Election & Foreknowledge: An Historical Example by Peter Lumpkins

I'm often reminded by my Calvinist brothers that among historic Southern Baptists, a virtual unanimity was embraced in advocating a thoroughly Calvinistic (read, thoroughly Founderistically Calvinist) understanding of biblical election.  The heavy-weights are commonly listed--Mell, Mercer, Manly, Dagg, Boyce, and Broadus. 

Below's selection is not from writing theologians.  However, it remains indicative of collective church thinking among many Baptists of the south.

In 1893, a group of Northwest Gerogia churches assembled themsleves together and formed the Polk County Baptist Association*. The newly formed association adopted as their "Abstract of Faith" eight articles (p.164).  Two particularly I will mention**.

First, Article 6 reads: 

"We believe that the spirit and power of God will effectually call, regenerate, sanctify and support those who were chosen in Christ, so that they shall persevere in grace, so that not one of them will finally be lost."

This seems like a good Calvinistic statement which possesses the usual implications of deterministic theological flair.  Not so fast!  Who are the ones "chosen in Christ" and upon what basis were they chosen?  Those were addressed in Article 4:

"We believe in the doctrine of election by grace according to the foreknowledge of God through sanctification of the spirit, and belief of the truth unto obedience;  and according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord" (emphasis added).

Do I think the wording of the above would cause a convinced Calvinist who's dead sure 19th century Southern Baptists were just not as settled on his understanding of reformed faith as is he to flip?  I do not.  What I do think is that the more one examines Southern Baptist roots, the more one sees that the Calvinist (Founders Calvinist) does not possess the solid case he's insisted he does.  Or, in card lingo, "he's just a' bluffin."

With that, I am...
Peter

*All citations come from A History of The Polk County Missionary Baptist Association, Larry G. Johnson, Curley Printing Company. Nashville. 1977 

**A full "Abstract of Faith" for The Polk County Baptist Association can be located here

Comments

[Ian D. Elsasser]

Peter:

The second part of Article 4 appears to draw from 1 Peter 1.1-2 which has a strong predestinarian sense in the phrase. "Foreknowledge" in that passages and other passages (Romans 8 and 11) have an elective sense to them, "known ("acknowledged" in OT sense) in advance," recognized by many biblical scholars. The status of being chosen/elect in 1 Peter is grounded in this act of God and by means of the Spirit's act of setting aside at the time of conversion (focus is not on the definitive act not the ongoing act of being made holy). Echoes may be Romans 8.28-30 and 2 Thessalonians 2.13.

[Ian D. Elsasser]

Correction: the bracketed phrase should read "focus is on the definitive act not the ongoing act of being made holy."

[Bob Cleveland]

If God foreknows a particular person will be saved, then I guess it's certain that person WILL be saved.

What makes it certain? What is it, that guarantees it?

[Peter Lumpkins]

Ian,

Thanks. One of the interesting aspects of the article ism most of our Founders brothers--at least those with whom I am familiar--take extra care to avoid tying election/predestination in any sense to God's foreknowledge. In fact, the "foreknowledge texts" are inevitably gathered into bundles as "objections" to predestination.. At least, that's my impression...

Bob,

When you can demonstrate that knowledge of the future defaults to causally determining the future, I will be happy to concede your syllogism.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Ian D. Elsasser]

Bob:

I'm not sure if you are addressing me, but I would like to engage your questions. God's foreknowledge is not to be understood as "seeing in advance," as many interpret it, but derives it's meaning from the covenantal context of "acknowledgement" or being in relationship with. Amos 3.2 uses "know" in the sense of God acknowledging Israel as His people among all the people of the world, an equivalent of selecting them and being in covenant with them. Galatians 4.9 employs "know" in the same way: God has acknowledged the Galatian believers as His people. To be foreknown, then, is to be acknowledge by God in advance, an equivalent to chosen (Eph 1.4).

What is it that guarantees a person will be saved? God's prior acknowledgement of them in the elective sense.

