Calvinists Critique Morris Chapman's Clarification: Part II by Peter Lumpkins

Morris Chapman offered a clarification of intent on his controversial statements concerning Calvinism at this year’s SBC in Louisville, KY (//link).  And, while one should be glad Dr. Chapman clarified his comments, the predictable moans amounting to too little, too late came pouring in.  SBC Voices, James Galyon, and Founders’ chief scribe, Timmy Brister offered critiques of Chapman’s comments.

In Part I, I gave a few initial comments to Todd Burus’ response on SBC Voices (//link).  Because Brister spends an exceedingly generous amount of time on Chapman’s brief commentary, this post will focus on his three posts.

First, heavily sprinkled throughout Brister’s critique are subtle but very real indicators he apparently holds little to no respect for Morris Chapman.  For example, instead of Chapman’s convention report, it’s convention “report”; rather than informing us Chapman took liberty to speak openly about Calvinism, Brister must insert “(as he has done in the past)” so the reader will get the idea Chapman is not new to apparently over-stepping his bounds. 

He also spends an inordinate amount of time in ad hominem issues like attempting to prove Chapman duplicitous in character by suggesting Chapman holds to “do as I say but not as I do.”   

Brister even accuses Chapman of defending his views not with “facts, not objective truths, not biblical warrant, but personal or existential testimony,” all because Chapman mentioned in a single line his view stems from his “lifetime of ministry among Southern Baptists.”  Brister ridiculously labeled such a “postmodern epistemological construct.” 

However, when Chapman offered scholarly documentation to sustain his view, Brister twice (post/comment thread) chides Chapman’s exegesis as not “actually” Chapman’s but the scholar’s whom Chapman quoted. This may sound mundane. It is! 

That’s precisely why it stands out so obvious in Brister’s posts.  To read Brister insult Chapman over and over—has Chapman never read about Carey or Fuller, Jesse Mercer or Adoniram Judson?—becomes incredibly taxing.

Second, Brister not only accuses Chapman of caricaturing Calvinism at the SBC but also in Chapman’s clarification statement. My interest here lies in Brister’s own caricature of Chapman. 

For example, Dr. Chapman attempted to expound the well-worn “antinomy” argument which makes much of holding two propositions which in some way appear to contradict one another but the evidence for both assertions is so strong, neither can be easily surrendered. Hence, Dr. Chapman writes:

“The word “antinomy” refers to an apparent contradiction between two equally valid or reasonable principles.  As I stated in my report, it is my conviction that scripture teaches both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of the human heart in its response to God.  I said, “Both are necessary elements in the salvation experience. A healthy tension (an antinomy) exists in the Bible with regard to these two important biblical truths. Both are present in the salvation experience.”

However, Brister would not have Chapman’s explanation.  Instead he reinterpreted Chapman into saying something entirely different::

“What I understand Chapman to be saying is that there is one aspect in which God is sovereign (i.e. “God’s initiative”), and there is another aspect in which humans are responsible (i.e. the “faith response”), and the two are mutually exclusive. In other words, God does one part, and you do the other…” (bold original).  

How Brister gets this particular conclusion from Chapman’s words is anybody’s guess.

Elsewhere, Danny Akin wrote this: 

“There is often a mystery and tension…when it comes to understanding God's sovereignty and human responsibility in salvation…We should affirm the truth both of God's sovereignty and human freewill…Many Baptists believe the Bible teaches that God predestines and elects persons to salvation, but that He does so in such a way as to do no violence to their freewill and responsibility to repent from sin and believe the Gospel. Is there a tension here? Yes. Is there divine mystery? Absolutely!…If you find it a challenge to fathom the depths of this doctrine then you are in good company! (//link).

As far as I can tell, Dr. Akin was saying virtually the very same thing as Dr. Chapman. He was using the “antinomy” argument to bolster a reasonable non-surrender of neither truth because the Bible teaches both. 

Even more, for Brister to reduce Chapman to saying “God does one part, and you do the other” is absurd.  If that is what Chapman did, so did Akin. However, one must overlay such an interpretation onto the fabric of Chapman’s (and Akin’s) simple explanation.  In other words, Brister caricatures what Chapman actually meant. 

Whatever the case, Brister dubs Chapman’s “mutually exclusive” use of God doing one part of salvation on the one hand, and a person doing the other part as "an idea of what theologians have called synergism (two parties working together to accomplish the same end goal).” 

Later, however, Brister has this to say of Chapman’s use of antinomy: 

"Because of how Chapman has framed his understanding of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility, he has not presented an antinomy but a flat out contradiction.” 

I’m afraid you cannot have it both ways, Timmy.  Whatever one may think of “synergism” as a biblical doctrine, there is no “flat out” contradiction in saying “God does one part, and you do the other.”  Hence, Brister not only caricatured Chapman’s position, he interpreted his use of antinomy in two very different but contradictory ways. 

