First, because of its primary leader's admitted bias toward an ideology, Founders historiography is simply not acceptable history in the scholarly realm. Second, because of its primary leader's admitted bias toward an ideology rooted in non-Baptist Christianity, Founders historiography is simply not acceptable history in the Baptist scholarly realm, for it recognizes as Baptist only what it defines according to Dortian "orthodoxy."

Dortian orthodoxy must not be confused with Baptist orthodoxy: there may be legitimate confluences between Dortian identity and Baptist identity for many Baptists, but not for all Baptists and certainly not for the majority. The historiography of the Founders movement must be judged as deficient on the basis of its ideological bias. 

2.  As a result of his repeated unwillingness to answer a specific question regarding his church's communion with a Presbyterian, many will be led to the unfortunate conclusion that Dr. Ascol is not willing to affirm the Baptist Faith and Message in its entirety. Let it be clearly noted that communion with Presbyterians is certainly within the prerogative of Dr. Ascol's local church as a free church.  However, communion with Presbyterians is outside Southern Baptist orthodoxy, at least according to the common confession of the Southern Baptist Convention. A reading of articles 6-7, especially the first paragraph of article 7, of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 will demonstrate how communion with Presbyterians is outside the confessional mainstream of Southern Baptist life.
 

3.  In his personal comments, Dr. Ascol has conflated being a servant of the churches with being an employee of his particular church. This indicates either a misinterpretation of his interlocutor's statements or an over-reach in his understanding of Southern Baptist polity. Personally, this minister of the Gospel has always affirmed that he is a servant of the churches in the SBC. That understanding is reflective of both the calling that God has placed on his life and the office with which he is entrusted within the convention.

However, this minister is definitely not an employee of Tom Ascol's church, although he is a servant to her and has engaged in conversation far above and beyond the call of duty with her pastor, in willing fulfillment of that role. Again, Dr. Ascol's church is one of among the over 40,000 churches in the SBC and possesses no less of a voice and, this is the critical point here, no more of a voice than any other Southern Baptist church. If this improper idea of authority is not evident to him, it may be advantageous for Dr. Ascol to consult one of the members of his board regarding Southern Baptist polity.

On the basis of these three issues--deficient historiography, unwillingness to affirm fully the churches' orthodoxy, and an overreaching view of authority--conservative Southern Baptists should be concerned that the Southern Baptist Convention may be facing a similar problem to that which it faced with Liberalism.

We should hope that this is not the case, and that Dr. Ascol's views are not held by other SBC Calvinists, but the recent conversation with Dr. Ascol points to an alien doctrinal system of which the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention may want to become more aware. The Building Bridges Conference and the John 3:16 Conference were both legitimate and timely efforts to increase that awareness and Southern Baptists may want to consult the records of both conferences.

Now, since my calling from God is to be a servant of the churches, especially within the Southern Baptist Convention--and particularly of my own church, which fully affirms and seeks to implement the theology outlined in the Baptist Faith and Message--I have spent enough time responding to Dr. Ascol's comments.

We have not even addressed the Founders soteriology, which the distinguished contributors to the John 3:16 conference did so well, and to which there is yet to be manifested a reasoned response. However, one is hopeful that others will take up that task on behalf of faithful Southern Baptist Calvinists, with whom this professor, a non-Calvinist but more importantly a Baptist and most importantly a biblicist Christian, sincerely desires fellowship and mutual understanding.

In Christ,
Malcolm B. Yarnell III

My sincere thanks to Dr. Yarnell for his reasoned response to a growing concern in our Southern Baptist Convention, as well as the open attack Dr. Ascol has chosen to make on the capable scholars at the John 3:16 Conference. 