Just to return to the context of 1 Peter 1.1-2 whence Article 4 drew its language, I think it is important to notice that the purpose of the use of elective and predestinarian language was to give confort, strength and insight to these believers who were facing persecution because of their faith in Christ. Insight, because their being set apart as God's people brings with it opposition from the world; comfort and strength, because they can stand up under it knowing that they truly belong to God, that God stands behind it. We may sometimes lose sight of the pastoral purposes of this language when we focus on the theological debates.

[Ian D. Elsasser]

Peter said:

Thanks. One of the interesting aspects of the article ism most of our Founders brothers--at least those with whom I am familiar--take extra care to avoid tying election/predestination in any sense to God's foreknowledge. In fact, the "foreknowledge texts" are inevitably gathered into bundles as "objections" to predestination.. At least, that's my impression...

Peter:

This surprises me since many Calvinists recognize that foreknowledge language (Ro 8, 11; 1 Pe 1.1) has an elective sense to them rather than foresight; that is, to bring about the future rather than seeing what will happen in the future. Curious.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Byroniac]

Peter, Strong's 4268 for "Foreknowledge" refers to 4267, which mentions foreknow as ordain. One of the church elders at a church I belonged to before I moved here said (paraphrasing), "foreknowledge is not a what, but a whom." It is very hard to argue that there is no casual determination when God Himself is the Creator of these individuals (all humanity) whose existence is solely because of the divine will. I realize that's a philosophical argument, though. The understanding of Jonah, "Salvation is of the Lord" (Job 2:9), seems very Calvinistic to me, as he reserves nothing for man.

[Ian D. Elsasser]

Other texts employing foreknow language in this sense are Ac 2.23 and 1 Pe 1.20. In all contexts in which "foreknow" and its variants occur, persons, not , are the objects in view.

[Ian D. Elsasser]

Peter:

The "I'm Bluffing" T-Shirt icon under the heading above - are you messing with us in your article? Just curious.

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

Would you mind posting the other six articles in the comment stream?

God Bless,

Benji

[peter lumpkins]

Byron,

You write "It is very hard to argue that there is no casual determination when God Himself is the Creator of these individuals (all humanity) whose existence is solely because of the divine will" (emphasis mine).

My brother, I would not be caught dead arguing such. With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Ian,

No. The tee is only a google search icon, that matched my last line. With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Benji,

I'd be glad to when I get a few extra minutes. There are eight articles in all. I think the two I selected are about the longest. Nor is there one on the atonement, a disappointment to me obviously.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Benji Ramsaur]

Thanks Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Benji,

A full "Abstract of Faith" for The Polk County Baptist Association can be located here

With that, I am...

Peter

[Ian D. Elsasser]

Peter:

The "Abstract of Faith" is truly a barebones abstract.

Brevity notwithstanding, you will have to look elsewhere for a statement of faith to prove your case, for the abstacts fits comfortably within a Calvinistic framework. This is demonstrated by Articles 4 and 6.

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

I love old stuff like this. If you get your hands on any other confessions, pleeeeeaase post it.

Thank you, thank you--I've already copied and printed both of them.

God Bless,

Benji

[Byroniac]

Ack, I made a typo by writing "casual" when I meant "causal." No, I wouldn't be caught dead arguing for casual determination either, now that I know better. My keyboard is still in good, working condition and faithfully reproduces everything my dutiful fingers type, exactly as dictated (sometimes imperfectly) by my brain.

I meant in my philosophical argument that I do not see how God's foreknowledge can be entirely passive. There has to be some deterministic element to it, because He is the Creator of these souls (really, of us all) in the first place; they owe their very existence to Him. It is difficult to me conceptually to picture a God who alone is responsible for choosing to create and actually creating individuals, without also knowing their future choices concerning Him as well at the same time He decides to create, without that knowledge factoring into His decision to create in the first place. If God truly wants all to be saved, why does He create those He knows will not be? Open Theism makes me more sense to me here, because it would say God's knowledge (and therefore, possibly His power?) are limited. And even if traducianism is true, that the soul of a person is somehow transmitted from his parents, that only rolls the problem back all the generations to Adam and Eve. God specifically created Adam, then Eve. If He had created Steve and Eve, or Adam and Madam, or Steve and Madam, an entirely new human race of individuals would result, and God, with infinite knowledge (unless you are Open Theist?), would simply compute His desired results based on specifically created individuals and control of all circumstances on future generations.

