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

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

What follows are some observations on the response to Dr. Steve Lemke’s chapter in Whosoever Will (WW) entitled, “A Biblical and Theological Critique of Irresistible Grace” (pp. 109-162, clearly the longest essay in the book). The critical response to Lemke in Founders Journal is written by Southern Baptist Theological Seminary PhD student, Matthew Barrett, and can be found at Founders website or downloaded from the link following (the reader would do well to read Barrett’s paper in its entirety and not rely on my observations alone).

Entitled "Is Irresistible Grace Unbiblical? A Response to Steve Lemke’s Arminian Objections"  Barrett states his focus is to deal with “the very center of Lemke’s argument, namely Lemke’s interpretation of key Scriptures which he believes eliminate the doctrine of irresistible grace and instead support the Arminian view that God’s saving grace can be resisted unless the sinner cooperates with it by his own free will” (4). Barrett’s evaluation leads him to believe he demonstrated Lemke’s “exegesis" to be "erroneous” and therefore it follows Lemke’s rejection of irresistible grace, along with the affirmation of “synergism” which, according to Barrett, “…[exalts] man’s free will over God’s sovereign prerogative,” to be entirely “unbiblical” (5).

Does Barrett succeed in showing Lemke’s exegesis to be flawed and therefore the rejection of irresistible grace to be unbiblical? We do not think so. In fact, it is not too much to suggest that Matthew Barrett’s paper cannot be said to address, in any significant way, Lemke’s interpretation of key passages of Scripture at all other than to summarily dismiss the texts with which Lemke deals and offer alternate texts instead. The following will demonstrate exactly what I mean.

After a brief introduction setting up the issue, stating he did not have space to deal with all of Lemke’s paper and consequently would deal with only the first part--the “biblical presentation” (4)--Barrett begins his formal response to Lemke’s impressive array of texts including many from both Old and New Testaments which, according to Lemke, “contain significant evidence against irresistible grace… [texts that] do not seem to support irresistible grace…  [and] means that the plain sense reading of these texts tends to support the belief that God’s grace, by His own intent and design, is resistible” (WW, 129). Texts cited by Lemke include Proverbs 1:22-26; Hosea 11:1-9; Psalm 78:10; Psalm 81:11-13; Jeremiah 32:33; Matthew 13:1-23; 21:28-32; 23:37; Luke 18:18; and Acts 7:5 among many, many others.  

In response to Lemke’s biblical presentation, Barrett states there exist, “several problems with Lemke’s interpretation of these passages” (6). He breaks the problems with Lemke’s exegesis into three fundamental flaws he believes Lemke possesses in his interpretation of the passages under consideration: 1) Lemke fails to refute the distinction between the “general” call to all and the “special efficacious” call only to the elect (5-7); 2) Lemke fails to account for the negative impact of total depravity (7-8); 3) Lemke fails to distinguish between the two wills in God (8).

Laying aside for the moment whether or not Lemke addressed the issues as stated, the obvious question must be asked:  what do all three of these supposed flaws have in common?  Are Barrett’s concerns not specifically theologically driven concerns? We understood Barrett to state his focus would be to question Lemke’s biblical exegesis.  However, his concerns are explicitly theologically oriented. The fact is, not a single criticism can be gleaned from Barrett’s response in which he showed, from either context or linguistics, Lemke’s interpretation of the textual data to not square with the biblical text itself.

Even more, all three flaws Barrett lists are particularly Calvinistically driven.  Hence, not only are Barrett’s criticisms theological in nature, but also his criticisms assume Calvinism to be true which makes Barrett’s response little more than a long paper on begging the question.   If I am correct, Barrett’s chief complaint against Lemke reduces to the absurd observation that Lemke’s wrong because Lemke’s not Calvinist!

So, how does Barrett deal with texts Lemke cites?  Apart from offering theological objections to Lemke’s interpretation, he states at one point, “Lemke simply lists for pages numerous texts with little commentary…Proof-texting in this manner gives systematic theology a bad name…[Lemke] cites many passages out of context and consequently comes to an erroneous theological conclusion” (15, footnote 16). This is not an inconsequential charge to make in an academic exchange. Hence, one would think the one making the insinuation would show precisely what is meant.  

Yet Barrett showed no interest in demonstrating how Lemke irresponsibly ripped texts from their context. He offered not a single rebuttal based on textual content. Indeed rather than deal with the passages Lemke cited, Barrett cited an alternate array of texts with which Lemke did not deal, pronouncing Lemke failing because he did not “address those passages that the Reformed believe support [their position]” (6).

