Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, had a lengthy exchange on Dr. Ascol's "widened the divide" article, the last comment of which was so insightful, I arranged to have an amplified version of Professor Yarnell's comment posted as a main article at SBCTomorrow.
Below is Professor David Allen's rejoinder to Dr. Ascol's provocative assessment of the Calvinist debate in the SBC.
A REJOINDER TO TOM ASCOL
By: David L. Allen
In a November 24th post on his blog at Founders.org, Dr. Tom Ascol has responded to recent events concerning the issue of Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention, including my review of the book Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue and my presentation at the John 3:16 Conference. In light of Dr. Ascol’s blog post, both in terms of tone and content, and in the hopes that my response will not be interpreted by him or anyone else to be of a personal nature, perhaps it would be helpful for him and for my readers to know something at the outset of my own attitude in all of this.
Dr. Ascol and I not only differ and disagree on the subject of Calvinism, but in fact, our disagreement in certain areas is quite strong. However, for the record, let it be known that I do not view Dr. Ascol’s critique of my words as an attack on me personally. Nor does our disagreement in any way mitigate my love for him and my genuine appreciation for his ministry. Tom Ascol is a Ph.D. graduate of SWBTS, pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, Florida, and Executive Director of Founders Ministries.
Though to my knowledge Tom and I have never met, we are fellow believers who happen to labor in the Southern Baptist corner of the Lord’s vineyard, and his church is one of over 40,000 SBC churches that owns and operates, through the trustee system, the Seminary where I am employed.
The Charge of Anti-Calvinism
One of the overriding concerns throughout Ascol’s blog post is evidenced by the four times he identifies me (indirectly each time but clearly I am included) as “anti-Calvinist” (emphasis mine). This is simply false. I am not anti-Calvinist.
During my first pastorate, where I served over fifteen years, I had at least three people along the way who were Calvinists who served on my church staff, not to mention deacons (at least two of whom also taught in our Sunday School) and a few Sunday School teachers. Among those invited to lead Bible Conferences at our church during my tenure were Calvinists as well. Dr. Curtis Vaughan comes to mind immediately. During my second pastorate I hired as an intern a young man who was a recent graduate of one of our Baptist Colleges, and he was a Calvinist.
Also, after my resignation as pastor to accept the Deanship at SWBTS, I recommended a man to the pulpit committee of this very church who is moderately Calvinistic in his own theological approach. The church later called him as pastor. During my twelve year tenure on the Board of Trustees at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, I served on the Academic Administration Committee for ten of those years. This is the committee that receives recommendations from the President for new faculty, interviews those prospective faculty members, and then recommends them to the full board for approval.
During my years on that committee, I recommended without reservation some men who were Calvinists. Dr. Greg Welty immediately comes to mind.
To my knowledge, during my years of Board service, no one who was recommended by the President and who was also a Calvinist was not recommended to the full Board by the Academic Administration Committee upon which I served. In my four and one-half year tenure as Dean of the School of Theology at SWBTS, I have promoted to Assistant Dean the only five-point Calvinist in the Philosophy and Ethics Division, and this in spite of the fact that others in that division had a longer tenure at the Seminary.
In 2008 I recommended to the president of one of our sister SBC Seminaries a man to fill an administrative and faculty position whom I have known for twenty-eight years and who is a Calvinist (He was up until a few years ago a five-point Calvinist, but came to reject limited atonement as unbiblical). This man had been a local church pastor for many years. He was hired for the position at the seminary.
Also in 2008 I hired a new graduate assistant in my office, a fine young man of whom I am very fond, and who is a new student at the seminary in our M.Div. program. He is a five-point Calvinist. Incidentally, he assisted me in my research for the John 3:16 Conference. I could continue, but I think this will suffice to show anyone that my track record indicates I am not anti-Calvinist.
Neither is it accurate to portray my recent review of the book Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue or my John 3:16 presentation as “anti-Calvinist.” One must distinguish between being against people who hold certain theological views and disagreeing with the views those people hold. I am not against any Calvinist in the Southern Baptist Convention. I do believe that Calvinism, especially five-point Calvinism, is biblically and theologically flawed at certain points.
In my book review and presentation at the John 3:16 conference, I was at pains to show this. It is apparent to me that some Calvinists within and without the SBC simply will not brook any criticism of Calvinism. To do so in their minds is to be anti-Calvinist.
Let me also say that there are occasions where I am against what Calvinists do or don’t do because of what they believe. I referenced one or two such incidents toward the end of my John 3:16 paper as well as in my book review. Why should this be a problem since Calvinists likewise reciprocate here? In fact, is not this rejoinder the result of Dr. Ascol’s own criticism of my criticism whereby he takes exception to what I have done or have not done because of what I believe? I consider this to be an example of being too thin-skinned.
Also, would it be possible for anyone reading Ascol’s blog to come to the conclusion that he is anti-non-Calvinist or anti-Classical Arminian? I suspect some could, some would, and I know of some who have. Sauce for the goose.
The Charge of Condescension and Suspicions to Calvinize the SBC
In response to my defense of Lemke’s study of Founders churches, Dr. Ascol does not disagree with my assertion that “some brands of Calvinism (hyper-Calvinism and other extreme forms of five-point Calvinism) are in fact less than evangelistic,” but offers the addition that some brands of fundamentalism and Arminianism are likewise “less than evangelistic, as is evidenced by the general state of churches across the SBC, most of which are not Calvinistic.” I agree here and don’t think this is in dispute.
I will give Dr. Ascol the benefit of the doubt that by his reference to “Arminianism” he means “Classical Arminianism” since modern Arminianism does not hold to eternal security of the believer, and thus virtually all Southern Baptists cannot be Arminian in that sense. Southern Baptists certainly cannot be modern Arminians and affirm the BFM 2000.
Dr. Ascol says he has applied Lemke’s methodology to churches I have pastored and “if I had a mind to, I could publish those results and, with no less authority than that which Lemke and Allen claim, conclude that ‘Southwestern and New Orleans seminary administrators’ are a threat to evangelism and healthy church life.” I don’t quite know what to say to such a statement. I certainly wish I and the two churches I pastored had done more in the area of evangelism.
Dr. Ascol says I “repeatedly” write with a “condescending tone” and then cites two examples from 34 single-spaced pages. I doubt this qualifies as “repeatedly.” If he has in mind other examples, I would be interested in seeing them. Although I don’t think either statement (referencing Dr. Nathan Finn as “young Finn” and speaking of Dr. Tom Nettles’ “characteristic brusqueness”) qualifies as condescending since both are true and neither statement was intended to be such.
Nevertheless, upon reflection, I can see how such phrases could be, and indeed have been, interpreted as condescending. Therefore, I have taken the steps to have them removed from the book review on BaptistTheology.org.
Dr. Ascol says my treatment of Dr. Yarnell’s chapter “borders on hagiography.” This is, of course, a gross overstatement. Ascol cites me for not even quibbling with Dr. Yarnell’s “identifying a heretical anti-trinitarian [Servetus] as part of the Baptist family.” This is one I simply missed and should have cited! Yarnell no doubt would agree, for he would never identify Servetus as a “Baptist” in the usual sense of what we mean by the term. “Anabaptist” or “antipaedobaptist” would have been more apt.
However, that said, Dr. Ascol uses a cannon to kill a mosquito when he says “Any vision of Baptist identity that consciously welcomes heresy into the DNA is dangerous and I would think that other Baptists, regardless of their views on the doctrines of grace, would as well.” Now here is an example of how injudicious over-zealousness can produce a statement that not even the author himself really believes. Does Dr. Ascol really think Dr. Yarnell or I would “consciously welcome heresy” into Baptist DNA? Of course neither Ascol, Yarnell nor Allen would do so, and all three know it. However, that said, Ascol is right to point out I should have caught this one.
Dr. Ascol also noted I completely missed Dr. Yarnell’s “misunderstanding” of an article by Mark Dever where Dever, according to Yarnell’s reading of the article, supposedly requires his church elders to adhere to the 1689 Confession, while the rest of the church membership follow the New Hampshire Confession. Since Dr. Dever has indicated elsewhere, though not in writing, that he does not in fact require his leadership to adhere to the 1689 Confession, and I assume he never did, as Dr. Ascol points out, then, either Dr. Yarnell did misunderstand the article, or the article was unclear on the matter, or both. Since I had not read the article myself, I did not comment on this issue in my review.
Dr. Ascol turns his attention to my comments concerning his chapter in the book Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue and his involvement in the Building Bridges Conference. He correctly cites my “admitted suspicions” that there is an agenda afoot in the SBC to 'Calvinize' it. I referenced a comment Ascol made to the effect that he was not suggesting everyone need become a convinced Calvinist, “though you would hear no complaints from me were that to happen!” Ascol informs us that this was a “throw-away comment, intended to be humorous.” I can accept that.