[Peter Lumpkins]

Ian,

Yes. Many (most?) of the older church/association faith documents were brief compared to say Philadelphia or London and even NH and BF&M. Pretty cool.

As for this document "proving my case," of course, it depends on what "my case" is supposed to be. From the outset of my challenge to Founders' historiography I began over 3 years ago, I made it clear that to deny a deeply embedded Calvinism--even 5 P Calvinism--a place at the SBC historical table cannot be seriously entertained. On this most any student of history agrees.

However, Founders' goes a step farther and claims a) true SBC history is Founders' style of 5 P Calvinism b) the SBC must reclaim its roots and reform

Given such, the Polk County confession does assist in demonstrating, at least for me, that many Baptists linked election with foreknowledge (not "fore-loving" but prescience), a view quite despised by Founders and often dubbed "Arminianism."

As I said earlier, the usual approach is to bundle all the "foreknowledge texts" into a basket and treat them as "objections" to predestination.

Grace Ian. With that, I am...

Peter

[Peter Lumpkins]

Benji,

You are welcome. Glad I could assist. With that, I am...

Peter

[Stephen Garrett]

Spurgeon, in preaching upon the relationship of foreknowlege to election, and to faith, said:

"But there are some who say, "It is hard for God to choose some and leave others." Now, I will ask you one question. Is there any of you here this morning who wishes to be holy, who wishes to be regenerate, to leave off sin and walk in holiness? "Yes, there is," says someone, "I do." Then God has elected you. But another says, "No. I don't want to be holy. I don't want to give up my lusts and my vices." Why should you grumble, then, that God has not elected you?"

"If you love religion, He has chosen you to it. If you desire it, He has chosen you to it. If you do not, what right have you to say that God ought to have given you what you do not wish for?"

"If you believe them to be good and desire them, they are there for you. God gives liberally to all those who desire--but first of all He makes them desire--otherwise they never would."

"Then the decree of election could not have been formed upon good works. "But," say others, "God elected them on the foresight of their faith." Now, God gives faith, therefore He could not have elected them on account of faith which He foresaw. There shall be twenty beggards in the street and I determine to give one of them a shilling. Will anyone say that I determined to give that one a shilling—that I elected him to have the shilling—because I foresaw that he would have it? That would be talking nonsense."

"In like manner to say that God elected men because He foresaw they would have faith—which is salvation in the germ—would be too absurd for us to listen to for a moment. Faith is the gift of God. Every virtue comes from Him. Therefore it cannot have caused Him to elect men, because it is His gift. Election, we are sure, is absolute and altogether apart from the virtues which the saints have afterwards."

"I never knew a saint yet of any denomination who thought that God saved him because He foresaw that he would have these virtues and merits."

"I tell you there have been thousands of men who have been ruined by misunderstanding election—who have said, “God has elected me to Heaven and to eternal life”—but they have forgotten that it is written, God has elected them “through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the Truth.” This is God’s election—election to sanctification and to faith. God chooses His people to be holy and to be believers." (UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION - NO. 41-42)

Blessings,

Stephen

[Todd Burus]

Peter,
I think once again you have demonstrated a poor knowledge of what 5-point Calvinists actually believe. There is no contradiction between unconditional election and "election by grace according to the foreknowledge of God." That is biblical language that any consistent 5-pointer would accept (Romans 8.28-30, 1 Peter 1.1-2). The issue is not in saying this but what does the person mean in saying it. Pointing out that this confession uses this language is proof of nothing since there is a very clear Calvinistic understanding of it. If the confession said that in using this language they meant God's foreknowledge of man's choices then that would be a point in your column. Unfortunately, from what you've shown, it doesn't.