Whatever shortcomings Lemke may or may not possess for allegedly ignoring texts Calvinists regularly employ to support their position, such an ignorance,  if it exists, counts little as to whether Lemke correctly or incorrectly interpreted the passages of Scripture with which he actually dealt—unless, of course, one could show how the texts are interrelated with one another.  The problem is, however, Barrett fails to show a single relationship between the texts he cites and those Lemke cites. In one sweeping movement, he dismisses Lemke's texts by suggesting all of them may be nicely and neatly interpreted via Calvinistic parsing of other texts without making sufficiently clear how the texts he cites voids Lemke's out. He writes:

"Moreover, it is important to note that since this distinction exists [between "general" and "special" call]  in Scripture, all of those passages used by Lemke and cited above simply support...[the Calvinist position]..." (7, emphasis mine)

With this kind of interpretative grid in place, where no text can be counted contra the Calvinist position, little fruitful dialog will ever take place between Calvinist and non-Calvinist in the Southern Baptist Convention. Theology cancels out the biblical text itself. Scripture is not interpreted in light of Scripture; rather Scripture is interpreted in light of rigid dogmatics.

Among other short-comings in Barrett’s paper is included Barrett’s complete overlooking of Lemke’s clear propositions.  For example, Barrett claims “Lemke fails to consider how total depravity impacts commands in Scripture to believe” (7). Barrett suggests the biblical witness teaches “Man’s depravity is so pervasive that his will itself is in bondage to sin and utterly helpless until God, by an effectual act of sovereign grace, awakens the dead sinner to new life, so that he may repent and trust in Christ” (8).

However, to suggest Lemke is either unaware of how Calvinists interpret total depravity and/or its effects on sinful humans is simply to ignore the numerous times Lemke demonstrates his awareness of total depravity, how Calvinists typically view total depravity, and his interpretation of the biblical data pertaining to sinful depravity. According to Lemke,

“Calvinists base much of their teachings on Eph 2:1, that those who are lost  are  “dead in trespasses and sins… Calvinists take spiritual deadness as not only the primary metaphor but the literal basis on which they build the rest of their theology superstructure” (135)

"The issue is not whether unaided humans would naturally seek God without His grace. The issue is whether the Holy Spirit regenerates persons before they respond in faith to God. In both approaches, it is the Holy Spirit who, through gospel preaching and other means, convicts and convinces sinners to repent of their sins and to trust Christ" (138, footnote 49)

“Fundamental to belief in irresistible grace is the presupposition that all persons are spiritually dead as a result of Adam’s sin, so humans are incapable of responding in any way to the gospel apart from the prior act of being regenerated by the Spirit of God” (148)

The fact is, Lemke is very close to what Barrett stated above. Lemke acknowledges sinful humans cannot seek God by their own initiative. and, unless God sovereignly acts within a sinful person’s heart, he or she will never turn to Christ. Hence, according to Lemke, “The issue is not whether unaided humans would naturally seek God without His grace.”  And, until God acts, a sinner cannot come to Christ, which is precisely what Barrett suggested--“so that he may repent and trust in Christ.” 

The problem is, Barrett does not really mean what he explicitly states but something much stronger.  Barrett says the Holy Spirit sovereignly works "so that he may repent and trust in Christ" (emphasis mine) which is precisely Lemke’s position! However, for Barrett, the sinner is not just enabled so that he may repent and trust Christ, but the Spirit's work is such that the sinner must repent and trust Christ because the sinner is irresistibly drawn to Christ. For Barrett, the sinner cannot not come; he or she must come when the Spirit works.  That is precisely the point against which Lemke biblically argues his case for resistible grace contra Barrett's theological assertion of irresistible grace.

So, does Matthew Barrett demonstrate Steve Lemke’s exegesis to be erroneous?  He does not.  The fact is, Barrett didn’t deal with the texts Lemke cited in any substantial way. Rather he summarily dismissed them and substituted texts which were supposed to prove his own position. Of course, it is perfectly acceptable to offer texts to substantiate one’s position. However, when one announces at the beginning of one’s critique that he or she intends to demonstrate another’s exegesis to be erroneous, then one expects contextual, linguistic, and/or other evidences embedded within the biblical revelation itself. 

Hence, Barrett’s critique thus far cannot reasonably be described as a biblical critique at all.  Rather it is polemical theology at its best.

With that, I am…

Peter   

*For Professor Tom Nettles to connect the theological dots between the essayists in Whosoever Will and open theism is theologically irresponsible and reveals little consistent with Ascol’s call for “family” disagreement

Comments

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Peter,

Great analysis and rebuttal. I believe you said it well when you said:

for Barrett, the sinner is not just enabled so that he may repent and trust Christ, but the Spirit's work is such that the sinner must repent and trust Christ because the sinner is irresistibly drawn to Christ. The sinner cannot not come; he or she must come when the Spirit works.