Also, Brister appears to be completely confused concerning the purpose in pleading an antinomy. If, in fact, Chapman meant "God does one part, and you do the other,” there'd be no need whatsoever in pleading a biblical antinomy.  An antinomy is appealing when there is tension between two undeniable truths.  God doing one part and a person doing the other categorically eliminates the need for antinomy as an explanation.  

Even more, so far as Timmy’s own position goes, he apparently has no need for either Chapman's antinomy or even Akin's mystery for that matter.  He concludes:

“God is sovereign in His choice (Father’s purpose) and in His calling (Spirit’s regenerating).  God does not leave His greatest work in the hands of men to complete or leave room for anyone to take the credit.  From beginning to end, salvation is all of grace, purchased fully by the finished work of Christ on the cross and applied by the sovereign work of the Spirit whereby sinners are given the graces of repentance and faith.” 

For the record, it’s unguarded statements such as these that constitute the garden soil where grows the “sovereignty alone” perception. 

To be fair to Timmy, he conceded an aversion to pleading antinomy. Why?  Because he opts for a compatibilist understanding of free will. Therefore, no tension exists between sovereignty and free will. He needs neither Chapman's antinomy or Akin's mystery because sovereignty and free will pose no problem either needs to explain.  

In essence, compatibilism is a form of determinism which defines human free will in a way "compatible" with causal determinism.  In other words, God determines everything that is--including human choices--but He does so "remotely" not "directly." What does this mean?  Timmy tells us "Man is free to do what he wants to do" (emphasis added). But who controls the wants, humans or God?  For compatibilists, God controls the wants.  If God did not control human wants, God could not be said to be in complete control.

This is the door through which strict Calvinists like Timmy can bring in human responsibility and moral freedom. God's sovereignty does not technically control human will--at least directly.  Instead, God controls human desires, which, in turn, determines and controls human will, a nifty little maneuver, I'd say. One can have his deterministic sovereignty and free will cake and eat it too!  

In addition, this is also the door through which strict Calvinists like Timmy can fully embrace the "whosoever will" passages of the Bible.  For strict Calvinists like Timmy, the only ones who ever will to come to Christ are the ones in whom God has given the desire to come to Christ. And, God sovereignly controls human desires.  If He did not, He could not determine all that comes to pass according to strict Calvinists like Timmy.  

On the other hand, the only desires allowable for the non-elect are desires of hate toward Christ. One cannot forget that for strict Calvinists, God absolutely predetermines this to be.  Indeed it is utterly impossible for anyone but the eternally elect to have desires to come to Christ. Thus, all but the elect are damned from eternity. Hence, Timmy may all day long say, "I embrace the 'whosoever wills' of Scripture."  

Stern Calvinist views like this--if not downright hyper-Calvinism--are surely hyper-Calvinistic nonetheless.  And, views like this were precisely Dr. Chapman's concern when he spoke about "sovereignty alone."              

Third, Brister makes much of Chapman’s denial that Ephesians 2:8 demonstrates faith as a gift the way strict Calvinists understand it.  Chapman wrote:

“More recently, I have heard and read with increasing frequency of the belief that passages such as Ephesians 2:8 teach that “faith” itself is a gift of God – hence, even the response of faith is given by God and is not the free response of the human heart to the saving initiative of God.”  

To this Brister offers his interpretation: 

“Notice what Chapman is doing here.  He is saying that [even] if (A) faith is a gift from God, then (B) a person is not a free, responsible human agent.  In other words, Chapman seems to be saying that for a person to be morally responsible, faith must be self-engendered (not given by God).  If God supplies the faith, then a person’s freedom is violated.” 

How Timmy can come up with such contorted rehashing of someone’s words I cannot explain.  Given Chapman’s focus on the “sovereignty alone” view he’s concerned about, it seems obvious Dr. Chapman is questioning both the “sovereignty alone” idea and its biblical grounding in Ephesians 2:8.  That’s it.  For Brister to make this more complicated is just goofy.

Chapman’s point is simple as Brister's comment quoted above shows.  The problem is, strict Calvinists typically are not straightforward with their explanations.  