[peter lumpkins]

Todd

You have my express permission to think as you wish about my 'poor understanding' of what Calvinists 'actually' believe. I think that's just dandy indeedy.

Stephen,

While I possess a profound respect for Spurgeon, I do not believe he necessarily trumps all others on about every subject (not that you meant to imply such). Thanks for the great quote just the same.

With that, I am... Peter

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry [but moved here from the main post thread]

[Bob Cleveland]

I don't know all the fancy terms. All I really want to know, in this context, is what it is, what entity, what power, makes it CERTAIN that what God knows in advance, will indeed happen.

1) Does God know it BECAUSE it is certain?

2) Is it certain BECAUSE God knows it?

If it's 1), then what DOES make it certain?

If it's 2), then it's a display of God's sovereignty, IMHO, and politics aside, kudos to the 5-pointers (which is the only sort of "calvinist" there is,anyway).

[peter lumpkins]

Bob,

Quickly. The question is not about certainty but about causal determination: can God know the future infallibly without causally determining the future acts of men and women? The questions you ask, popularly advocated by R.C. Sproul in his writings, while appearing to brush aside the "fancy terms" only serve to convolute basic distinctions. Philosopher-theologians continue to debate these basic issues, with fundamentally different outcomes of each.

For the record, strong Calvinism intellectually partners with Open Theism in arguing that it is impossible for God to infallibly know the future apart from caustically determining it.

In doing so, they stand in opposition to those with whom I have a special affinity, affirming it not only rational to hold an omniscient God can infallibly know the future without deterministically causing the future, but also that it stands as the epitome of human puffery to absolutely rule out what an omniscient God can know in His mind. Who is privy to such?

Finally, Bob, unlike your normal irenic self, I find your final comment an unfortunate slur toward the belief of thousands of Calvinistic Christians who, because they refuse to "tow the line" of real Calvinism, they cannot be called Calvinists at all.

Thus, those who embrace all but the infamous "limited atonement" are square pegs attempting to fit round holes. This is the very idea I have and will continue opposing that saturates Founders.org.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Todd Burus]

Peter,
I think it is ignorant to claim you have a new revelation about how wrong the Founder's are when you are simply ignoring the fact that foreknowledge is not a problem for 5-pointers. Here's what Piper has to say about Romans 8.29:

Because of all those texts I think John Stott and John Murray are exactly right when both of them say, ""Know' . . . is used in a sense practically synonymous with "love' . . . "Whom he foreknew' . . . is therefore virtually equivalent to "whom he foreloved.'" Foreknowledge, is "sovereign , distinguishing love" (John Stott, quoting Murray, Romans, p. 249). It's virtually the same as set your affection on and choose for your own.

So the meaning of the first act of God in Romans 8:29 is that God foreknows his own people in the sense that he chooses them and loves them and cares for them. Paul will speak of this later in the language of "choosing" or "election" (Romans 8:33; 9:11; 11:5,7).

You did this with the issue of eternal justification when you conflated Calvinism with Hyper-Calvinism and you are doing it now by omission. If your true desire is to fight the big bad bully of 5-point Calvinism, please stand toe-to-toe with it instead of trying to throw sucker punches of inaccuracy and half-truths.

[Byroniac]

Peter, I respectfully agree with Todd Burus in that I believe you have conflated Hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism by seeming to require that Calvinism hold the doctrine of eternal justification (which I personally oppose, which does not harm consistency within Calvinism at all).

[Todd Burus]

Peter,
Your statement aligning strong Calvinism and Open Theism is also misleading. In the same sense, Trinitarianism intellectually partners with Modalism in arguing that Jesus was fully God (think about it, that's true). Trying to cast this as a criticism of 5-point Calvinism is just another attempt at using misleading arguments to make a point. I mean to say this respectfully but I also want to say this as someone who is tired of seeing you push an agenda (i.e. being against the Founder's) while continually misrepresenting what is actually on the table.