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

Byroniac,

No, I have many friends (and relatives) who are five pointers. I would define a "Crusading Calvinist" as one who seeks to move the SBC towards doctrinal conformity to Dortian Calvinism as the only orthodox Baptist position. I would add those that are leveling unsubstantiated claims of systemic SBC anti-Calvinism. It seems to me, that many hard line Calvinists can not distinguish the difference between legitimate theological discussion and dissent without believing that it is a "movement" within the SBC to rid her of Calvinists. I do not believe that I am personally being attacked just because I am not a five pointer when discussing this issue. But the same does not always hold true for some of my Calvinist friends. They see it as a personal affront to them.

I suppose that it is OK for hard line Calvinists to incessantly accuse non-Calvinists and non-five-pointers of unorthodoxy, angry Arminianism, or Pelagianism. But it is not OK, for someone to question any point of Calvinism (or anything Calvin did - even when wrong). Nor is it OK to write papers, preach sermons, hold conferences and such. For any of the above is an attack on SBC Calvinists. That is the message that I keep hearing.

My point about Dr. White, is only that he is not in the SBC. The repeated allegations of systemic SBC attacks on SBC Calvinists are used with regards to J316 and Dr. Allen's reference to Dr. White. How could that be an attack on SBC Calvinists, since he is not one?

Blessings,

Ron P.

[Todd Burus]

Ron P.,
Who are these people you say are "seek[ing] to move the SBC towards doctrinal conformity to Dortian Calvinism as the only orthodox Baptist position"?

[peter lumpkins]

Ron,

Thanks, my brother. A couple of things:

First, that Calvinists are pit against Calvinists on this issue is interesting. Tony Byrne is unapologetically a classic Calvinist. He holds and defends the T-U-_I-P just as strongly as Founders Calvinists--albeit with perhaps a different attitude. Yet, he is not treated so well by some prominent Founders advocates. One need only read Brister's comment thread to glean such.

Secondly, I have found it amazing that, given Dr. Allen's clear line of thinking, offering a precise definition of hyper-Calvinism, that his view would be treated with just as much disdain as the sloppiest critic of Calvinism. Dr. Allen labeled not one single, Southern Baptist--NOT ONE*--a hyper-Calvinist. Founders should be glad. Why they are livid is simply amazing to me. However, it shows, as you said, Dr. Yarnell's point to possess some teeth. When a view is ideologically-driven, little, if any, criticism is acceptable.

Grace, Ron. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Ron,

The *NOT ONE in #53 could have an exception--George Ella, whom no one seems to know but Wade Burleson.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Todd Burus]

Ron P.,
If you are interested in Dr. Allen's comments and why people are upset at his "precise definition of hyper-Calvinism" I think a good place to start would be with the person who came up with the definition in the first place, Phil Johnson. He blogged on it last week: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/11/you-may-be-hyper-calvinist-if.html

[Byroniac]

Because it seems to me that some SBC Calvinists agree with Dr. White's theology (such as myself, though I am not important). That is what makes this issue so important to me. A "Universal Saving Desire" almost precludes predestined election, unless loaded with so much anthropomorphic language as to become unrecognizable and fuzzily indistinct. Dr. White's theology may be out of the SBC mainstream, but it is not outside of SBC Calvinist orthodoxy, which is a point many other bloggers are making.

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

Todd and Byroniac,

I think Dr. Allen in the new article that Peter just posted fully answers your questions to me, much better than I could.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[peter lumpkins]

Byron,

Thanks again for your continued participation. You write that, 'A "Universal Saving Desire" almost precludes predestined election...' Then you conclude that "Dr. White's theology may be out of the SBC mainstream, but it is not outside of SBC Calvinist orthodoxy..."

I assume you mean to suggest that Dr. White's view accurately reflects what your aforementioned statement asserted--namely, that "Universal Saving Desire" almost precludes predestined election..."

If my assumption is correct, my question is this: Would you name, beginning anywhere in SBC history and moving right on until today, say 3 SBC theologians who embraced/embraces the view that Universal Saving Desire almost precludes predestined election?

Or, another way to frame the question is this: What Southern Baptist Calvinist theologian denied/denies God's universal saving desire for all people?

With that, I am...