Let’s quote the strict Calvinist’s view concerning which Dr. Chapman had in mind when he spoke about Ephesians 2:8 and faith being a gift.  We’ll use Timmy’s statement as a model and add some needed clarification in CAPS:

“God is ABSOLUTELY sovereign in His PREDETERMINED choice FOR THE ELECT AND THE NON-ELECT BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD (Father’s purpose) and in His ABSOLUTELY IRRESISTIBLE calling (Spirit’s regenerating BECAUSE OF HUMANS’ TOTAL INABILITY TO RESPOND TO THE GOSPEL IN ANY POSITIVE CAPACITY WHATSOEVER).  God WILL not leave His greatest work OF SAVING HIS ELECT in the hands of men to complete or leave room for anyone to take the credit IN MERITING SALVATION BY RESPONDING IN REPENTANCE AND FAITH PRIOR TO PRE-DETERMINATELY BEING BORN AGAIN.  From beginning to end, salvation FOR THE ELECT is all of grace, purchased fully by the finished work of Christ on the cross FOR THE ELECT AND THE ELECT ALONE and IRRESISTIBLY applied by the ABSOLUTE AND EXCLUSIVE sovereign work of the Spirit whereby ELECT sinners are INFALLIBLY AND PRE-DETERMINATELY given THE GIFTS OF repentance and faith AFTER THEY ARE BORN AGAIN BY GOD'S SPIRIT, GIFTS OF WHICH WERE PRE-DETERMINATELY PURCHASED BY CHRIST'S DEATH FOR THE ELECT, THE DECREED PURPOSE OF WHICH WAS TO GLORIFY GOD’S MERCY IN ETERNITY FOR THE ELECT AND TO GLORIFY GOD’S JUSTICE IN ETERNITY FOR THE NON-ELECT.”

Now, I’ll stand corrected if I have imposed any foreign ideas here to Timmy’s Calvinism. 

If I am anywhere near close, in a grid like this, it’s actually hard to understand why Brister would moan if someone actually dubbed this view “sovereignty alone.”  Perhaps Dr. Chapman was only calling it the way it unhappily appeared to him and not a few others when all the dots are connected.

The real issue —an issue I have no doubt Timmy is well aware—is not faith being a gift per se.  Instead, as Dr. Chapman attempted to suggest, the issue is whether faith as a gift is a sovereign act of God only to the elect. There seems no Scriptural support for this assertion, including Ephesians 2:8.

Now one final issue.

It has to be quick.

Timmy assembled several voices from yesteryear and today attempting to prove his point contra Chapman that Baptists embrace his skewed Calvinism whereby regeneration precedes faith.  My old mentor R.C. Sproul first drilled that theological screw into my mind. And, I thought I’d never get that thing out. 

Anyways, I do not have time to look up all his quotes.  Some do not need to be looked up—Grudem and Piper, for example.  Both teach regeneration precedes faith. 

On the other hand, others are easy to check. Erickson and Keathley are easy to check.  But interestingly neither teaches regeneration precedes faith as Timmy implies.  He simply pulled an agreeable quote from both.  Terrible contortion of their views!  

And, so far as the BF&M is concerned, Timmy wants it to definitively teach regeneration precedes faith.  I’ll bet that would be a new one on Adrian Rogers, Jerry Vines, and all the other non-Calvinists who worked on the revision committee.  

Personally, I think the BF&M is rubbery enough to include strict Calvinists, modified Calvinists, and non-Calvinists among its supporters.  For Brister, however, non-Calvinists and even modified Calvinists like Akin find no support there.  It definitively teaches the theological tomfoolery that there exists an animal others have called a born-again unbeliever. 

Sure it does, Timmy. Sure it does.

With that, I am...

Peter

 

Comments

[Frank Gantz]

As Chapman's address, Brister's response and your response indicate, theological debate is the order of the day. A major plank in Chapman's report was that we should not debate theology but instead do evangelism. Part of my criticism of Chapman is that he has begun what he did not want.

[Luke]

"Born-again unbeliever"<-----ANTINOMY

You said quite a mouth full there Peter. Thank you for taking the time to do this. It was a very interesting AND informative read.

I gotta go now and think about that "born-again unbeliever" animal.

Luke(shakes head as he posts his comment)

[MARKT]

though I also believe that the BF&M is "rubbery" enough to include a wide range of theological views...what do you make of the following portion of the BF&M 2000?:
IV. Salvation
A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a CHANGE OF HEART WROUGHT BY the HOLY SPIRIT through conviction of sin, to which the sinner RESPONDS in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable EXPERIENCES OF GRACE.

I believe that regeneration preceding faith is quite clear from the BF&M 2000. How do you read it?

[Todd Burus]

Frank,
It tickled me that Chapman made this comment in his address and then the person he chose to reflect those who go evangelize instead of sitting around debating theology, Lottie Moon, was by all accounts a Calvinist. Forget "antinomy", that's called "irony."

[Darby Livingston]

Peter,

What you call a "nifty little maneuver" I'd say is absolutely biblical. Instead of questioning how a Calvinist deals with the "whosoever" verses, why not explain to everyone God's hardening of Pharaoh? Was there any antinomy in that? Or David's being incited to take a census? Any antinomy there? Or perhaps how in the book of Acts everyone who was appointed to eternal life believed? Or how repentance is a gift to be granted by God? What is repentance but a changing of desires resulting in a change of life direction? It seems to me you have bigger fish to fry than Timmy Brister. Might you need to come to terms with a God you're contradicting? I'm not challenging your challenge of Brister. I'm wondering how you'd deal with certain texts that don't seem to leave much tension in the whole sovereignty/ will debate.