[Byroniac]

Peter, I submit the following respectfully, but I submit it nonetheless. I do not get the idea that God knows the future without doing so deterministically. Scripture does not assign to God the passive limitation or man's sovereignty on which you seem to insist. Psalm 139 is a case in point, especially verse 16. And the entire chapters of Job 38-41 seem to argue against your understanding that our position requires any limitation of God's omniscience; God demands of Job concerning His Creation, and none of His knowledge is limited or passive. I think it is true what I have read, that (paraphrasing), we have the most trouble with God being God, especially over us (I know I have and do!)

[peter lumpkins]

Byron,

Two things. First, read the comment to Todd on “eternal justification.” Especially note I cannot read peoples’ minds. Even so, what "eternal justification" has to do with anything on this thread I am at a loss to understand.

Secondly, Byron, I am reluctant to discuss philosophy of religion issues with you. Your repeated disdain for philosophy in our conversations in times past suggest to me a fruitless discussion. I suggest you get a couple of good books on the subject if you are really serious.

Here’s a couple that opens up some of the various options you may explore to glean why many philosopher-theologians reject and/or support causal determinism: "Perspectives on Election" and Predestination & Free Will: Four Views..."

Peace. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

Your contributions here are beginning to become quite predictable. According to you, I possess a “poor understanding” of what Calvinists “actually” believe. Further, I am “ignorant” possessing a “new revelation” about Founders, and continue “misleading” just to "make a point."

Thus you are “tired” of my continuing to “misrepresent” what is “actually on the table” by my “half-truths” and “sucker-punches of inaccuracy.” If I didn’t know better, I’d swear you possessed, at minimum, a slight disagreement with my views!

More seriously, Todd, the points you make—when you are not simply hurling emotionally-driven barbs like the ones above—would be goods points, if they connected with what I wrote on this post.

Allow me.

First, in citing as evidence that I allegedly demonstrate “poor knowledge” of Calvinism, you assert “there is no contradiction between “unconditional election and ‘election by grace according to the foreknowledge of God.” I challenge you, Todd, to show me one thin statement I wrote in this thread which implied such. Just one. Nor is it acceptable to me for you to ignore this request.

Second, you assert I claim I “have a new revelation about how wrong the Founders are.” I challenge you, Todd, to state precisely where I have claimed such a “new revelation.” Nor is it acceptable to me for you to ignore this request.

Third, you assert I am “simply ignoring the fact that “foreknowledge is not a problem for 5 Pointers.” To the contrary, Todd: a) the first and only conclusion in the original post was, "the more one examines Southern Baptist roots, the more one sees that the [Founders Calvinist] does not possess the solid case he's insisted he does"; b) pertaining to foreknowledge, I wrote, "the Polk County confession does assist in demonstrating, at least for me, that many Baptists linked election with foreknowledge (not "fore-loving" but prescience), a view quite despised by Founders and often dubbed "Arminianism."

Thus, your charge of "ignoring" ignores my explicit assertion!

Fourth, in light of such, I explicitly mentioned the very interpretation you offered in your Piper quote. I wrote “...(not "fore-loving" but prescience), a view quite despised by Founders and often dubbed "Arminianism." Why you failed to read this before you made your comments only you know.

Even more, Todd, the Piper quote could not prove my point better. The very question I raised was centered on today's Calvinists--via good old RC & co.--who seem virtuously oblivious to connecting foreknowledge as prescience to election. In stead, they inevitably define the term, linking it with fore-loving, bleeding out any connection with God's omniscience. And, what do you do? Hand me a Piper quote which does exactly that!

Fifth, your citation about my supposed “did this” with the issue of “eternal justification when [I] conflated Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism” stands as one of the worst examples of confusing the reader I’ve encountered. Toward what, under heaven’s blue sky, are you referring? Please. If you’re going to make comparisons, at least cite a source. Making such disconnected comments, Todd, fills space but destroys one's hope in being taken seriously.