Peter

[Byroniac]

Peter:

OK, I spoke too hastily when I mentioned "SBC Calvinist orthodoxy" if I must meet your requirement. From reading other SBC blogs, I'm not the only SBCer who thinks this way, whether or not we constitute an "orthodoxy" in any official opinion. I don't know if Ron P is implying that no one in the SBC agrees with James White, and that is why his non-SBC status is important, or simply that no one in the SBC should agree with James White, due to this absolute requirement of a "universal saving desire" in atonement, which I see as unnecessary if one is a strict five-point Calvinist, or something else.

I suppose my main difficulty lies in the expectation, even requirement, that I assert God's frustration in His own sovereign plan of election to prove the validity of the theological construct known as Limited Atonement. If one grants God's sovereignty in salvation and election to redemption, then one must qualify the word "desire" in some fashion because it cannot exist in any absolute sense that I can see (because election is according to predestined purpose). If someone argues for common grace, that God is kind to both elect and non-elect, and in general seeks their welfare, then I have no real problem with that, and I do not think James White does either, since he has explicitly affirmed common grace. If someone insists that "universal saving desire" means that God would rather one be brought to salvation instead of perish, then someone will have to explain that to me within the context of Calvinism, because that idea is very difficult to square with the idea of election and predestination, which may be the real issue here: God alone determines the elect and reserves the right and responsibility to do so.

I've read others who take Ezekiel 33:11 as a general statement that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, even though the context and audience specifically addresses Israel, and not her pagan neighbors or anyone else on Earth, and I think that is possible. But there is no mention here of any universal saving desire, especially not in the face of unrepentant rebellion.

And not only that, it must be harmonized with the Apostle's understanding in Romans 9. Romans 9:15 states God's absolute freedom in showing or withholding mercy. Romans 9:16 denies human ability in regards to the working of that mercy of God. Romans 9:17 shows God specifically raised Pharaoh up for wrath and to show His power and glory, with no mention of any desire for his salvation in the entire chapter (only one negative is needed to counter a universal assertion). Romans 9:18 states God shows mercy on some and hardens others, not according to their will, but His. Romans 9:19-21 raises the "fairness" objection and answers it with an appeal to God's pure sovereignty (whose right is it to question God or His authority?), and states God can create vessels of honor and dishonor. So at last Romans 9:22 comes into view (though it does not end here) where God's will to show His wrath and make known His power is shown, along with his lengthy and unmerited patience towards the "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." One could argue a universal saving desire for all of Israel in the first few verses of the chapter, especially with the apostle's reference to the Holy Ghost, but the Scriptures launch into a discussion on election of specific individuals as individuals before nations ever were produced from their offspring. I think this is why proponents of God's supposed universal saving desire turn to passages such as 1 Tim 2:4, which should not determine a doctrine alone because it is not a completely clear or undisputed text, and because according to Strong's, the verb used here for save (G4982) does not require a strict soteriological context, as it can simply mean "deliver or protect" in the literal or figurative sense. There are different views here admittedly, though. "Universal saving desire" to the best of my knowledge does not require an eternally redemptive desire on God's part, which would produce some inconsistency with predestination and election unless you can somehow introduce and resolve the frustration of God theologically (not something I would want to tackle, if I held those views).

[Alan Cross]

I wonder what the percentage of SBC churches is that DO NOT make baptism by immersion as a prerequisite to partaking of the Lord's Supper for visitors and non-member regular attenders? I know that nearly all, if not all, SBC churches make baptism by immersion a prerequisite for membership, but how many enforce this among guests, visitors, and long time attenders who choose not to join on the basis of a different understanding of baptism? I think that a Lifeway poll is in order.

According to Dr. Yarnell's view, the churches that do that are outside of SBC orthodoxy and do not affirm the BF&M in it's entirety. Should there be a resolution about this at the next convention, ala the Regenerate Church membership resolution? If there is a great number of churches that does not practice this view of "Baptist Orthodoxy," then it seems that those churches are in disobedience to our confession and would not be considered fully cooperating churches theologically.