[Todd Burus]

MARKT,
That is a tough place in the BF&M. Non-Calvinists, I believe, would argue here that either (1) the "change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit" encapsulates all of what is said, both the conviction of sin as well as the repentance and faith response, and so man's response calls the HS into him; or (2) that the "change of heart [is] wrought by the Holy Spirit" in that the HS convicts us of sin but not in an effectual way (and so it is not an effectual "wrought-ing"). Personally, I find both arguments linguistically difficult, the first based on grammar and the second based on the definition of wrought.

That said, given some historical context, I believe it is clear that this phrase ("a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit") was originally written to teach RPF yet has likely only been kept by SBC non-Calvinists out of tradition and possibly misunderstanding. I say this because the phrase itself is lifted verbatim from the Abstract of Principle which by common knowledge is an unabashedly Calvinistic document. This has then been repeated in every version of the BF&M regardless of which tradition was the prevailing thought at the time.

So yes, prima facie this teaches RPF, but it is doubtful that was the intention of the men who constructed the 2000 edition of the BF&M.

[MARKT]

Perhaps, with the exception of Al Mohler? and any others who may be closet Calvinists? They do exist you know. :)

[peter]

MarkT

Thanks.

First, I concede if that is all that is said about “regeneration” in the BF&M, your point would weigh in at a much heftier advantage. However, consider also:

“Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man… In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification” (Salvation IV, opening paragraph).

This paragraph precedes the statement you quoted and offers a decidedly sweeping statement about redemption in its broadest sense, a significant part of which is regeneration. But a clear definition of “regeneration” or stated conditions for regeneration are conspicuously absent.

We do know, a bit later, what regeneration includes. Yet, there is no hard definition about what regeneration is other than it obviously a) is intrinsically a part of salvation in its “broadest sense” and b) it may be implied that regeneration–including all that the term means–is the beginning of the Christian life.

I need to add here that what is striking is in no sense whatsoever is regeneration–either explicitly or implicitly–suggested to mean a spiritual resurrection from the dead as our Calvinist brothers insist upon. Such must be read into, definitively not out of, the confession.

Furthermore, if we take the confession explicitly affirming repentance and faith are responses to regeneration, several reasons present themselves to dissent:

a) To assert that repentance and faith is a response to regeneration wrongly assumes that repentance and faith stand in a demarcated position to regeneration. This does not seem to be the case. Repentant faith is a part of regeneration. How then can it be a response to regeneration?

On the other hand, however, if you will look closely at the confession, you will see that repentant faith is a response to the “conviction of sin” wrought by the Spirit. This makes perfect sense, at least to me. I know prima facie what it means to respond through repentance and faith to conviction of sin.

Thus, it seems rather than suggesting that our faith & repentance is said to be a response to God’s work of regeneration it is more consistent with what our confession states if we view our faith & repentance as a response to the conviction of sin within God’s work of regeneration.

b) Even more, the presumption exists in regeneration-precedes-faith thinking that "cause and effect" is the operative grace motif: regeneration is the cause, repentant faith is the effect. However, this is absolutely foreign to this document. Not only is the language absent, once again the mistaken assumption is made that repentant faith is a response to regeneration itself rather than a response within regeneration. This, I think, is fatal for the regeneration-precedes-faith reading of the BF&M.

c) Most devastating to regeneration is the cause that precedes the effect of repentant faith is what’s stated elsewhere in the BF&M. Under the section on the Holy Spirit we’re instructed of the Spirit’s deity; His inspiration for inscripturation and His illumination for interpretation.

We further confess His exaltation of Christ, His conviction of men’s sins, His calling men to Christ and His effecting regeneration. Then, we confess these words:

“At the moment of regeneration He baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ” (C. God the Holy Spirit).

Were we to accept the strict Calvinist view that regeneration precedes faith, making it is the cause that precedes the effect, we have either,
a) a blatant contradiction or
b) we strangely confess that, a regenerated person–prior to their expressing repentant faith in Christ–is baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit.

Honestly, I do not like either of those options. And , while I concede my way of viewing the BF&M may not be the best way, I think it presents a better option than either of the above.

When it's all said and done, to make the 2000 BF&M into a strong Calvinistic expression of theology makes zero sense from my view. Adrian Rogers, Steve Gaines, Suzie Hawkins (O.S. Hawkins’ wife), Rudy Hernandez, Charles S. Kelley, Jr., Richard D. Land, Nelson Price, Jerry Vines–most of whom have been seriously critiqued by Southern Baptist Calvinists, many of whom are labeled as rapid anti-Calvinists!–were on this committee that put this document together. We’re now suggesting that these strongly convictional non-Calvinists purposefully put a doctrinal statement in the BF&M which blatantly contradicted what they believed and taught all of their lives? Incredible.