Ascol continued: “Unfortunately, when Allen read it, it caused alarm bells to go off in his head confirming his already suspicious thoughts of the existence of a nefarious Calvinist plot to ‘Calvinize’ the SBC.” Here I want to analyze carefully the words Ascol uses to identify and explain my concerns. I do not think there is a “plot” and I do not think that it is “nefarious.”
I do, however, think there is an effort--an “agenda” to use my word--on the part of the Founders Ministries to “Calvinize” the SBC and I make no bones about it. There is quite a difference both in tone and meaning between the words “plot” and “agenda.” Of course, such an agenda is not proven by the comments by Ascol above, nor did I suggest such.
Nevertheless, in my opinion, as I stated in the book review, I do not see how anyone can dispute this “agenda” given the very mission statement of the organization, the publications of the organization (Dr. Tom Nettles’ article “Why Your Next Pastor Should be a Calvinist” being a recent example), and the comments of Dr. Ascol himself on his blog over the past few years.
Dr. Ascol queries why I “never raised an outcry over the dozens if not hundreds of attempts by denominational employees and others to tell churches that ‘your next pastor should not be a Calvinist.’” How would he know whether I have done this or not prior to my review of the book? Even if I had never done so, my clear statement in the book review that such should never be the case constitutes my outcry against such behavior, an outcry clearly voiced prior to his blog post implying I had “never” raised such an outcry.
Ascol continues: “It is ironic that Allen thinks my presence on the program of Building Bridges was problematic. I am the one who originally suggested the conference.” It is not ironic at all! In fact, this constitutes the very heart of my objection to Ascol’s presence as a speaker at the Building Bridges Conference: NO ONE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A SPEAKER AT A BI-PARTISAN CONFERENCE ON CALVINISM WHO BELIEVES AND PUBLISHES AN ARTICLE WITH THE TITLE “WHY YOUR NEXT PASTOR SHOULD BE A CALVINIST!” ARE WE TO ASSUME THAT GOD HIMSELF DESIRES ONLY CALVINISTS FROM HERE ON IN TO PASTOR SBC CHURCHES?
Imagine if Dr. Akin, as president of Southeastern Seminary, and one of the co-sponsors of the Building Bridges Conference, should have written on his website an article entitled “Why Your Next Pastor Should Not Be a Calvinist.” How could he have participated in any meaningful way in a conference such as Building Bridges? Even Dr. Yarnell, the most vocal critic of Calvinism among the Building Bridges presenters, made it clear there is and should be a place for Calvinists in the SBC at all levels.
It is this kind of thing that causes the vast majority of Southern Baptists, and even many Calvinists within the Southern Baptist Convention, to distance themselves from the Founders Ministries. Please note also for the record, I eschewed such thinking and advocacy from the opposite position as well in the book review. Here was my conclusion: “A church’s next pastor should be the man God leads that church to call, be he Calvinist or no” ( added).
The Charge of Despising Calvinism
Ascol goes off on a tangent when he speaks about SBC entities and those who serve them being answerable to all Southern Baptists, “including those of us whose theology they may despise.” (For the record, I don’t “despise” Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism is the only brand of Calvinism I despise as do virtually all Calvinists I know. Please note also I despise hyper-Calvinism, not hyper-Calvinists.) Of course I recognize that Founders Ministries is a Southern Baptist entity in the sense that it is composed of Southern Baptists. I did not suggest that an entity is not Southern Baptist because it does not receive Cooperative Program money.
Furthermore, I never suggested that SBC entities are not answerable to the churches. They certainly are. All of these points made by Dr. Ascol are beside the point. Dr. Ascol has apparently missed my point. If other SBC entities (those who receive Cooperative Program funds) are going to sponsor a bi-partisan conference, then a partisan organization even within the SBC family should not be a co-sponsor and the director of that partisan organization should not be a speaker. Clearly Founders Ministries is partisan on the subject of Calvinism.
Dr. Ascol proceeds to wonder why I have not raised my voice in protest over the “partnering” of SWBTS with Grace Evangelical Fellowship, “a non-lordship salvation entity that denies the necessity of repentance for salvation (their ‘Affirmation of Belief’ states, that ‘no sorrow for sin’ or ‘turning from one’s sin’ is necessary)?” He says that according to the Southwestern website, we are “hosting” this “antinomian” Fellowship on campus March 30-April 2, 2009. Again, my first question would be: “how does Dr. Ascol know whether or not I have said anything about this?” There is no way he could know for sure. He is making an assumption followed by an unsubstantiated claim.
Secondly, SWBTS allows groups to meet on campus who contract with us to use our Riley Conference Center. Sometimes we even allow non-religious organizations to use or facility. Third, this is simply a red herring and has no cogent connection to the issues at hand.
The Charge Questioning SWBTS' Joint Sponsorship with Jerry Vines Ministries of J316C
From this point, Dr. Ascol proceeds to question SWBTS’ joint sponsorship with Jerry Vines Ministries of the John 3:16 Conference, along with two other sister SBC seminaries. Ascol then proceeds to accuse Dr. Vines directly of spreading “anti-Calvinistic propaganda.” From all this, my participation supposedly causes my protest of Ascol and Founders Ministries in the Building Bridges Conference to “ring hollow.” Several points need to be made here.
First, Dr. Jerry Vines is a Southern Baptist with every right to express his theological disagreement with Calvinism through his own ministry. To refer to his stated disagreement as “propaganda” is incendiary and no doubt offensive to some. I assume Dr. Ascol would find it equally offensive if I were to use such terminology as “propaganda” to describe his attempts to purvey Calvinism in the SBC through his own organization.
Second, there is a significant difference in Founders Ministries partnering with SBC entities for a bi-partisan conference, and SBC entities co-sponsoring a partisan conference. Furthermore, since non-partisan SBC entities partnered with partisan Founders Ministries for the Building Bridges Conference, it would seem to me Dr. Ascol would have no grounds to question non-partisan SBC entities partnering with partisan Jerry Vines ministries on this or any subject.
The Charge of False Accusations about Hyper-Calvinism**
Additionally, the John 3:16 Conference was billed as a “biblical and theological evaluation of and response to five-point Calvinism.” Since the majority of Southern Baptists are clearly non-Calvinists, I see no conflict of interest here either on my part as a speaker at the conference or the part of the seminaries that chose to be co-sponsors. Dr. Ascol continues with this statement: “Although I must say that any conference that accuses James White of being a hyper-Calvinist loses credibility with thinking people.”
First, the conference did not make the claim; I did. If there is any credibility to be lost, it would be mine and not the conference. This single statement is the only statement Dr. Ascol makes concerning my comments about James White**. Given the evidence I presented during the John 3:16 Conference and my defense of this “accusation” on this very website on Monday, November 24, I find it impossible to swallow Ascol’s statement. He will have to provide some argumentation or evidence that the claim is false. He offers none.
In fact, Ascol seems to continue to miss the whole point of my bringing up James White in the first place**. I commendably quoted Ascol's affirmation of God's universal saving will (in addition to reading his own careful Calvinistic qualifications) and pointed out how White’s rejection of this orthodox Calvinist position on God’s revealed will places him in the category of a hyper-Calvinist on this point. White clearly disagrees with Ascol's universal aspect, i.e. that God desires the salvation of all men in His revealed will.
Apparently Ascol is either 1) unaware of this difference between White and himself, or 2) does not believe there is a difference between his own views and White on this subject, or 3) is unwilling to conclude that such a difference makes White a hyper-Calvinist, or some combination of the three.
Incidentally, the attempts of Phil Johnson and James White at parsing words, nuancing or otherwise skirting the main issue at hand, have failed to show my initial statement concerning White to be false, in my opinion. I am willing to concede Johnson’s point that his Primer does not state what I interpreted it to state. He has every right to state what he as the author intended by his own words. This does not, however, remove the fact that, given the declarations and links found in the Primer, I had epistemic grounds for my interpretation--that is, my interpretation was a reasonable interpretation.
Nor does it remove the fact that, according to Iain Murray and Curt Daniels’ writings on this subject, both of whom I have read, James White’s categorical denial of God’s universal saving will positions him within hyper-Calvinism (editorial reference: consider Tony Byrne's helpful assessment of the present charges against Dr. Allen's conference paper/presentation) .
Tom Ascol's Concluding Accusations
Finally, Dr. Ascol concludes his post with eight final accusations: my book review and John 3:16 Conference presentation 1) “undermine true understanding,” 2) “sabotage” attempts by a growing number of Southern Baptists who want to build bridges, 3) engage in “mischaracterizations, inaccuracies, and false accusations,” 4) evidence my desire to run Calvinists out of the SBC, 5) “attack” Calvinists, 6) constitute “sin” on my part, 7) “misrepresent brethren” with whom I disagree, and 8) make me an “anti-Calvinist.”
I shall respond to each of these eight accusations by pointing out several things:
1) In my opinion, the presentations I offered will, I trust, aid in fostering true understanding of the issues at hand. This does not mean that I approach this subject with an entrenched “I’m right and your wrong” posture. My goal is to place the information on the table, admittedly from my perspective, and encourage each person to draw his or her own conclusions about the teaching of Calvinism. In fact, I stated this clearly in my presentation at the John 3:16 Conference where I said:
"There has been and is significant debate over who believed what on the atonement in Calvinistic history. We need to be just as honest with the historical data as we are with the biblical and systematic data. Baptists need to be aware of the many Calvinistic stalwarts who held to a form of universal atonement and rejected Limited Atonement.
As Baptists, whether Calvinistic or not, you need to be more historically self-aware, and at least know about the extent of the diversity on the point. You need to read the primary sources. There is a great deal of ignorance in this area, as revealed in many of the popular authors on the subject from a Calvinistic perspective and also from many of the blog sites of Calvinists. We must honestly listen to Historical Theology and the only way to do this is read carefully the primary sources. You need to have all the options on the table and all of them rightly represented before you begin to discriminate between them to see which viewpoint is true biblically. It is my goal to be totally fair to my Calvinist friends.
. . . I want to say a word to my young Calvinist friends out here. You say: “I can’t believe that. I’ve never read that” [that there were Calvinists at Dort and Westminster who rejected strict particularism (limited atonement) and held to some form of universal atonement]. I know you haven’t. Now don’t misunderstand what I am about to say. The reason you have never heard that is all you are reading are popular, modern Calvinist writers. All you read is Piper, all you read is MacArthur, all you read is Dever. You don’t read the guys who were Calvinists at the time. You are not reading them, and that’s why you don’t know this. You must read the primary sources."
It is important to note several things here. First, as others have falsely accused me of saying (not Dr. Ascol), notice I did not say anything negative of Piper, MacArthur or Dever here. I read them as well and profit from their writings. I have often used both Piper’s and MacArthur’s book on preaching as required textbooks in my own preaching classes through the years.
Second, the point I was trying to make, though I could have said it even more explicitly, is if young Calvinists have never heard about the debate within historic Calvinism over the extent of the atonement, it is probably because they spend most of their time reading popular modern Calvinists and not the writings of those involved in Dort and Westminster. Virtually all of the popular Calvinist writers today are high Calvinists (five-point Calvinists) and one could easily get the impression or draw an inference that this is the way it has always been in history.
Note carefully I did not say nor am I saying that all these popular authors are themselves unaware of the historical debate. One of the key purposes of my John 3:16 presentation was to prove historically that there has been debate over the extent of the atonement among Calvinists themselves in the hope that this would foster a better understanding of the issues at hand.
2) With respect to my supposed “sabotage” attempts, please reread the last few pages of my review of Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue. I am one of those who genuinely want to bridge our doctrinal divides and live together with my Calvinist brothers and sisters in true unity and love. But this bridge must be truly jointly constructed by those on both sides of the issue with equal traffic going both ways, or else it will wind up being a bridge too far for one group within the convention.
Use of the word “sabotaged” clearly implies sinister intent on the part of those who disagree. Where have I “sabotaged” anything? Also, I do not feel “threatened” by Calvinism, but I do believe some of our churches face a threat of being “Calvinized,” whether overtly or by subterfuge. There is evidence that sometimes a prospective staff member or pastor accepts a position at a church without informing the church of his Calvinism. He then seeks to lead the church into Calvinism, usually against the desires of the church. This raises an issue of integrity for me. All potential staff members should put their cards on the table when they interview for a position.
An interesting historical side note of the eighteenth and nineteenth century Separate Baptists contains many examples of General Baptist churches in the South being targeted by Particular Baptist churches in an organized effort to move them into the Calvinist camp. This has been documented by William Lumpkin in his work Baptist Foundations in the South (pp. 60-71).
3) Please identify my mischaracterizations, inaccuracies and false accusations and I will address them for you.
4) I have already spoken clearly, both in my book review and at the John 3:16 Conference, to the fact that I do not want to “run Calvinists out of the SBC.”
5) Please identify where I have “attacked” Calvinists. My comments concerning James White were an effort at historical description rather than an attack. Also, I might point out that the labeling of non-Calvinists as “Arminian” can be considered an attack. At the very least, the term is inaccurate for Southern Baptist non-Calvinists since our affirmation of the BFM 2000 clearly indicates we hold to the eternal security of the believer.
The term “Arminian” is also problematic for many non-Calvinist Southern Baptists because, among other things, their views on election would be different from Arminianism which teaches that election is based on foreknowledge. This was made crystal clear at the John 3:16 Conference where Dr. Richard Land rejected the Arminian approach to election. I myself do not believe election is based on God’s foreknowledge as does Arminianism.
6) Please identify where my words constitute sin in your eyes.
7) Please identify where I have misrepresented you or any other Calvinist.
In conclusion, I encourage each reader to read my book review posted on BaptistTheology.org as well as listen to the CD’s of the John 3:16 Conference, including my presentation. I believe such an exercise will reveal that most of Dr. Ascol’s criticisms are unfounded. Let the debate within the SBC continue on this subject, and may God grant us all His grace in the process.
**For the record, Dr. Allen's conference presentation included two meticulously composed charts which were handed out to all participants. Those two charts clearly demonstrate precisely how Dr. Allen was using all of the theological terms in his presentation, a fact which seems to be conveniently overlooked in most Internet discussions, including Dr. Ascol's engagement. Moreover, the chart additionally served as a clear visual as to both how and why Dr. Allen concluded that James White's views fall into the hyper-Calvinistic theological grid.
Out of approximately 169 theologians identified on Allen's chart as either Arminian, Classic/Moderate Calvinist, High Calvinist, Hyper-Calvinist, only 18* theologians were identified as Hyper-Calvinist. Even more incredible--in light of Founders Calvinists' unchecked outrage at Dr. Allen's presentation--not a single, widely-known Southern Baptist was listed on Allen's chart as Hyper-Calvinist (editorial comment).
*It's been pointed out to me that this number is incorrect. The correct number is 20. I rechecked my count; I fully admit my mistake; and am happy to correct my mistake. More importantly, I am very sorry for my mistake.
My deepest gratitude to Dr. Allen for allowing this post to be placed here for further clarity on this significant dialogue in our beloved Southern Baptist Convention.
With that, I am...
Peter
Dr. David Allen & Peter Lumpkins,
Very good information. Thanks for providing it.
Your information about Calvinists, including some at Dort and Westminster, who rejected limited atonement - I find especially interesting.
David R. Brumbelow
Posted by: David R. Brumbelow | 2008.12.01 at 12:53 PM
Where can I find a copy of the handouts that Dr. Allen passed out at the conference? Are those online somewhere?
Posted by: Scott R. | 2008.12.01 at 01:25 PM
Hi Scott and David,
We will get clarification on posting the definitions page and charts later, but here are the two blog index pages that Dr. Allen referenced at the conference:
1) Calvin and Calvinism Index
2) My Index Page
Grace to you,
Tony
Posted by: Tony Byrne | 2008.12.01 at 02:09 PM
Dr. Allen,
Thank you for your time in responding to this issue.
You spend considerable time above defending yourself against the charge that you despise Calvinism and that you yourself are an anti-Calvinist. I appreciate the biographical information and trust everything you have said, but there is one point that I believe you left out.
First, I think the distinction between 'Calvinism,' as is being bantered around generally above, and '5-point Calvinism' should be made explicit in these claims. Because of the semantics of the label and the nature of Southern Baptist doctrine, the term 'Calvinist,' in some degree, can be applied to most people in the SBC. Yet most would not be regarded as being 'Calvinists.' Thus, let me restate what I think the charge against you is and that is that you are anti-5-point-Calvinism (I will not go as far as to say that you despise it). It is this criticism that I do not think you have adequately defensed.
At the end of your presentation at J316C you made the following statement: "Should the Southern Baptist Convention move towards 5-point Calvinism, such a move would be away from, and not toward, the Gospel." Now, lest I be mistaken about how seriously you take the Gospel (which I trust I'm not), how could you possibly not be against someone or something that you think is moving away from the Gospel? Such a move away would be an attempt to steal part of God's glory, which is the definition of sin. Therefore, judging by your quote and a reasonable assessment of what this means, one would be led to assume that you believe 5-point Calvinism to be sinful.
Furthermore, if you believe 5-point Calvinism to be sinful, how could you possibly want to strive for unity with the people who adhere to it? You speak of building a bridge, but it appears that the bridge you want 5-point Calvinists to build is one that retracts one or more of their soteriological convictions, which, as a 5-point Calvinist myself, I feel is a bridge too far.
Would you please address this charge? Thank you.
Posted by: Todd Burus | 2008.12.01 at 03:26 PM
Hi David, Scott and Peter,
I've been given the go ahead on posting the definitions page here, along with my chart. So, you can download both HERE, or HERE.
Or, if you just want the conference chart alone, you can get it HERE.
Posted by: Tony Byrne | 2008.12.01 at 03:52 PM
Todd,
Of course, I do not speak for Dr. Allen. Yet, given his schedule, I am unsure how much time he has to monitor this post or even if he cares to respond. Allow me, if I could to offer a couple of comments.
First, your concern that "the distinction between 'Calvinism,' as is being bantered around generally above, and '5-point Calvinism' should be made explicit in these claims" (emphasis mine). That Dr. Allen makes such distinctions there is no question, Todd. You have the handout. You realize he does so.
Even so, supposing we exchanged "5-P" for "Calvinist," it would not be fully accurate because Dr. Allen's more precise meaning, if I may be so bold as to say such, is "strict particularism."
All aside, the concern you raise, Todd, is not even drawn from this rejoinder. Rather it's drawn from the paper presentation itself. Thus, I sense you're introducing needless complexity into the current post.
Secondly, and even more significantly, you describe a scenario for Dr. Allen similar to the following:
This is not a challenge, Todd; it is a deathwish. Consider the following axe Dr. Allen may sling back your way:
Of course, Dr. Allen is not a 4-Point Calvinist (but, he may be for all I know!). Nonetheless, my point remains intact regardless of whether he is or is not.
Hence, to frame the "challenge" the way you have, no one on either side could possibly desire "unity" else they would be desiring sin.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2008.12.01 at 04:15 PM
. . . I want to say a word to my young Calvinist friends out here. You say: “I can’t believe that. I’ve never read that” [that there were Calvinists at Dort and Westminster who rejected strict particularism (limited atonement) and held to some form of universal atonement].
Did these same folks still hold to the positions of Dort and Westminster? Did they or anyone else not consider them five point Calvinists?
I am, upon that...
Mark
Posted by: johnMark | 2008.12.01 at 04:48 PM
Mark asked:
Yes. Men like Davenant, Martinius and others were still Synodists, even though they rejected the strict view of Christ's satisfaction. Check out what Richard Muller said HERE. Also take a look at these posts:
Richard Muller on Amyraut and Confessional Boundaries: Part 2
Mitchell and Struthers on the Westminster Debates on Redemption
Mark asked:
I've tried to encourage people, including Dr. Allen, to drop the "4-point," "5-point" and "4.5-point" Calvinist labels. It's unhelpful. Anyway, Davenant, Martinius, Calamy, Vines, etc. are all known and acknowledged as not advocating the view that Christ only suffered for the sins of the elect (i.e. a limited imputation of sin to Christ). Nevertheless, they did see limitations in Christ's will and in the effectual application resulting therefrom. They were basically dualists who saw both general and particular aspects to Christ's death. The general aspect didn't merely involve incidental benefits of common grace. Rather, it involves Christ actually bearing the guilt for the sins of all mankind, including the non-elect, and that by God's own ordination. Since these men were Calvinists, they also saw the entire Trinity decreeing or determining to save a portion of lost humanity, i.e. the elect. Christ expresses this aspect of God's will in his life, death and resurrection. Consequently, he sends the Spirit to effectually call the elect alone such that they believe and thus obtain the eternal benefits of Christ's all-sufficient satisfaction.
If the "five-points" come from the Synod of Dort, then they were "five-pointers." If the "five-points" are synonymous with John Owen's strictly limited view, then they were not "five-pointers." Again, these labels should be dropped. The men that Dr. Allen referenced saw general and particular aspects to Christ death. According to them, there was no limitation in Christ's expiatory satisfaction itself. The only limitations were in Christ's special motives concerning the elect and in the application, and no where else. Owenists see a further limitation in the imputation of sin to Christ, such that he only bears the guilt of the elect when he suffered. That's what the classic and moderate Calvinists did not advocate.
With that, I am...Well, I don't really know who I am. I am what I existentially choose, apparently, according to what my culture tells me :-)
Tony
Posted by: Tony Byrne | 2008.12.01 at 05:15 PM
Peter,
I have no doubt that Dr. Allen makes this distinction between 'Calvinism' and '5-point Calvinism.' What I am trying to get at is that Dr. Allen uses accounts of 'moderate Calvinists' and just plain 'Calvinists' to address the charge of anti-Calvinism, while, what I think is really being said, in order to speak most clearly, is that Dr. Allen is an anti-5-point-Calvinist. This, as I explained, is because of his comment at J316C which I quoted above. So, to the contrary of what you said, this is a concern drawn from the rejoinder because it is an aspect of the charges against Dr. Allen which I do not believe he has addressed. (Moreover, I believe it is a more fair charge to be brought against Dr. Allen who has been wrongly quoted as having said that a move towards Calvinism is a move away from the Gospel).
With that, I do agree with you that what Dr. Allen is claiming that holding to 'strict particularism' is a move away from the Gospel. But still, that point is a point among the 5, and to relinquish that is to relinquish part of a persons' convictions.
I do not see where this death wish you speak of comes from. First, I have not made the claim that 4-point or less Calvinism is sinful. Secondly, I am not asking anyone to build a bridge by denying their soteriological convictions. I am perfectly fine being in communion with Southern Baptists of 1- to 5-point stances. This may not be the case with all my fellow 5-pointers, but from where I sit all I see most of them asking for is a seat at the table. My criticism of Dr. Allen is that I don't see how one could be consistent with the statement he made and with his other claims to want unity.
Posted by: Todd Burus | 2008.12.01 at 05:16 PM
It seems to me the Dr. Allen's response is thorough, sincere, and raises a good number of issues. I wish his detractors would engage on the same level instead of scatter shooting ad hominem attacks and red herrings.
I took notice that Dr. Allen even conceded a few points and made corrections. Although these were minor, they demonstrate his willingness to engage in civil discourse. I admire him for his thorough scholarship and his genuine heart.
Tony,
Thanks for posting the papers referenced. I could not attend j316 but listened to the CD's so was unable to see the handouts until now. Thank you.
Posted by: Scott R. | 2008.12.01 at 05:17 PM
Tony,
Thanks for the reply. As I've mentioned to you before it seems to be a "divide and conquer" mentality. If the above mentioned folks have some nuance in their view of the atonement, yet still held to Dordt or Westminster, then what really was Dr. Allen arguing against? Especially, in light of dropping the five point type labels as you mentioned.
I mean, would Dr. Allen be happy if the Founders type folk in the SBC pushed for a more universal atonement doctrine, yet one that would fit with Dordt and Westminster? If not, again, what was he really arguing against?
Where exactly does Dr. Allen's theology fit within all of these positions?
I think we should also go beyond Dordt and Westminster since we are baptists. Why not just go to the 1689 and the like? Isn't that where the Calvinistic baptists mostly lie anyways?
You're you, and I'm not...
Mark
Posted by: johnMark | 2008.12.01 at 05:40 PM
David,
Thank you, my brother. I trust you have been well and a wonderful Christmas event awaits you and yours.
With that, I am...
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2008.12.01 at 06:10 PM
Dr. Allen has spoken clearly, reasonably, and with measure to this important issue. Now, if he could only overcome his passion for Cokes....
Posted by: Malcolm Yarnell | 2008.12.01 at 07:12 PM
Tony,
Thanks!
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2008.12.01 at 07:15 PM
Peter,
Please take the time to read my question for Dr. Allen. I am asking, since there appears to be a contradiction between his statements of wanting unity and his comments about 5-point Calvinism being a move away from the Gospel, how he would respond to that? I do not think you are doing him any favors here as you also are failing to address what he actually said. I don't want to witch hunt, I want to know how he reconciles the two things.
Also, you're attempt at logical deduction must be lost on me completely. Here is my assumption based on Dr. Allen's words (which are line (1)):
(1) Moving towards 5-point Calvinism = moving away from the Gospel
(2) Moving away from the Gospel = taking away from God's glory
(3) Taking away from God's glory = sin
(4) Therefore, moving towards 5-point Calvinism = sin
If you think I have made a false step somewhere please tell me what it is. Plus, please show me how this deduction falls back on me.
Posted by: Todd Burus | 2008.12.01 at 07:54 PM
Todd,
I am not willing to concede Dr. Allen is anti-any Calvinism (except, of course, Hyper-Calvinism). He says he's not. Moreover, his words and his record prove he's not.
Recall Dr. Allen specifically said in his rejoinder "During my years on that committee, I recommended without reservation some men who were Calvinists. Dr. Greg Welty immediately comes to mind." Is not Professor Greg Welty a "5-Point" Calvinist?
Allen further asserts "I recommended to the president of one of our sister SBC Seminaries a man to fill an administrative and faculty position whom I have known for twenty-eight years and who is a Calvinist (He was up until a few years ago a five-point Calvinist, but came to reject limited atonement as unbiblical)."
Another 5P Calvinist--albeit softening down (whether before or after recommendation Allen does not say). Yet, the point is, his Calvinism was not an issue. A further example Allen offers: "Also in 2008 I hired a new graduate assistant in my office, a fine young man of whom I am very fond...He is a five-point Calvinist."
In face of such clarity, Todd, how you now can even write "what I think is really being said, in order to speak most clearly, is that Dr. Allen is an anti-5-point-Calvinist" I haven't a clue.
You also write, Todd, "I do not see where this death wish you speak of comes from....I have not made the claim that 4-point or less Calvinism is sinful...I am not asking anyone to build a bridge by denying their soteriological convictions." Todd, I was merely taking your assumptions and moving forward.
I find it humorous that you write "First, I have not made the claim that 4-point or less Calvinism is sinful." But neither has Dr .Allen made the claim about 5P Calvinism either, Todd; you made it for him!
You based such on your deductions beginning with taking the Gospel seriously>>>being against that which moves away from the Gospel>>>to such being sin>>>5P Calvinism is sin>>>no unity because of uniting with those adhering to sin>>>to concluding that Dr. Allen wants 5P Calvinists to retract retracts their soteriological convictions.
My simple point is, Todd, if you can deduce such about Dr. Allen's view based on your assumptions, you cannot blow the whistle crying foul when someone substitutes your position and deduces their conclusions likewise, using your own logical construct.
I don't know how to put it clearer.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2008.12.01 at 07:56 PM
Todd,
I am through. If you cannot see that your own logic defeats your assertion, I cannot assist any further.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2008.12.01 at 07:58 PM
I have some difficulty reconciling the following on page 32 out of 34 on Dr. Allen's review of Calvinism. First, Dr. Allen writes, "It is any and every Baptist’s right to be persuaded that Calvinism reflects the teaching of Scripture. Being a Calvinist should
not be a convention crime. Calvinists have and should always be free to have a place at the SBC table." Then, Dr. Allen writes, "When Calvinists, individually, or as groups such as the Founders Ministries, seek to make it a cause with the intention of moving the SBC towards Calvinism, then we have and will continue to have a problem."
How can one have the freedom to be persuaded of certain theological views, with, I take it, the freedom to express those views, and not have the freedom to attempt to persuade others to hold those self-same views? This what I honestly do not get, because I am free to hold certain views and persuade others of those views, as Dr. Allen seems to permit by the above and his words, "Let us debate the theology of Calvinism and let the chips fall where they may..." I should also be free to persuade (or attempt to persuade) as many as I come in contact with, whether I do so as an individual or as an organization of like-minded people. The only way one can not be guilty of "Calvinizing" in the strictest, absolute sense is to never defend one's beliefs at all. That is why, for me personally, Dr. Akin should be free to author "Why your next pastor should not be a Calvinist" if he so desires. I would disagree with that position (and take the opposing side), but I would not disagree with the freedom to express that view.
I might be opening up a can of worms here, but I want to talk about this word "anti-Calvinist" for a minute. It seems like this can mean different things to different people, as there seem to be multiple definitions and qualifications for it. In the most foundational sense, anyone in the SBC with knowledge on the subject, will have a pro- or anti- position doctrinally in terms of personal belief. I think this is the sense that it is being used by some, though the reference to "Calvinism" is more specifically referring to the five-point variety. That is why I have difficulty understanding "non-Calvinist" because my brain automatically interprets that to mean, "without Calvinism," which to me seems to need a frame of reference. Unless one is completely ignorant concerning the issue, how can one be entirely neutral on the issue on all levels?
Posted by: Byroniac | 2008.12.01 at 08:30 PM
Peter,
Thank you for once again calling me to task on my statements and yet skirting my questions in retort. It is no wonder that there is so much difficulty surrounding this debate right now with such a high level of transparency and integrity being displayed between brethren. You may find my statements out of line, but please take into consideration that I have tried to give you several opportunities on this post and the previous to display my errors when specific instances and trains of thought were cited and yet all you have done is ignore these requests and attempted to discredit me by questioning my integrity, tone, intellect, and character. I hoped for more dialogue here and am disheartened that I have not found as much.
BTW, you may notice that Byron has the same illogical assessment of Dr. Allen's position as I do in comment 18.
Posted by: Todd Burus | 2008.12.01 at 11:03 PM
I put "Calvinizing" in quotes but I am in error, as that is not so in the original (I may have made other errors, but I just discovered this one). The original has "Calvinize or de-Calvinize the SBC." But my basic assertion remains.
Posted by: Byroniac | 2008.12.01 at 11:49 PM
Todd,
You are too funny. If anyone is interested in discovering if I have been "skirting [your] questions in retort" and "ignor[ing] these requests and attempted to discredit [you] by questioning [your] integrity, tone, intellect, and character," I'll be interested to see the list gleaned from the exchanges we've had. Todd, I do not often say this, but that is pure crock.
Nor, Todd, does it surprise me that you are "disheartened that [you] have not found as much [dialog]" as you had hoped. Not too many 5P Calvinists leave here satisfied with my answers. I wonder why?
Now, as I told you concerning "people like Dr. Yarnell" don't come back here again with blanket charges that "[your] integrity, tone, intellect, and character" is challenged barring specificity. If you do, you will be deleted, Todd.
If you're going to make charges, dog-gone it, you're going to be precise. Period.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2008.12.02 at 08:27 AM
Peter,
Why won't you respond to my questions and concerns with something other than administrative threats?
Please tell me where my logic fails in the argument that I laid out for you. That is all I'm asking. Both Byron and I have raised questions about inconsistencies in Dr. Allen's writings and by responding to me without responding to my concern you are "skirting my questions."
This is a specific charge, it can't get more precise. In comment 15 I made a point-blank statement challenging you to respond. In comments 17 and 21 you refused to do so, only biting back with the remark, "If you cannot see that your own logic defeats your assertion, I cannot assist any further." It seems one of us was pretty specific here and the other one was not.
Again, it's your prerogative to run this blog how you want, but out of charity please don't keep throwing bombs at me while refusing to elaborate on your own vague statements.
Posted by: Todd Burus | 2008.12.02 at 12:08 PM
Mark said:
I understand. Some took Dr. Allen's lecture that way (even some "non-Calvinists"), but I don't think that was his goal. I believe he wanted to 1) show how many Calvinistic stalwarts taught that Christ suffered for the sins of all men [Calvin, Ursinus, Bullinger, Luther, Rollock, Howe, Charnock, etc.], 2) demonstrate how most (if not all) of the early Reformers did not espouse the strictly limited view, 3) to make his high Calvinstic brethren consider other options within their system, since so many are only exposed to the Owenic model in the popular literature. Dr. Allen mentioned several times during the lecture that "people need all of the options put on the table and all the options rightly represented before we discriminate between them biblically to see which of them is true." It's too simplistic to have only three baskets: 1) the Owenic position, 2) Amyraut's position or 3) the Arminian position. So, one of his goals was to surprise many of his listeners with historical information that they probably haven't heard before.
Posted by: Tony Byrne | 2008.12.02 at 01:03 PM
Mark asked:
I think he was targeting the strictly limited view. As you can tell by the thrust of his lecture, he was highly critical of the "5 point" position. I don't think his goal was to argue against all forms of Calvinism, but rather to demonstrate that one ought to believe that Christ suffered for the sins of all mankind, at the very least. Any view without that ingredient cannot be true. Since the Owenic model has Christ only suffering for the sins of the elect, it ought to be rejected. The classic or moderate Calvinists believes that Christ suffered for all and redeemed the whole world by the death he died, so Dr. Allen wasn't targeting their position. He didn't focus on the "intent" question so much, even though he described that different views. Rather, he was focusing on the "extent" question, or the nature of Christ substitutionary act. Did he or did he not bear the guilt due for the sins of every single human being? Only the Owenists or strict Calvinists believe he did not. All other evangelical positions believe that he did.
Posted by: Tony Byrne | 2008.12.02 at 01:17 PM
Dear Peter:
Phil Johnson's definition of "Hyper Calvinism" is getting much attention lately. However, some are not willing to include those who eliminate means in regeneration to his list. The following citation from Johnson, from his "primer" on the subject, says it is a part of the definition, in his introduction, but leaves it out of his list of five.
"Hyper-Calvinism is sometimes defined as the view that God will save the elect apart from any means. Some, but very few, modern hyper-Calvinists hold such an extreme view. Those who do hold this view oppose all forms of evangelism and preaching to the unsaved, because they believe God will save whomever He chooses, apart from human means...Another common but incorrect definition equates hyper-Calvinism with fatalism."
see here
Many leading Hypers, both now and from the past, among Baptists and Presbyterians, have denied the use of means in regeneration. Today's neo Hypers are saying that it is no means in regeneration (what occurs before faith) but it is a means in salvation or conversion (what occurs after faith).
To deny means in regeneration, not just salvation, is an integral part of historic Hyper Calvinism. I came out of the Hardshells and my father is till with them (now for 40 yrs.). I know what constitutes Hyperism.
God bless,
Stephen
Posted by: Stephen M. Garrett | 2008.12.02 at 01:30 PM
Tony,
To get off topic, but still on Dr. Allen, I was wondering about his comment that Edwards rejected Limited Atonement (or strict particularism). He cited this from Of the Freedom of the Will in favor of such a claim:
It seems to me that he is keying in on the "in some sense." Yet right off, the fact that Edwards then says "there must be something particular in the design" seems to move towards LA.
Moreover, continuing in that same section of the book, Edwards says:
Maybe I am missing some nuance in this passage or in Allen/Johnson's definitions, but this really seems to me like Edwards is asserting strict particularism. What do you think?
Posted by: Todd Burus | 2008.12.02 at 01:52 PM
Mark said:
I think Dr. Allen would be pleased if the high Calvinists moved down to more of a moderate position that affirms what he thinks is biblical, i.e. that Christ suffered for all he shares a nature with. Granted, he would still disagree with some of their Calvinism, but at least they would no longer be in danger of undermining one of the grounds for the well-meant gospel offer. Again, Dr. Allen was singularly targeting the strict view in that respect, it seems to me. There is no one in the Founders movement who holds the moderate or classical view of the nature of Christ's death. We don't see Dr. Ascol informing people about other Calvinistic alternatives on the design and extent of Christ's death, or publically cautioning against the views of some who don't even believe God desires the salvation of all men. That's a problem.
Posted by: Tony Byrne | 2008.12.02 at 02:03 PM
Tony,
Also, to add another question to your plate, since you said, "Granted, [Dr. Allen] would still disagree with some of their Calvinism, but at least they would no longer be in danger of undermining one of the grounds for the well-meant gospel offer," do you think that Dr. Allen views strict particularism as a sinful position to hold?
Posted by: Todd Burus | 2008.12.02 at 02:12 PM
Mark asked:
That's a good question, Mark. He will have to answer that himself. If I were you, I would ask him the unity in the Godhead question :-) I mentioned to Dr. Allen that he will eventually have to deal with that issue in his treatment of the topic. As a moderate Calvinist, I agree with the answer given by Dr. Curt Daniel, as you have seen. Anyway, Dr. Allen wasn't focusing on the intent question in his lecture, which is where he, as a "non-Calvinist" will have to differ with all Calvinists.
Frankly, I think he had the most difficult task at the J316C. He wanted to cover the historical data, the biblical/exegetical material, and the systematic arguments, and all of that in one hour! It's impossible. One could take up a whole hour, at least, just trying to get people to understand the various historical positions. The same goes with the biblical passages. I know that I could personally spend a half-hour just dealing with and unpacking the problems of the double-payment argument alone ;-) Dr. Allen was in the unenviable position of trying to cover all of this in just one hour. The result was that he didn't get to all of his material. He spent too much time in the history portion, which is totally understandable.
Keep this in mind: His singular target, as I see it, was to refute the position that says that Christ only suffered for sins of the elect alone. He wanted to crush that historically, biblically and systematically, but didn't have sufficient time to thoroughly present his case.
Posted by: Tony Byrne | 2008.12.02 at 02:21 PM
Hi Todd,
I see your questions :-) I will try to reply asap.
With that, I am ... not you and you are not me, if the law of non-contradiction applies :-)
Tony
Posted by: Tony Byrne | 2008.12.02 at 02:30 PM
I think that Dr. Allen is saying that there's room for those who are five point Calvinists in the SBC, but there's no room for obsessed, aggressive, extreme five point Calvinists in the SBC who are bent on converting Churches to the five points. I really think that's what he was meaning, Byroniac.
Of course, those who are obsessed, aggresive, extreme, Five point Calvinists dont see themselves as obsessed, nor aggressive, nor extreme...thus, the problem. They think that they are the enlightened ones who need to convert the SBC to the enlightened position. And, they aggressively pursue that course. But, they dont see themselves as obsessed and aggresive, etc.
David
Posted by: volfan007 | 2008.12.02 at 02:33 PM
Todd,
I am going to take one more stab at this; and I'm also going to do it in a format I personally loath:
Todd: "Why won't you respond to my questions and concerns with something other than administrative threats?"
Peter: I specifically informed you why I wrote the "administrative threat"--"don't come back here again with blanket charges that "[your] integrity, tone, intellect, and character" is challenged barring specificity". If you're going to state that I have questioned your "integrity, tone, intellect, and character" then be specific, Todd. Also note, the "threat" was conditional.
Todd: "Please tell me where my logic fails in the argument that I laid out for you. That is all I'm asking."
Peter: Todd, I cannot do better than I have done: I wrote to you:
"You based such on your deductions beginning with taking the Gospel seriously>>>being against that which moves away from the Gospel>>>to such being sin>>>5P Calvinism is sin>>>no unity because of uniting with those adhering to sin>>>to concluding that Dr. Allen wants 5P Calvinists to retract retracts their soteriological convictions."
Breaking this down, it reads:
--You based such on your deductions beginning with taking the Gospel seriously, which leads to...
--being against that which moves away from the Gospel, which leads to...
--such departure being sin, which leads to...
--5P Calvinism as sin, which leads to...
--no unity because of uniting with those adhering to sin, which leads to...
--concluding that Dr. Allen wants 5P Calvinists to retract (at least some) of their soteriological convictions, which you deduce, means a dilemma.
Now, Todd, watch very carefully. I am assuming the very thing you stated about Dr. Allen, namely, that he takes the Gospel very seriously. And, I am also assuming, as you did with Dr. Allen, that, since you take the Gospel seriously, a certain chain reaction will occur, just as it did with Dr. Allen:
--Todd, like Dr. Allen, takes the Gospel seriously, which leads to...
--Todd, like Dr. Allen, being against that which moves away from the Gospel, which leads to...
--Todd, like Dr. Allen, viewing such departure being sin, which leads to...
--Todd, like Dr. Allen, viewing -(less than) 5P Calvinism as sin, which leads to...
--Todd, like Dr. Allen, supporting no unity because of uniting with those adhering to sin, which leads to...
--Todd, like Dr. Allen, concluding that Todd wants -(less than) 5P Calvinists to retract (at least some) of their soteriological convictions, which you deduce, means a dilemma.
It seems to me, Todd, there is no way out of the snare that you carefully set for Dr. Allen clamping down on you, unless you concede that you do not think less than 5P Calvinists are wrong in their belief. Do you fully believe in 5P Calvinism? The way you argued for Limited Atonement contra Dr. Allen cannot be interpreted any other way, can it?
That's what I meant by your own logical construct you've created as a non-negotiable chain of events that must exist for Dr. Allen, beginning with your assumption that he takes the Gospel seriously. If you take the Gospel seriously, and you hold your deductive box cars on the track, you'll end in the same destination about which you want to claim is a dilemna for Dr. Allen.
Please do not contest one of the boxcars as you did before: "I have not made the claim that 4-point or less Calvinism is sinful..." Nor has Dr. Allen! You've framed this as sin in your logical construct. Dr. Allen has stated that Limited Atonement is wrong. So? You have said that Unlimited Atonement is wrong.
But if Dr. Allen's belief about Limited Atonement being wrong reduces, in your view, to embracing Limited Atonement as sin, why does not your belief that Unlimited Atonement being wrong not also reduce to embracing Unlimited Atonement as sin?
Now, Todd, I gave you no more in this than you could have gotten yourself from what I wrote on. Why you insist I "skirted" the question is fantastic.
The fundamental problem is, as I said earlier, in your logical construct: "My simple point is, Todd, if you can deduce such about Dr. Allen's view based on your assumptions, you cannot blow the whistle crying foul when someone substitutes your position and deduces their conclusions likewise, using your own logical construct."
Todd "Both Byron and I have raised questions about inconsistencies..."
Peter: Please leave Byron out of this. He has been around along time on this blog, Todd; trust me. He's not at all shy about asking me questions if he thinks I'm stalling.
Moreover, he also is aware that I am not a slot machine that seeks more quarters. I cannot answer every question; nor have I obligated myself in doing so.
Those who, unlike yourself, have found some satisfaction here--at least enough to keep them returning--I think could say they do not lack, shall we say, a bit of spark in me, to defend the posts I publish. In other words, your charge that I "skirt" the questions is hollow.
Todd: "This is a specific charge, it can't get more precise."
Peter: RE-read the specificity for which I asked, Todd: "don't come back here again with blanket charges that "[your] integrity, tone, intellect, and character" is challenged barring specificity. I asked for specifics that I attempted to discredit you by questioning "[your] integrity, tone, intellect, and character." Care to make a list?
Todd: In comment 15 I made a point-blank statement challenging you to respond. In comments 17 and 21 you refused to do so."
Peter: I did not refuse, Todd. You already had my response. You didn't like my response or at least was not satisfied with it.
Todd: "...only biting back with the remark, "If you cannot see that your own logic defeats your assertion, I cannot assist any further."
Peter: That was not biting; that was stating a fact. Short...to the point...stating the fact.
Todd: "It seems one of us was pretty specific here and the other one was not."
Peter: Again, Todd you are not reading. The specificity for which I called concerned the weeny remark that my approach "skirted your questions" and instead focused on discrediting you by questioning "[your] integrity, tone, intellect, and character." I do not have to stoop to ad hominem approaches to get my point across, my brother.
And, I've been at this long enough to know that only when specifics can be marshaled do the charges of ad hominem attacks possess more than rhetorical force; that is, the charge is made based on other criteria than the words involved.
Todd: Again, it's your prerogative to run this blog how you want but..." (emphasis mine).
Peter: I've heard that same line from many here and elsewhere over the last few years who cannot seem to make a point stick. Somehow it seems to me, that it is a backdoor insult to the blog-host.
I think the big BUT at the end gives it away. The commenter seems to assume his/her sense of justice, fairness, and/or what's appropriate for bloggers/blogs stands a cut above the blog-host's own sense of such.
Todd: "...out of charity please don't keep throwing bombs at me..."
Peter: As the Gipper used to say: "There you go again." The assumption is, my engagement is nether loving nor honorable. I engaged you, Todd, just as I've engaged others here for over three years.
My encouragement to you is, if my style of engagement is so unfulfilling to you personally, you need to consider another place to log your dissent. My feelings will not be hurt, I assure.
And, though I am doing what I loathe--that is, composing a comment as a running commentary construct on most every line, rather than in my preferred 'epistle' format--I have no intention whatsoever of dialoging any different on future posts than I normally do now.
Consider this: I DID THIS EXCEPTION ALL FOR YOU! IS THAT NOT LOVE?
Todd: "...while refusing to elaborate..."
Peter: I assure you, Todd, you are the first one who's ever accused me of refusing to "elaborate" on anything I ever post. The first!
Todd: "...on your own vague statements."
Peter: I have to admit, sometimes I can be vague. I would not think vagary is a trait, however, that either defines me or my usual writing.
Honestly, I would need to know which statement or word that someone thought vague. Most folks that I trust to shoot me a straight assessment do not see that as a huge problem I'd have to say.
Now, there. I trust this thorough enough. I have used up my entire lunch hour composing it.
Hence, Todd, whether or not you return, I am convinced you will exercise your libertarian free will and act accordingly.
You, however, probably feel like your mind will choose what it most desires. And that's O.K. too.
Our Lord bless us all to live for His glory alone.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2008.12.02 at 02:42 PM
Mark asked:
Well, the 1689 echoes much of the Westminster Confession, as you know. So, "going beyond" Dort or Westminster to the 1689 doesn't really involve switching in the area of Calvinistic soteriology so much as it involves changes to Baptist ecclesiology and other matters. In fact, I think it is safe to say that the majority of men at Dort, at Westminster and the 1689ers held to the strict view of the nature of Christ's satisfaction. Dr. Richard Muller has argued that Dort and Westminster were deliberately written so as to accomadate the moderate Calvinistic position, whether it is the non-Amyraldian (what he calls "non-speculative") variety of "hypothetical universalism" or Amyraldian "hypothetical universalism" (what he calls "speculative hypothetical universalism"). If the WCF accomadates the moderate view, and it's language or more difficult to deal with then the 2LBC, then it is reasonable to suppose that the latter can also accomadate it. I am not inclinded to believe that the 2LBC wanted to be more strict than the WCF.
The bottom line is this: there is a moderate Calvinistic trajectory that Calvinists today need to seriously consider, and they're not being exposed to it in the popular books or in the blogosphere. It is a trajectory that is, according to Dr. Muller, within the boundaries of the Reformed Confessions, whether we're talking about Heidelberg, the Second Helvetic, Dort or the WCF. After all, Ursinus and Bullinger, according to Muller, held to a non-Amyraldian form of "hypothetical universalism" themselves. Were they not Reformed or Calvinsitic? Of course they were.
Also, if we, as Calvinists, "go beyond" these confessions, perhaps we should "go beyond" in the sense of returning to the views of the early Reformers and the early church, instead of looking to later post-Reformational thinkers. But, even if we look after the Reformation, why not adopt the views of Rollock, Bates, Charnock and Howe? That's at least how I see things.
Posted by: Tony Byrne | 2008.12.02 at 03:00 PM
Todd asked:
I will try to answer this question first, Todd, instead of your earlier question regarding the Edwards quote. This is a difficult question that will have a complicated answer.
1) I don't know how Dr. Allen would answer the question. I haven't personally talked to him about it. However, given his track record, I don't think he would view one who advocates strict particularlism as necessarily doing something sinful. They're mistaken, but not necessarily sinning. That's my guess at the direction he might go.
2) Since I also reject the strict view, perhaps my own perspective might sufficiently answer your question. Everyone holding the strict view is going directly to hell! No question about it! Just kidding!!! lol I'm just seeing if you're paying attention :-)
A) I don't think that one holding to a false belief is necessarily doing so sinfully. I might erroneously believe or maintain that I left my keys on the kitchen table instead of on my desk. I don't think that false belief would be necessarily sinful. If someone believes that 2+2=5, I don't think holding to that false belief is necessarily sinful. Maintaining those false beliefs might become sinful if I go on to push away and suppress contrary and compelling evidence, but simply holding the false belief is not of itself sinful. In fact, it might be the case that I do not see compelling contrary evidence yet, so I might be within my epistemic rights to continue to hold the belief.
B) Obviously, the above examples are not biblical doctrines, but I do think there is a similarity. Consider, for example, the issue of eating meat that is offered to idols. One believes it is sinful to eat it while another does not. Paul says that eating the meat is not in fact sinful, so long as one is not violating their conscience. But, eating it is sinful if one violates their conscience. To violate one's conscience would be acting contrary to what one is persuaded of as the truth. My conscience is persuaded that eating is sinful, but I will eat it anyway. That's sinful. Consider this as well: one is not being sinful if they erroneously believe eating the meat sacrificed to idols is a sin. It's not true, but Paul does not think such people are sinful for merely holding that belief. They are "weak," he says, but not necessarily sinful for that belief.
C) I am inclinded to think the same way about those who believe in a strict particularism. While I think the belief is false myself, I am not prepared to say that all those who belief in it are doing so sinfully. They might be, but not necessarily. It depends on the context of their belief, their motives for holding it and their conscience. If one believes the doctrine for good reasons and is not convinced that there is convincing contrary evidence, then they are within their epistemic rights to continue to hold the belief. While they may be mistaken, they're not in sin, or even acting unwisely. We don't want people acting contrary to their consciences, or believing something about the extent of Christ's death without any biblical warrant.
If a strict particularist holds to that belief because they honestly do not see any compelling reason to abandon it, then I do not consider them to be in sin, even when I think their belief is in fact false. If, however, a strict particularist maintains their view in the face of overwhelming and compelling contrary evidence, such that they even begin to suppress it and to wrest the scriptures in an attempt to sustain a system at all costs, then that's a different matter. That strikes me as prideful, and therefore as sinful. Since I cannot read men's hearts, I cannot always tell when that is in fact happening. Consequently, I do not want to rashly accuse my brethren of sinning when they may not be. If they begin to treat other people in abusive ways because their theological system seems threatened by an argument, then they are suspect to me.
All false beliefs ultimately stem from the noetic effects of sin, but holding a false belief is not necessarily sinful. You may want to check out Arthur F. Holmes' book All Truth is God's Truth. I vaguely recall him touching on this issue.
I hope that helps,
Tony
Posted by: Tony Byrne | 2008.12.02 at 03:56 PM
Tony,
Thank you for your response. I see where you are coming from and believe that my views on the false belief v. sinful belief distinction are quite similar. I guess what concerns me with Dr. Allen's statement is the idea of "moving away from the Gospel." To me, if I feel that someone is moving away from the Gospel, that is a pretty serious charge. The Gospel is God's proclamation of good news about himself for the world to hear, and to move away from that, to me, means to hide or take away from the glory God has declared, which I would struggle to say is anything but sinful. Because of this I have just been curious how much force Dr. Allen means to place behind those words.
Thank you for the time you have devoted answering questions here.
Posted by: Todd Burus | 2008.12.02 at 04:12 PM
Tony,
My point about the 1689 is that this is the confession of most or all baptists in question concerning the SBC.
You said
Am I reading rightly that you are saying the majority of those holding to the above confessions held to a stricter view of the atonement?
With that, I am just making sure...
Mark
Posted by: johnMark | 2008.12.02 at 04:14 PM
Peter,
Thank you for taking the time to write your response to me. I have no desire to engage in further nuancing of charges (I believe I could, but simply am disinterested in doing so unless it must be done), and so I will only respond in defense of the dispute we have over my assumptions on Dr. Allen's words.
First, I'm not quite sure what happened in the ordering, but my comment 15 was actual written in reply to your comment which is now listed as 16 (this is why I said "you're (sic) attempt at logical deduction must be lost on me completely"). You can also see that your comment 16 was written in reply to my comment 9. I only mention this to highlight the fact that my request for clarification was in response to the deduction that you reproduced in comment 32, and that my subsequent requests for a response, which I felt were ignored, were in light of this wish for clarification.
Getting to the matter, the reason why I think your "deathwish" argument fails is because the claim that I am basing my assumptions off of is not that Dr. Allen "takes the Gospel seriously" but that because he takes the Gospel seriously, saying that a move towards 5-point Calvinism is a move away from the Gospel would seem to imply negative feelings towards 5-point Calvinism (namely, that it is sinful, which is what I tried to sketch). Thus, in turning it back on me, the key that is lacking is that I do not believe that a move away from 5-point Calvinism is a move away from the Gospel. Instead, I mimic Richard Land's comments about Unconditional Election that, though I think lower-Calvinism is biblically incorrect, I do not think that those particular beliefs (that is, 1- to 4-point Calvinism) take away from God's glory.
Posted by: Todd Burus | 2008.12.02 at 04:31 PM
Mark asked:
Yes. Consider this:
Of the Westminster Assembly, Dr. Curt Daniel writes:
I don't know about the percentages among the divines during the 2LBC, but we're in the process of searching EEBO (Early English Books Online) for what they had to say as well :-)
I do find this following quote interesting:
Here's an instance of a Particular Baptist minister in the 1780's who knew about the Calvinistic universal redemption views of Edward Polhill and John Howe.
Posted by: YnottonY | 2008.12.02 at 04:34 PM
What a conundrum I find myself in - I am agreeing with the boys I normally disagree with and ... Just gives a real case of tired head.
In general I want to compliment everyone (across the blogosphere) for some great debates on this topic. It has been fun and enlightening to read.
As usual, I dont think anyone's mind has been changed - I find myself in general agreement with the arminian side of the debate with a petal or two of the tulip thrown in.
My pastor is a pretty strong 4.5-5 pointer - however one would not know it to hear him preach, it only really comes up when we have our occasional theological discussions and I bring it up!
I would agree with some of the comments that I have seen Louis throw out on one or two of the other blogs, the younger set generally seems to be more Calvinistic which somewhat threatens the older set.
On the Lord's Supper issue, I have been in many churches and celebrated the Lords Supper in many churches over the years (all SBC). As far as I can remember, the only qualification that the pastor has thrown out was that the partakers be born again and essentially confessed up! So while the argument on the Lords supper across the blogs is theoretical - I would say most churches practice a quasi open Lords Supper.
I think we will be OK as a convention as long as the IMB trustees dont get involved :)
Posted by: JIm Champion | 2008.12.02 at 04:37 PM
Todd,
Given your strict particularist views, would you say that a move toward the position that Christ suffered for the sins of all mankind, or that he substituted for every descendent of Adam, is a move away from the Gospel? After all, we're constantly hearing how that view undermines penal substitution, at least by implication. Do you think that a position that 1) undermines penal substitution and 2) entails that everyone will be saved (double payment) is a move away from the gospel?
Posted by: YnottonY | 2008.12.02 at 04:42 PM
Todd,
Consider the following.
This statement:
1) A move toward 5 point Calvinism would be a move away from the gospel.
Is no more controversial than:
2) A move away from 5 point Calvinism is a move away from the gospel.
Given what strict particularists are saying about 1) penal substitution and double payment entailments (all would be saved if Christ paid for all), they would have to believe in the second proposition above. And, if they believe in the second proposition, why are they faulting those who assert the first proposition, as if it is any more controversial than their own statements?
Posted by: YnottonY | 2008.12.02 at 05:01 PM
No, I do not think that a move towards universal redemption is a move away from the Gospel. At the risk of responding too quickly and saying more than I mean, I think that the Gospel is what God has done for salvation, whereas Calvinism is the particulars of how salvation is accomplished. Thus, the Gospel encompasses that Christ came into the world, fully God and fully man, lived the life we couldn't live, died the death we should have died, was raised from death which could not hold him, has been exalted at the right hand of God for all eternity, and is coming back to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
I think it is possible for one to live their whole life in ignorance of how their salvation was procured (i.e. the petals of TULIP, IMO) and be no worse off. However, if someone has not heard the Gospel and responded in faith that's a whole other story.
Posted by: Todd Burus | 2008.12.02 at 05:04 PM
To further clarify, I think what would be more accurate of my position and of these strict particularists you are speaking of is that a move away from 5-point Calvinism is a move away from the truth. This is a different beast altogether. It's (kind of) like the difference between 6-Day literal creationsists and those who believe in an extended days interpretation of Genesis 1. One is the truth, but neither view takes away from the Gospel.
Again, maybe this is saying too much, but I believe it is accurate.
Posted by: Todd Burus | 2008.12.02 at 05:12 PM
Todd,
We're stalled on whether or not your logical construct applies to you. Agreed.
You write: "I have no desire to engage in further nuancing of charges..." Further nuancing of charges? For me, Todd, this IS the issue.
Personally conceding a complete stall on the mutual applicability of your logical construct, you are the one who signed on, Todd, explicitly stating "...all you [Peter] have done is ignore these requests and attempted to discredit me by questioning my integrity, tone, intellect, and character" (all emphasis mine). Again, I do not call that "further nuancing of charges."
If I managed to accomplish what you say I've done, Todd, I've violated every single value that I hold for SBCTomorrow. If so, my engagement has been dishonest; it lacks any real worth; and can safely be dismissed. Indeed, it is not too much to judge it godless, from my perspective. That's how serious I take what I write.
Now, just as when I warned you about unsubstantiated charges concerning Drs. Yarnell, Vines, Allen, et al, in the future, Todd, I ask you never charge anyone on this blog with personal attacks against you--"attempted to discredit me by questioning my integrity, tone, intellect, and character"--unless you darn well ready to produce the goods. Such provocative assertions can only be considered divisive. I shall not mention this again, my brother.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2008.12.02 at 05:18 PM
Todd,
1) Do you think that the doctrine of penal substitution is a crucial truth associated with the gospel?
2) Do you think that the view that everyone will be saved is an untruth that is antithetical to the gospel?
If you say no to either of these questions, you're on your own among strict particularists. You would not only be in a minority, you would virtually be by yourself.
So what say ye?
With that, I think, therefore I am...
Tony
Posted by: YnottonY | 2008.12.02 at 05:33 PM
Tony,
I would say I agree with both of those statements, but I'm unsure how this advances your point (maybe you're just curious? I'm interested to see what's next).
Posted by: Todd Burus | 2008.12.02 at 05:50 PM
Tony,
Let me amend what I said real quick. I do not think that it is impossible that everyone will be saved in theory, however I think the biblical evidence asserts that it is not the case, and so it is an untruth from a biblical standpoint, but I guess this would not make it antithetical to the Gospel. Does that make sense?
Posted by: Todd Burus | 2008.12.02 at 05:54 PM
Todd,
Thanks for the answer, and here's my point. High Calvinists (or strict particularists) frequently argue that non-strict views of Christ's death undermine the penal substitutionary nature of Christ death, and entails full-blown universalism (because of the double payment argument). Now, since they think penal substitution is a crucial truth associated with the gospel, they would have to say that anything that undermines that truth represents a move away from the gospel. Likewise, since they think that universal salvation is an untruth that is antithetical to the gospel, they would have to say that a position that entails that view represents a movement away from the gospel
The bottom line is this: High Calvinists are in fact arguing -- by virtue of their penal substitutionary arguments and double payment arguments -- that the universal redemption position represents a movement away from the gospel. So, it's like I said above.
This statement:
1) A move toward 5 point Calvinism would be a move away from the gospel.
Is no more controversial than:
2) A move away from 5 point Calvinism is a move away from the gospel.
Both parties are seeking to make reductio ad absurdum arguments. That's all.
A) High Calvinists think that non-strict views represent a move away from the gospel because it 1) undermines penal substitution and 2) entails that everyone will be saved, among other things.
B) Non-Calvinists (such as Dr. Allen) and moderate Calvinists (such as myself) think that High Calvinism represents a move away from the gospel because it 1) undermines the basis for free, indiscriminate and well-meant gospel offers and 2) diminishes God's universal saving will, among other things.
If a High Calvinist has a problem with B, then why not A? It's a double standard. Neither those in position A nor those in position B are thinking that the other party is holding to something that is necessarily sinful. It's just the case that one party thinks the other party is holding to a belief that undermines, by implication, important gospel truths.
If you have a problem with B, then why not A as well? Perhaps it's because you believe in strict particularism instead of a form of universal redemption. Thus, you're begging the question when you fault B and not A as well :-)
Those in position B are just as troubled by the assertions of those in position A.
I hope that helps,
Tony
Posted by: YnottonY | 2008.12.02 at 06:12 PM
Tony,
Thank you for your response. I think the question I would ask you is what do you believe in regards to the atonement? I believe that both sides hold to some sort of substitutionary atonement and I think this is the Gospel issue. Whether the atonement is penal or not, whether we are condemned by a penal debt or a commercial debt, and whether that debt is paid and done or paid yet needing acceptance, I believe are all of the particulars (sorry for the word) of salvation which I think are at a deeper level than the Gospel itself, and so a person's convictions in either direction would not necessarily entail a move away from the Gospel (to me at least).
Posted by: Todd Burus | 2008.12.02 at 06:52 PM
Peter,
I am spending some time with my family right now, but later on tonight I will email you in regards to this. I do not believe we need to drag our back-and-forth out here any longer (I'm not accusing you of being in the wrong for doing this, I would just feel better if we handled it more privately for now).
Posted by: Todd Burus | 2008.12.02 at 06:55 PM