This raises an interesting problem. Baptism AND the Lord's Supper are the two church ordinances. We should not make an issue over one and not the other, I would think. The view on communion that Dr. Yarnell is pointing to in the BF&M seems like it is a big deal. So, are we prepared to say that if a church does not practice this view of the Lord's Supper then:

1. They are not a fully cooperating SBC church?
2. They should not have missionaries appointed from their churches?
3. They should not have people from their churches serve on SBC committees and in leadership positions in our entities?
4. Their cooperative program dollars are no longer welcome?

I think that Lifeway should do a poll on how many churches practice the form of communion that Dr. Yarnell is setting before us in regard to non-members who are in attendance. Based on those numbers, we should see where we stand. Then, a resolution at the next convention calling upon SBC churches to bring their communion practices in line with the BF&M2000 is the next logical step. If churches refuse to do this, the Boards of Trustees of our entities (especially the IMB and NAMB) should make sure that they do not appoint missionaries or employees from churches that do not practice this view of what the BF&M2000 says.

Do the Baptist Identity folks have this type of remedy in mind over communion? If not, why not? What makes communion less of an issue than say, ppl (which is not even mentioned in the BF&M)?

I really am eager to see an answer to this question. Anyone?

[Alan Cross]

Peter,

Did you remove my last comment about communion? It was here and now it is gone.

[Alan Cross]

Sorry. Now I see it. Strange. I came back here from two different sources and didn't see it. It must have been a "refresh" issue in my computer. Sorry.

[peter lumpkins]

Byron,

Thanks. I understand. I too have spoken hastily at times. No problem. I would ask, though, that you habitually search the mainstream Baptist theologians moreso than "others on other blogs" (yes I am aware that I am just another on another blog:^).

Phil Johnson gave some good advice a few year ago about getting one's theological understanding from Internet sites--he specifically referenced Calvinist Internet sites interestingly enough. Rather, he counselled, get your theology from mainstream Calvinist theologians. Personally, I think that is as wise advice as one can give.

Allow me to press you again, Byron. You write: "I suppose my main difficulty lies in the expectation, even requirement, that I assert God's frustration in His own sovereign plan of election to prove the validity of the theological construct known as Limited Atonement. If one grants God's sovereignty in salvation and election to redemption, then one must qualify the word "desire" in some fashion because it cannot exist in any absolute sense that I can see..." (all emphasis mine)

My query is, Byron, where did you get this reasoning? Honestly, it sounds like a sound-bite lifted verbatim from James White. Understand: I am not suggesting you c/p. Rather, only that you appear to be miming his particular view on this issue, down to the very words.

Note, also the highlighted words from the quote. They all have one thing is common--they are highly philosophically oriented. I find this totally unlike you, Byron, from our past dialogs.

Historically, during our exchanges, you have been relentlessly Scripture-minded, which is one reason I have had pleasure and edification from our time. Yet now, there is a reading back into Sovereign Deity that what happens in our emotions--say, frustration when we don't get what we desire--is logically necessary of God as well.

I do not despise logic but neither will I bow to my mere logical constructs that come from my flawed mind.

Couple such with explicit assertions of Scripture like "God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come unto repentance" and I don't give two Georgia hoots who speaks to the contrary, there seems to be, at bare minimum, some sense in which this assertion corresponds to reality in God.

With that, I am...

Peter

[johnMark]

Bro. Robin,

What would you say if the SBC President's church did not practice closed communion?

Mark

[Byroniac]

Point taken concerning reading mainstream Calvinist theologians.

I also admit to using the words of James White. But his reasoning immediately made sense to me. It put to words some of my own thinking on the matter as this issue has surfaced. The whole phrase, "universal saving desire" immediately struck me as inconsistent.

I will have to step back and think about being too philosophical. Stepping back from my words, I can see that. Perhaps I am trying to fill in the holes of my understanding where I do not know Scripture (I am guilty of taking the Scripture I do know and using philosophy to make it all fit together, and fill all the holes).