Thanks again, MarkT.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Darby,

I suggest you ask Dr. Akin the same questions.

As for my contradicting God, I have no doubt, Darby, I've no more than my share of those for which I must give account, I confess. As for you, however, seemingly attributing sin to God's specific actions, must make heaven bend over and take notice.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Alan Cross]

Peter,

I read Timmy's first post and interacted with it a bit in the comment stream. I commended him on it because he at least sought to engage Dr. Chapman's arguments instead of just rolling his eyes and calling for him to be fired, like many others did. Once an argument is engaged, debate can ensue. Many in the SBC seem to have no time or patience to actually discuss things - they just want to hurl bombs at each other and ask for the removal of all who don't agree with them.

Timmy may not be right on all that he said. He might have slipped into ad hominem attacks at times (I honestly did not read it that way, but that is my perspective), but he did at least seek to engage Dr. Chapman from his perspective. That is to be commended, in my opinion, even if you disagree with his Calvinism.

At the points that you engaged Timmy's argument, I commend you as well. I am saying all of this to say that we need a lot more discussion and a little less aggravation with those who disagree with us. Thanks for adding to the discussion and giving us more to think about.

[Todd Burus]

Peter,
Like I said in my comment, I agree with you. I don't think these men "purposefully put a doctrinal statement in the BF&M which blatantly contradicted what they believe." I do however think that they absent-mindedly did. As you point out, it is clearly not their intent as evidenced elsewhere, but looking at sourcing they probably should have done a better job at clarifying things if this is something they did not want to say. I think this is another example of how Calvinism has always been an accepted part of the Southern Baptist tradition, even if we don't realize it.

[peter]

Todd,

You are welcome to think as you wish about their "absent mindedness." Nor do I disagree the BF&M is "another example of how Calvinism has always been an accepted part of the Southern Baptist tradition." That is precisely my conclusion in the OP. Unfortunately, Brister--and apparently you--attempt to read the BF&M as an explicitly, born again-before faith statement.

If that is the case--absent-minded or not--A. Rogers handed us a document he adamantly opposed. To believe this is too fantastic to consider.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Alan,

I catalogued what I perceived ad hominens Timmy had with Chapman. That's all.

Nor do I quite get your conclusion: "I am saying all of this to say that we need a lot more discussion and a little less aggravation with those who disagree with us."

With that, I am...
Peter

[Darby Livingston]

So is your interpretation of those texts forthcoming? I'm obviously not obligating you to respond, but I am curious as to why you'd imply I'm charging God with sin by asking for a simple interpretation of some pretty tricky texts. How do you deal with "But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go" (Ex. 4:21) and "But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, Pharaoh will not listen to you (Ex. 7:3-4). God's statement precedes any mention of Pharaoh hardening his own heart. It doesn't seem to be a tension or antinomy at all. It seems to be a cause/effect situation. And I would gladly put the same question to Dr. Akin. I'm not charging God with sin because I'm not saying God is sinning by treating his pots however he so chooses. I'd refer you to Paul's use of these texts in Romans 9 for my justification for this line of argumentation.

Anxiously awaiting to be blown off and accused, but hoping to just be answered.

[Todd Burus]

Peter,
I am not trying to read the BF&M as an RPF document. I even remarked to the contrary above. What I am saying is that that phrase, "a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit", is a direct quote from the Calvinist Abstract of Principles. When said in the AoP it is being used to promote RPF. I do not believe that the 2000 committee was using it to these ends but that does not change the historical intent and understanding of this phrase as penned by Basil Manly, Jr.

[peter]

Darby,

So sorry to be away. Long meeting. Thanks for your reply.

That you feel you were possibly being "blown off and accused"--and perhaps expecting to be so treated again--very well could be of your own making. You waltz right in and sit right down, all the while rapid firing a series of questions about several texts nowhere to be found in my post, implying I very well may "need to come to terms with a God [I'm] contradicting."

And, to make it more interesting, you offer not a tiny fiber for a reason how my vilifying contradiction is supposed to work.

Even more, given the nature of the questions and the way you seem to negate the possibility of "antinomy" I took it your interpretation of these very troubling texts--almost all interpreters concede these as troublesome--may be a simple, If A then B approach.

Indeed you actually described them as "certain texts that don't seem to leave much tension in the whole sovereignty/ will debate." I honestly don't know what to make of this last statement.
And, your second comment compounds my confusion; rather than bleed the texts of tension "in the whole sovereignty/ will debate," you describe these same texts as "some pretty tricky texts."

Does that mean they have tension after all in light of the questions we're asking concerning sovereignty and free will? If not, then why are the texts "pretty tricky"? Again, I am stumped as to your position here, Darby.

Then after suggesting there's no tension in these texts but the texts are nonetheless "pretty tricky," you turn right around and boldly assert the texts' straightforward reading without a single blink: "It doesn't seem to be a tension or antinomy at all. It seems to be a cause/effect situation." One could be thoroughly confused with your words.