Your statement expresses the difference. But as you know, you are going to be told that you are wrong because you just do not understand Calvinist doctrine.

Blessings,
Tim

[peter lumpkins]

Tim,

Thanks. Surely you don't think they will, do you? ;^)

Interestingly, one hears endlessly how Calvinism is so misunderstood. I've never quite got that. I think Calvinism is very easy to understand (what's hard is, to accept it!). Oh, there's some very tight distinctions within the more intricate parts of the system for sure, distinctions that may make one's head spin a bit. However, in the popular Calvinism so often presented, it's hardly right to suggest it is hard to understand.

With that, I am...
Peter

[David B. Hewitt]

Dr. L:

"1) Lemke fails to refute the distinction between the “general” call to all and the “special efficacious” call only to the elect (5-7); 2) Lemke fails to account for the negative impact of total depravity (7-8); 3) Lemke fails to distinguish between the two wills in God (8)."

I suspect the reason that Barrett didn't elaborate on these issues (the distinction between general call and special call, total depravity, and two wills in God) is twofold:

1.) He was limited by space. The Founders' Journal isn't that large a publication, and very often it takes more space to respond to something in a decent fashion than it does for the original writing.

2.) As you observed later, these are doctrines and teachings understood by Calvinists. Given that FJ is a publication that is read and subscribed to mostly by SBC Calvinists, Barret probably didn't think it necessary to lay the exegetical foundations for them.

Be that as it may, the distinction between the general call and the special or effectual call isn't that hard to find in Scripture. The general call can be seen in say, Matthew 22:14 while the effectual, special call is seen in Romans 8:30 (those who are called are justified, while not everyone who is called by the Gospel is justified). Many more verses exist, but it isn't my goal here to provide an exhaustive treatment of any of them. :)

Anyway, hope that was helpful. May God bless you, and should you wish to continue the discussion on those verses or others, I'd be happy to participate.

sdg,
dbh

[peter lumpkins]

David,

Did you read Matthew Barrett's paper? Because if you did, I'm wondering how you could make such incredible statements. You write, “I suspect the reason that Barrett didn't elaborate on these issues…” Where did you get the notion Barrett did not elaborate on the three flaws he articulated, and I quoted?  To the contrary, he most certainly did elaborate and did so adequately (at least so far as sufficient content is concerned) .  I recorded the page numbers after each one I listed. Hence, your “twofold” reason is either a complete guess—as in “I suspect”—or you did not read Barrett well.  In either case, your statement is completely irrational based upon the paper itself.

Even so, your rationale would not follow at all had Barrett not teased out his assertions “due to space” as you indicate  Those assertions constituted the core complaint Barrett leveled against Lemke. Hence, to suggest he not have space to tease out his chief complaint is absurd (for the record, Barrett’s review essay is 12 typed pages, single-spaced).

In addition, I actually never got around to Scriptures Barrett employs positively arguing his case (something I will probably do in the next installment).  Scan my review again, David. I suggested Barrett offered no exegetical rebuttal whatsoever in his critique of Lemke. Nothing.  Yet his stated focus was to demonstrate Lemke’s “exegesis" to be "erroneous.” Citing other texts contra Lemke—texts about which Lemke offered no comment--cannot be counted as demonstrative that Lemke’s exegesis is fallacious on the texts with which he actually dealt.

Now I am not interested in whether you can prove the difference between “general” and special” call on this thread.  I’d guess you’d fare no better than Barrett. Hence, we’ll wait till Barrett has his time before we go down that road with you.

In the meantime, I suggest you read Matthew Barrett’s paper thoroughly before attempting to comment about it again.

With that, I am…

Peter

[Robin Foster]

Peter

Happy New Year! Great post. I also find it troublesome that Dr. Lemke's scriptural references were not dealt with in detail. I also find it troubling that this issue was not dealt with another professor who is a four or five point calvinist. While I am not advocating an elitism among our seminary staffs, I would love to have seen how a Dr. Mohler or a Dr. Akin would have interacted with Lemke's chapter. It seems to me that the use of PhD students is a subtle back handed slap against the scholars who contributed to this book.

Thanks for pointing out the flaws contained in the response to Dr. Lemke.

[peter lumpkins]

Robin,

Thanks. In conjunction with your point, Dr. Nettles ends his review in Founders Journal writing,

"They [i.e., the contributors to Whosoever Will] should be worried, however, if Roger Olson is right, that this is the scholarly argument against Calvinism by evangelical authors" (FJ p 44, emphasis original)

Not only did FJ assign graduate students to respond to seasoned scholars as you indicate, Nettles also seems to pooh-pooh Whosoever Will as a less than serious critique of Nettles' brand of Calvinism. This is apparently the kind of "family" disagreement Ascol had in mind.

With that, I am...
Peter