In the back of mind, I wanted to go to the Scriptures, and this is what I attempted to do in my previous comment. I do not have the knowledge to reference Calvinist and other theologians, and doing that is not my main reference anyway. I guess I will have to read other opinions on "universal saving desire" in Scripture, and for that, all I really have are blogging resources, due to my limited theological library and time to read.

[Dr. James Willingham]

DR. Yarnell's views demand some clarification. Consider how both Sandy Creek Assn and Philadelphia Assns. were Sovereign Grace from the get go, and remained so down in to the 1800s. Consider how the founders of the great Missionary movement and our educational institutions in the 19th century were such strongly committed calvinists. And say was not the abstract of principles designed to make sure the teachers of Southern would be Sovereign Grace Believers. And Did not B.H. Carroll rather plainly spell out his views on predestination in his commentary on Acts 13:48, while Luther Rice declared: "Predestination is in the Bible and you had better preach it." Also he chaired the committee of the Sandy Creek Assn. which drew up the 1816 confession which is directly linked to the Abstract of Principles. The last member of the committe was identified by his office, Clerk of Sandy Creek Assn., Basil Manley (later a Senior). He will suggest the founding of Southern and will serve as president of the Board of Trustees of Southern for seven (?) years and when he died Dr. J.P. Boyce will preach his funeral and will use the term calvinist several times to identify Dr. Manley's theology. And the son of Dr. Manley, Basil, Jr., will draw up the Abstract of Principles (along with the assistance of Dr. A. M. Poindexter, a noted believer in calvinism). As to the Landmark views, it is no secret that J.R. Graves views became predominant in the SBC for years. But go back past him, and things began to change. For example, John Gano preached from the same platform with George Whitefield and observed communion with him. Admittedly, close communion is the most easily defended position as it is evident from the discipline of the local church. However, perhaps Mr. Graves should have come under discipline, if, as some think, he served as the model for the sorry preacher in Mark Twain's Huck Finn?
The original doctrine of Baptists as is the case with the Bible allows for a two fold doctrine of the Church, a local visible church (one of Graves' really great contributions to ecclesiology was to distinguish between oklos and ekklesia in Acts 19 and rendering K. Schmidt's article on ekklesia seriously lacking) and siritual, invisible, universal body, I Cors.13:12 which demolishes the Landmark idea of ONLY a local church. any case, tulip, predestination, and even reprobation are invitations of the most wonderfully irresistible kind. Just consider dogs in Mt.15:21-28. Dr. Eusedin's Intro. to his translation of William Ames' Marrow of Divinity opens these subjects for us and we find as Pilgrim Pastor John Robinson said, "Who knows what new light is getting ready to break forth from God's word." Truth that has been there all alone, but man was unable to see it. By the way Dr. Eusedin declared, "Predestination is an invitation to begin one's spiritual pilgrimage." Take every point of issue in the Sovereign Grace/Calvinist controversy an look at each one of them in the light of Jesus using them as invitations and offers of hope to helpless sinners. O yes, I did research in church history for 6 years (3000 5x8 notecards covering more than 250 sources), and I had hoped to do a doctor of theology disseration on the Theology of the Great Awakenings for the U. of S. Africa (alas, no mon, no fun). In any case the theology of the Great Awakenings and the Great Century of Missions was and is and always will be Sovereign Grace. Strange is it not that the Pilgrims and the Baptists of R.I.were the people most liberal in advancing the Gospel and in securing religious freedom? While I am not of Dr. Ascol's approach, believing truth will make its way humbly and lovingly, I do believe the theology he presents will win the day, when he discovers how much love and liberty there is in it and how Whitefield could work with Wesley and even went out of his way to do so, and how Edwards could rebuke Whitefield over his attacks on Harvard and the unconverted ministry and how Whitefield would become one of the big benefactors of Harvard and how Edwdards could call attention to the fact that Jesus chose Judas as an Apostle and how none of the others ever attacked him in spite ofhis great evil. They did not excoriate him; they did identify his sin and that was all.