Since your last assertion was clear enough about the Pharaoh phenomenon, however, I'll offer a few words about it.

First, from your assertion, I cannot tell if you understand "antinomy" the way we've used it here. Hence, before I address "antinomy" any further with you, I'll need to know you understand the way it's being employed.

Second, I assumed correctly the "If A then B approach" I suspected you may be using in dealing with the Exodus passages. The way you cast it, however, was in a "cause/effect situation." My initial question is, why see this in terms of natural law? Given these categories, Darby, you're already imposing causal determinism upon the text of Scripture.

Calvinists are prone to employ the deterministic lens, I understand. For example, Sproul is at home speaking in terms of causality with Pharaoh. However, he enlists "secondary causes" as the culprit. Hence, Pharaoh is passively permitted to harden himself against God. God does not actively work unbelief in his heart. Instead, He simply allows unbelief to jell, as it were.

This rescues Sproul from the harsher conclusions of Calvinists like Gordon Clark who argued God actively worked unbelief in Pharaoh.

Now, as for me, I think this is not at all a wrong-headed approach to take with God's dealings with Pharaoh. But I am a non-Calvinist. Permission is the language of James Arminius on this text not John Calvin. Calvin despised the language of the Sovereign's "permissive will."

Even so, your unqualified language of "cause/effect" fits the more extreme edges of High Calvinism, Darby. At least, that's the way I understand it. And, if I am correct, and you do no tempering of the "cause/effect" model, do not be surprised when others cannot see how you are not de facto implicating God as actively working unbelief in reprobates.

Third, the "hardening" passages themselves, while difficult, lend relatively nicely to the first two mentions with God as the subject of the hardening being prophetic in nature (4:21; 7:3).

In essence, God was saying what would be. When Moses begins the signs, however, Pharaoh continues to rebuff the clear revelation of the true and living God given through Moses' staff. The King refuses God's mercy time and again.

Somewhere about the halfway point, God is said to be the subject of the hardening. This time, it is the journey of no return. Pharaoh has poked his spiritual eyes out. There is no more hope for him.

Hence, the remainder of the references demonstrate what Paul may have said well in Romans--"God gave them over..."

The crux of this passage (and those like them), for me, fits what one theologue calls a "person-to-person reciprocal relationship" model (or something like that). God works on Pharaoh like a man made in His image, not a rock. Indeed cause/effect works on raw matter very well. One moves a rock with force and only force.

Not that God could not or would not do so with humans made in His image. I would state without reservation, however, such is not His normal way of getting things done.

With that, I am...
Peter

[gabaptist]

Question: Can an unregenerate man/woman have faith in God, unless God enables him or her to have such faith? This is what the theologues of our English Baptist and 1st Great Awakening called "saving faith"?
Isn't it unorthodox to say that salvation is half-God's work and half-man's work? If this is true, then the believer is half-secure?

[Matt Svoboda]

Peter,

For clarification, I am the Editor of SBC Voices, and I dont have a clue who James Galyon is... I believe you are mistaken in saying he is SBC Voices. I'm not sure what makes you think he is part of SBC Voices at all.

[peter lumpkins]

gabaptist,

Thanks. I'm unsure there is a Southern Baptist alive who'd squabble over the necessity of God's enablement to come to Christ--at least no one I know or've ever read. No one comes unless drawn is the word of Jesus most apt to be encountered.

On the other hand, the confessional language upon which High Calvinists insist--no one can come to Christ unless made willing--is a another affair entirely. There is a great gulf fixed between enablement and transformation, the latter of which today's most visible Calvinists in SBC life insist happens before faith and repentance, a born-again-before-faith message.

There are Baptists who insist on the latter, don't misunderstand. Baptists in the south had a very difficult time dealing with them in the early 19th C. They finally left and formed their own fellowship--Primitive Baptists. Some still refer to them as "Hardshell Baptists."

Hence, Southern Baptists must again deal with this phenomenon. The irony is, the old "Hardshell" ran under the flag, "anti-missions" while "Neo-hardshellism" totes no such emblem. Indeed they insist on aggressive church-planting. Nevertheless, so far as I am concerned, while their practice may not be the issue, born-again-before-faith is.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Matt,

I am afraid you've kinda misread the first paragraph. Follow the link on Dr. Galyon. And, you really need to get to know him. He is an articulate defender of Founders Calvinism.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Peter,

Just kinda perusing the comments and am blown away. Man, when you bait for bear you can certainly get some big ones. :) Am I to understand that Calvinist a.) believe that regeneration precedes faith? IOW, there is now way faith can be asserted in our life without being first regenerated by the Spirit of God? and b.) we have people reading the text of Romans 9 and Exodus, but now also 1 Chronicles 21 and 2 Samuel 24 are being paraded as another way God brought sin into our lives? Amazing! Some of the arguments you are fielding seems to be flat out supralapsarian. Here in these parts we call that Hyper-Calvinism.