Sixth, the statement I made pertaining to Calvinist theologians and Open Theists is both factual and well established in academic conversations. To suggest that because I mentioned such, I am “misleading” is two millimeters shy of comical. But thanks, anyways. I needed a good laugh today.

With that, I am…
Peter

[Todd Burus]

Peter,
Because I disagree with you, how come that always makes it "emotionally-driven"? Nonetheless

To combine your 1st, 3rd, and 4th statements, I would like to suggest that your intention in posting this article was, as you have mentioned, to show that "the more one examines Southern Baptist roots, the more one sees that the Calvinist (Founders Calvinist) does not possess the solid case he's insisted he does." Your evidence for having shown this was an historic Baptist association confession which says "We believe in the doctrine of election by grace according to the foreknowledge of God." This you say is a problem since it raises questions of "Who are the ones "chosen in Christ" and upon what basis were they chosen?" which the Founder's are uncomfortable with (or as you say "a view quite despised by Founders and often dubbed 'Arminianism'"). Thus, I say you have a "poor understanding," are "simply ignoring [a] fact," and are throwing "sucker-punches of inaccuracy" because this is quite honestly not an issue for 5-pointers OR the Founders.

The Polk County confession does not claim "foreknowledge (not 'fore-loving' but prescience)." In fact, to do so would seem inconsistent since they affirm an effectual call, which is a ludicrous thing to affirm if God already knows who will choose him. Of course the call is effectual, why would God go around calling those who he already knows won't accept him/be saved? To affirm irresistible grace and deny unconditional election logically makes no sense and I know of no one who does this. Now, you may rest on your qualification of "at least for me," but this only exemplifies your poor understanding, not diminishing the Founders position.

Also, your argument against the "foreknowledge is more than prescience" view is lacking. You simply state that modern Calvinists "seem virtuously oblivious to connecting foreknowledge as prescience to election. Instead, they inevitably define the term, linking it with fore-loving, bleeding out any connection with God's omniscience." This could not show any more ignorance of what modern Calvinists actually say. Check out my quote from Thom Schreiner on this issue:
http://toddongod.com/2009/02/03/as-expected-there-is-confusion-over-foreknowledge-what-foreknowledge-means-for-election/
Or, check out the Founders Journal on it:
http://www.founders.org/journal/fj40/article3.html

The reason I say you "have a new revelation about how wrong the Founders are" is not because you "claimed such" but because you saw fit to dig up a dusty old local church association confession and parade it out here like it is just another nail in the damning argument against the Founders position. I have noticed you have trouble with the linguistic idea of implications, but in presenting this as a new brick in "the more one examines Southern Baptist roots" you are implying that you have a new . . . we'll say argument.

This "new revelation" bit also ties in with your 5th question about my bringing up "eternal justification." This statement was in regards to your prior new revelation about the New Hope conflict where you used a dispute over hyper-Calvinism and eternal justification to argue that "[claiming] that the Baptists of the south unitedly had their heels dug firmly into the theology of the Founders' movement today cannot be sustained in light of the historical record itself." Remember:
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2009/01/calvinism-the-conflict-that-may-never-go-away-.html

On your 6th statement, I did not say what you said was not "factual"; what I said was it is misleading since Open Theists and strong Calvinists agree on the setup but then radically diverge on the conclusion. You attempted guilt by association and cleverly failed to illuminate the broad differences that exist between these two camps, which, in spite of your well-qualified accusation, is what is truly "two millimeters shy of comical."

[Byroniac]

Peter, not too many posts ago on soteriology, you rightly criticized me for being too philosophical and not scriptural. I make a weak attempt here at being scriptural and now you criticize my "repeated disdain for philosophy?" Which is it? You cannot have it both ways. If it helps any, I have tried to take your first complaint to heart, as you were right.