So, let me sum up what I am reading from your commenter's comments, and you are doing a fine job presenting truth to counter their false cause/effect determinism imposed on Scripture. God created Satan = the cause; Satan sinned = the action; Because Satan was created by God and Satan sinned ergo God created Sin.

This is truly astounding.

Blessings,
Tim

[Darby Livingston]

Peter,

I can't imagine a discerning reader couldn't read your response to my questions and then figure out why I said I was awaiting being blown off or accused rather than answered.

I will not make the mistake of waltzing into this blog ever again and I'm sure you won't miss me. You're the one posting your views for everyone to read and I assume you do it in order to be read. It definitely helps sell books. But I see my questions have irritate you, so much so that you and Tim did in fact shift my questions to accusing me of placing the blame for sin on God, rather than just deal with the texts.

God works all things according to the counsel of his own will. If that's determinism, then I'm not scared of the label. I don't think God needs let off the hook.

[Luke]

Darby,

Peter gave you a reasoned response, evidence for why he believes the way he does about Pharoah and the best you can say is that you are leaving. C'mon dude. Pony up and deal with Peter's post. Don't leave just because he and Tim answered the questions you asked and even more that would be implied by your theology. Maybe your questions did not irritate Peter at all, in fact I am quite sure the content of your questions posed no loss of sleep for him. But it sure does appear that his response to you bothers you so much that you will retreat to the "I'm leaving" bus. What did you expect? Really?!

[peter lumpkins]

Darby,

I honestly answered your questions pertaining to Pharaoh as best I could. And, from the confused statements I gleaned from your two comments, I will state once again precisely what I stated in my last:

"your unqualified language of "cause/effect" fits the more extreme edges of High Calvinism, Darby. At least, that's the way I understand it. And, if I am correct, and you do no tempering of the "cause/effect" model, do not be surprised when others cannot see how you are not de facto implicating God as actively working unbelief in reprobates."

If you do not appreciate such as not just at the center of the Calvinist/non-Calvinist understanding of sovereignty and free will, but as a viable in-house discussion which sharply divides Calvinist and Calvinist, I don't quite know what to say.

Furthermore, pointing out, from one's own perspective, the possible implications of another's position, remains a valuable standard in gaining understanding of opposites. Why such offends you so deeply I can't quite grasp.

Understand, Darby: your first comment came as a freshly sharpened razor, slicing a smooth, sleek wound toward what you yourself perceived as implication of position:

"It seems to me you have bigger fish to fry than Timmy Brister. Might you need to come to terms with a God you're contradicting?

However, if I am understanding you now, my (and Tim's since you oddly clumped him with me) pointing out the possible implications of your position from my vantage point stands as an assault so severe, you announce your forever departure because your questions "irritate" me.

Know I am sorry for the offense while remaining totally confused as to its existence. So be it.

And, for the record, I do write to be read. And, know you will be missed. For anyone who wades through my ramblings I hold highest appreciation.

But I also write because I like to write. Which means if no one reads, I'd play the fool and still write. We're surely glad the apostolic authors possessed a tendency to pen & ink the gospel, not just verbally vocalize the gospel.

Wishing you the best.

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

Sounds like the water got too hot for Mr. Darby. Peter, you laid out the truth of this whole matter in excellent fashion. I'd imagine that the Hardshell Baptist that are among us dont like reading what you have just written at all.

I'm from the South. I know Primitive Baptist, up close and personal. And yes, they are called Hardshell Baptist. And, they are a dying Church. They are almost completely gone.

David

[Darby Livingston]

Peter,

I obviously stuck around long enough to read your response because I like reading your stuff. It's not like something you wrote offended me, so I'm taking my ball and going home. I truly thought you didn't like it that I questioned your post and was going to leave you with like-minded commenters to enjoy. That's how I interpreted "You waltz right in and sit right down, all the while rapid firing a series of questions about several texts nowhere to be found in my post, implying I very well may "need to come to terms with a God [I'm] contradicting." I thought I made a valid point flowing from your post and you didn't like it. Please forgive my quickness. I mean that. I still think Calvinists get mis-characterized for simply trying to let texts say what they say.

[peter lumpkins]

Darby,

Absolutely. Not a problem whatsoever. And, as I said, I am sorry for the offense I caused you.

Also, I do understand how my hopelessly addicted personal style of employing images to get my point across sometimes appears either cynical and/or sarcastic. Actually, most of the time it is neither. I mostly use irony.

Grace, Darby.
With that, I am...
Peter

[Luke]

Darby,

You wrote, " I still think Calvinists get mis-characterized for simply trying to let texts say what they say."

Does this apply only towards Calvinists or do you grant enough room that Calvinists do this as well towards non-Calvies?

[Darby Livingston]

Luke,

Definitely, even to the point where some Calvinists claim if you're not a Calvinist, you don't truly understand the gospel, therefore you can't be saved. I wouldn't call that hyper-Calvinism or even good normal Calvinism. I'd just call that stupid. But I've been both a non-Calvinist (for the first couple years after conversion), a militant non-Calvinist who couldn't stand what I thought was attributing God with sin (for a short span as I learned the issues), and finally a full-fledged Piperesque Calvinist (after I heard that R.C. Sproul also at one time hated Calvinism but couldn't come to terms with certain texts without it). This humble admission caused me to go back to the texts and lay at their feet. I came up a Calvinist. I didn't become a Calvinist by reading Berkhof. I became a Calvinist by reading the Bible. But I realize others aren't going to read it the same way. That's where the mis-characterizations come in. We all want to win so badly don't we?

I think the crucial thing that we all need to realize is that the Gospel is a beautiful thing, and we can't cast off those for whom Christ died, even while disagreeing with them. And if we can't unyoke ourselves from them ultimately, we should probably just learn to live with them happily.

[SelahV Today by Hariette Petersen]

Darby, I'm happy! :) selahV

[volfan007]

That's funny...I became a Christian and grew in my faith from reading my Bible. I didnt become a Calvinist from reading the Bible.

Happy David

[Luke]

Darby,

I did not come a Calvinist as you did and that in spite of the fact that men such as Sproul, Pink, Henry, Keach, Chafer, MacArthur and others line my personal library.

So now that all of that has been established, back to your sovereignty/free will statement. Peter addressed your Exodus/Pharaoh passage. The II Samuel 24 passage is easily understood when one reads its synoptic in I Chronicles 21:1. At the moment, until someone obliges your Acts passage and repentance passage, that is 2 out of 4 that have been responded to.

In seeking to understand your understanding then, did God create Sin or Satan? I remember my professor in Bible College pointing out that Millard Erickson kind of painted himself into a corner when it came to explaining the origin of sin during our study through his book, "Introducing Christian Doctrine". So in an effort to either erase or confirm so-called mis-characterizations, would you please explain your understanding of the origin of sin. And please do not see this as a trap of any sort. I know what Sproul's answer is but sense that comes across as mis-caricature, to lump you in with him, I ask you simply what your opinion on this matter is. Respectfully of course.

[peter lumpkins]

Luke & Darby,

I actually forgot about the other passages. So, let me give it a quick stab.

First, Acts 13:48: "...and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed (NASB).

A couple of quick things. The context is narrative in nature and affords us few details concerning precisely what he meant. Nor is their a negation of free human response here. Unless one would impose an "If A then B" model, of course.

Second, Darby, NT scholars are far from unanimous what this verse means for the question we're asking.

I quickly scanned several commentaries on my shelves before me on this verse--Robertson, Bruce, Marshall, Earle, Wuest, Polhill, Stott, Longenecker, Larkin. The final score was 5 to 3 (1 evaded) against this being a usable text to demonstrate a predestinarian point of view.

The So. Baptist Greek scholar, A.T Robertson was as vigorously opposed to predestinarian use as was Larkin (IVP) for it.

TDNT ("Little Kittel) made a great point (for me!) concerning the word "tassein" translated, "appointed": "[the term] confers of status rather than foreordination." That is, from his perspective, it's about personal preparation for faith, not predestination to it. The term was used militarily for soldiers ordered to take their posts.

Given this, I'm not sure where one could go polemically on any point concerning the questions raised here.

Now as far as repentance goes, I've never heard it characterized as new desires, etc. For my part, you'd need to tease that out more.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Tim G]

Peter,
I do appreciate your Theological writing and debating. This has been been one of your best posts and defenses yet!

NICE!

[peter lumpkins]

Tim,

Thanks for the encouragement. I really think the make or break issue for Southern Baptists is centered around how much we listen and or follow the most visible Calvinists in our convention down the path of strict Calvinism.

Southern Baptists can survive a complete organizational overhaul. We could cope with merging the IMB with NAMB. But for my part, we could not survive a return to strict, aggressive Calvinism the Founders are pushing.

With that, I am...
Peter

[MARKT]

"But for my part, we could not survive a return to strict, aggressive Calvinism the Founders are pushing."
Are you kidding me?! Peter, this comment is a total misunderstanding of Historic Southern Baptist Calvinism and the evangelistic zeal that the Founders possess. You may want to get Tom Ascol's take on a mischaracterization like that.

[peter lumpkins]

Markt,

That comment is through sifting through their materials for over three years. I did not make it 'off the cuff.' Nor is it a 'total misunderstanding' unless, of course, you can point out to me wrong inferences from those times I've engaged their views.

And, as for Dr. Ascol's take, I'm quite sure he agrees with you.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Test