Secondly, I have received the standard dismissal of the schoolboy to return to his books. That's fine. There's no question as to which one of us has the superior knowledge and expertise, which I fully acknowledge. However, discussions can become "fruitless" due to close-mindedness as well (and I am not entirely innocent here). However, to question my seriousness on the matter, especially after all the (sometimes lengthy) comments I have posted, simply does not compute.

I praise God for Founders, one of the few blessings the SBC has in my experience, and which seems under-appreciated at best. I do not share their optimism about reforming the SBC, but because reformation happens one individual at a time through the grace of God, there is always hope. Whether I continue in the SBC or not is of no real concern to anyone but myself, but I rejoice that God is awakening people afresh to the truths of the Scriptures.

[peter lumpkins]

Byron,

Whatever post to which you refer, Byron, I am unsure. But if I "criticized" you for being too philosophical, it very well could have been a paradoxical exhortation, since your ever pronounced focus is "scripture alone." So, your you-can't-have-it-both-ways charge is hardly justified, at least until I know precisely to what you refer.

As for the alleged "school boy" remark, Byron, your caricature of my sincere counsel is unfortunate. You are one of the bright spots of dissent on this blog, rarely, if ever, taking our exchanges personal. For that, I am ever appreciative. I meant such sincerely, not as a dig at all. Those two books have been for me a great blessing.

Finally, I thought I made it plain I did not possess a lot of time right now. Yet, you, along with Todd, insist on asking questions or making comments--grinding comments, especially from Todd--that need time to make a response. Understand: I take full responsibility for this. I don't have to reply. That is my fault.

On the other hand, courtesy would predict that, even if I have breached intellectual acumen or made such asinine, "misleading," "half-truths" or demonstrated "poor understanding," as Todd insists, it could at least wait until I can be back to capably answer the charge.

When I posted in the parting post, "everybody play nice" I actually meant among yourselves. I did not mean continue to challenge my assertions which I haven't the time to answer.

All that said, I will know next time to turn the darn thing off --"close comments"--since I haven't the discipline to "let it alone."

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

This is the last comment on this unless your posts change. I'm not going to continue throwing pitches when you won't swing at the ball.

I made 6 points in my last post, three of which you combined for an answer: "To combine your 1st, 3rd, and 4th statements, I would like to suggest that your intention in posting this article was, as you have mentioned...Thus, I say you have a "poor understanding," are "simply ignoring [a] fact," and are throwing "sucker-punches of inaccuracy" because this is quite honestly not an issue for 5-pointers OR the Founders."

I asked neither in 1st, 3rd, or 4th points for, a) my intention in writing or, b) why you allege I was inaccurate.

Instead I asked for you to show an apparent contradiction you imply I committed. Yet you bring up more "problems" you see. I refuse, Todd, to move to another issue when you cannot sufficiently address the present issue.

There's more I'll be glad to address in the last comment you wrote. New stuff. But not until you show the "contradiction" I asked for. Then, we'll move along.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Todd Burus]

Peter,
If you see no contradiction then why is it you say this confession serves to show that "the more one examines Southern Baptist roots, the more one sees that the Calvinist (Founders Calvinist) does not possess the solid case he's insisted he does"? Why even make this post at all? I have labored to show that this confession can be, and most likely is (based on their affirmation of the effectual call), fully consistent with 5-point Calvinism AND with the position of the Founders. So, if you disagree then that seems to imply that you believe there is some sort of contradiction here, since otherwise this actually supports, not detracts, from what Founders claims.

[Byroniac]

Peter, thanks for your response. I misunderstood your remark concerning the books, so I can drop that now that you have answered it. The other concerning philosophy, I've probably misunderstood you there too, so I can drop that as well. And you are right, I guess I will have to wait until you get back to continue the interrogat---er, I mean questions----I have of you. Thank you for your time and recommendations.

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

Thanks for your direct question. It's a good one. I'll post later.

Byron,

Not a problem. I, too, am sorry the recommendation did not connect properly. It surely could have been worded better. I'll attempt to answer sometime this weekend. My choice is a short post or answer you and Todd. I want to post.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter