Calvinists, the Southwest Alabama Bible Conference 2011, and the "20 Questions" by Peter Lumpkins

    The Southwest Alabama Bible Conference 2011 (SABC) may be the first organized attempt—or, at least the most visible firstly organized event--by grassroots Southern Baptists to address the issue of aggressive Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention. With some seminaries and agencies continuing to promote the Calvinist Resurgence, other grassroots efforts may not be far behind.* We think this is a good sign for Southern Baptists >>>

We expect the pastors who sponsor the conference to be tarred as divisive and unhelpful by many Calvinists in the SBC. I think it will only be a matter of time. On the other hand, there will be some softer critiques toward their efforts. 

For example, Calvinist James Galyon began a response to them on his site. While Galyon often is noticeably sympathetic to Founders Ministries, he nonetheless normally remains a fair critic, and for that reason alone his responses are noteworthy.  We’d like to make a few observations on his initial piece.**

Galyon’s occasion for responding to the SABC is a link posted on its homepage. He writes:

“The organizers…have included a link on their website which poses “20 Questions for Calvinists.”  The link takes one to Kevin Jackson’s blog, Wesleyan Arminian (a bit curious, since an understandable link is also provided to Malcolm Yarnell’s piece, “Neither Calvinists nor Arminians but Baptists”)...I humbly submit the following answers in response to the queries raised”

The reason why a link to Kevin Jackson is “curious” apparently is because Kevin Jackson is a Wesleyan. But why would this be “curious”? Kevin may be Wesleyan, but linking to him is no more “curious” than the ubiquitous links to Presbyterian sources Calvinists embed in their documents, is it"?

Galyon goes on to suggest the link may exist “because the organizers have failed to study the questions (and Calvinist’s answers) themselves, or because, like Jackson, they continue to operate under the assumption of stereotypes.”  But, again, why would either follow?  Perhaps since Jackson is Wesleyan, and hence non-Calvinist, his summary states the issues nicely.  Why, then, does it mean they “failed to study the questions themselves”? In addition, asserting without any proof that Jackson operates under the assumption of “stereotypes” is thoroughly gratuitous and at minimum, argumentative. Shame, shame, Dr. Galyon!

Galyon goes on to answer briefly the first two questions on the 20 Questions list. I’ll separate the two questions and make it easier to follow:

1. If sovereignty means that God freely and unchangeably ordains whatsoever comes to pass, why does evil exist?

After confessing this question as “not merely a question for “Calvinists,” but for all Christians,”  Galyon states:

“All orthodox Christians throughout the ages have affirmed divine sovereignty, along with His goodness.  The question posed here is the essential inquiry brought forth by those who refuse to acknowledge the existence of God.”

The difficulty with this response is, Galyon completely ignores the fundamental issue in the question and makes it out as if the query concerns the existence of God Himself—“the essential inquiry brought forth by… [atheists].”  Is Galyon implying non-Calvinists are merely parroting questions posed by atheistic non-believers? We hope not, but it sure seems that way.  The obvious intention of the question focuses not on whether God is sovereign (and, hence not God’s existence either as Galyon implies), but rather on what God’s sovereignty means—“If sovereignty means…” The question assumes—and, hence, intends to raise--the issue concerning a particular meaning of sovereignty, not whether God is sovereign.  

Moreover, the question does not fail to suggest the meaning for sovereignty they have in mind to question—“un-changeably [ordaining] whatsoever comes to pass.”  This type of sovereignty---sometimes referred to as “meticulous” or “exhaustive” sovereignty—includes all events in time and eternity, including every thought, decision, desire, etc. of humankind. Thus, Galyon botches the first question at the very outset.

Consequently, instead of answering the question asked, Galyon quotes from Isaiah as if non-Calvinists do not embrace these particular verses:

“I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me.  I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come.  I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please…. What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do.”
(Isaiah 46:9-11)

Unfortunately, Galyon will be looking a long, long time to find conservative non-Calvinsts who deny God’s monotheistic omnipotence and omniscience, which is the fundamental teaching in Isaiah’s prophetic words.  What is not found in the verses Galyon cites is “meticulous” sovereignty, the sovereignty posed in the question, the part of the question Galyon ignores (or avoids or about which he is confused). Rather Galyon thinks that affirming God’s omnipotence and omniscience answers the question, because “ultimately, it [evil’s existence] was part of God’s purpose and plan.”

We surely agree the existence of evil is a part of God’s purpose and plan but not necessarily in the sense Galyon thinks. Nor do non-Calvinists believe evil is some rogue plague out from under the spectrum of God’s sovereignty.  God’s sovereign reign is not the issue nor the content of the question. Rather the question centers on Calvinism’s insistence on a certain type of sovereignty—a “meticulous” sovereignty, an “exhaustive” sovereignty—whereby all things are deterministically decreed to be (more later).

Galyon continues by quoting the 1689 London Confession:

The third chapter of the Baptist Confession (1689) declares not only that God has “decreed in Himself, from all eternity…whatsoever comes to pass,” but also that He is “neither the author of sin…nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away.” 

Consider:  Is it possible that the 1689 confession is caught in a little inconsistency here? I don’t know why it would not be possible. After all, confessions are not infallible, are they?  Even so, affirming one thing, then denying what many perceive is a necessary conclusion from the affirmed premise(s) as does Galyon’s quote, does not necessarily solve a problem—much less remove an alleged inconsistency.  If I am correct, just what does Galyon hope to accomplish by citing the 1689 Confession?  That the standard Calvinist response has been credalized? That’s hardly a sufficient response.   

Up until now, nothing new in Galyon is given.  But he goes on to make an incredible assertion: 

Simply because God has decreed a matter does not necessarily mean that He gives moral approval of that matter.

As an example, Galyon has God ordaining (decreeing) Joseph’s brothers selling him into slavery while at the same time not approving it (Gen 50:20). So, God decrees X but does not morally approve X?  God decrees X to be done but does not morally approve of X being done?  Is it conceivable the God of the Bible does not approve what He actually decrees? We think we understand what Galyon is driving at, but he is obviously not making much sense.  Galyon perhaps means God uses evil for His own purposes though He does not create evil. But if He uses what He didn’t create, how does that answer the origin of evil?  In other words, if God didn’t create what He obviously uses, who did?

Well, according to Galyon,

“While evil had absolutely no part in God’s original creation, it was ultimately part of His plan.  Even before creation, God decided rebellion against Him would be permitted, but that He would work to overthrow that anarchy through the work of His Son…” (embolden mine)

While we agree evil had no part in God’s original creation but was a part of the chosen plan He allowed, for Galyon to suggest “God decided rebellion against Him would be permitted…” is a puzzling statement for one like Galyon to make.  Recall, for Galyon, that God ordains and decrees whatsoever comes to pass is the centerpiece of his understanding of sovereignty.  To now suggest God merely permits rebellion and works to overthrow anarchy is surely a demotion from One Who decrees whatsoever comes to pass to One Who only permits whatsoever comes to pass (at least permitting certain things).

Consider: Calvinists often and rigorously insist God knows the future because God determines the future. Indeed this idea of sovereignty remains their fundamental understanding of God's omnipotent rule. R.C.Sproul writes:

Yet there is nothing contingent about His knowledge; it does not depend upon what we will do. He doesn’t have to see which fork in the road we choose to know which fork we most certainly will choose. He knows the future precisely because He wills the future. It was not a surprise to God that Pharaoh's daughter went to the riverside on a fateful day in human history. It was no surprise to Him that the baby cried. He ordained that the baby cry, and He ordained that it cry at the precise moment it cried. God did not leave all this to chance” (The Invisible Hand, p.44 embolden original)

I’m afraid mere permission cannot fit the Calvinist’s premises as Galyon desires. In fact, the connections between “whatsoever comes to pass” are hardwired; that is, they are so causally interwoven into a cause-effect matrix, that, according to Sproul, had the baby Moses not cried “at precisely the right moment,” the consequences would have been catastrophic:

“No exodus…no law…no prophets...no Jesus...[and hence]... No Jesus, no cross. No cross, no redemption. No redemption, no Christianity. No Christianity, no Western culture as we know it...” (Ibid).

If God only permits certain things to happen without specifically causing them, one must ask how God knows what is going to happen? In addition, if events are merely permitted to  happen, such seems to imply God makes at least some of His decisions based upon what might not be rather than own His own deterministic actions (and make no mistake, suggesting something is "permitted" makes little sense if something cannot not be).

Of course, one answer to the puzzle depends on God's omniscience.  Galyon explains: 

God alone is absolutely omniscient and entirely good.  He grasps all contingencies, and knows ultimately what is best in ways we cannot begin to fathom.  If God failed to know the end from the beginning, He would not be God. The alternative to the orthodox Christian view of God’s omnipotence and omniscience, which is gaining in popularity, is Openness theology (aka Process theology).  Openness theology denies that God knows the future exhaustively...[and, hence, heresy]..."

We agree completely with Galyon's response. Yet we don't think his response is a Calvinist response but a non-Calvinist one!  Why? Simply because, for Calvinists, God's knowledge of the future is not so much grounded in omniscience as it is omnipotence. In other words, the reason God exhaustively knows the future is not because God looks down through time to see precisely whatever He permits to come to pass; rather, the reason God exhaustively knows the future is because God has omnipotently decreed all that ever comes to pass. For Calvinists, God knows because God decrees; God does not decree because He knows. He knows the beginning and the end precisely because He determined both and whatsoever comes to pass all in between.

Hence, if Calvinists are correct, what sense does suggesting rebellion against God would be permitted? Is not permission, in this scenario, nothing more than suggesting God “permits” to unfold those things which are determined to take place? The fact is, permission is the explicit language of non-Calvinists. Rightly so. To permit evil fits hand-in-glove with a less than meticulous view of divine sovereignty. It only serves to confuse the issue, however, when Calvinists employ the term.

Perhaps Calvin himself should speak to the issue. One of any number of citations available follows:

Here they recur to the distinction between will and permission, the object being to prove that the wicked perish only by the permission, but not by the will of God. But why do we say that he permits, but just because he wills? Nor, indeed, is there any probability in the thing itself—viz. that man brought death upon himself merely by the permission, and not by the ordination of God; as if God had not determined what he wished the condition of the chief of his creatures to be" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, III, xxiii, 8 embolden added)

So far as Calvin is concerned, therefore, permission is hardly a suitable answer. Indeed for Calvinists to employ the term is to stick their spoon in another man's soup. 

The second question Galyon addresses follows:

2. Where did evil first come from?  Did it in any way originate from God?

Galyon again attempts to skirt the question by suggesting it to be a problem for all Christians.  While it may be true, the particular answer is addressed to Calvinists. As for Galyon’s answer, it is barely more than a reiteration of his comments on the first question.

“God is not the author of sin,” insists Galyon; hence, when God created the universe, He saw that it was all “very good” including the great “archangel, Lucifer, and the angels” whom, though God created “good,” still “declared war against God.”  Nonetheless, according to Galyon, “Everything – including the devil and his minions – were created by God and for God.”  Galyon sums up by suggesting that while the Bible tells us about evil’s entrance into the world, “its origin is a mystery.” And, since  the answer is “never given" in the biblical revelation, it remains "for God alone to know.”

On the one hand, Galyon asserts God created all “very good”—including Lucifer & rebellious angels—indeed, “Everything” (including the devil) was created by God. On the other hand, however, Galyon wants to assert about the origin of evil, there is only mystery. In fact, he states evil’s origin is “for God alone to know.” Presumably, we cannot know according to Galyon.

There remains a problem, however.  Galyon did not answer the question--Did evil in any way originate from God?  Galyon asserts the Bible is silent.  But given Genesis 3, I’m perplexed why Galyon would think the Bible offers no answer to evil’s origins—particularly as it relates to humankind. Nevertheless, given Calvinists are so often scared stiff to so much as mention the horrifying term free will*** Galyon's response is entirely understandable.

It’s just not acceptable.

At least, to this non-Calvinist…

With that, I am…

Peter

*While the John 3:16 Conference remains a watermark for addressing aggressive Five-Point Calvinism, the conference was definitively led by scholars and not grassroots Southern Baptists

** Not sure I’m going to run the entire race with Galyon on all 20 Questions.  I will offer enough, however, to demonstrate, the 20 Questions are not to be taken as lightly as some would insist

***for the record, Galyon, so far as I recall, never once mentioned "free will" in his answer

Comments

[Jonathon Woodyard]

Interesting conference. Seems non-Calvinist are more interested than Calvinist in discussing these things in this sort of venue. Just curious, when is the last time a conference was held to promote the doctrines of grace and a conference held to repudiate non-Calvinism? Anyway, a good take, in my opinion, is Dr. Ware in Gods Greater Glory as well as Mark Talbots chapter in Suffering and the Sovereignty of God. The conclusions may be rejected, but the reformed position is articulated nicely. And free-will is mentioned constantly.

Looking forward to listening to what is said

[Dave]

Mr. Woodyard,
I am a Calvinist, a Southern grad,had Bruce Ware as a prof, and disagree with a whole lot of what Mr. Lumpkins has to say here on this blog. But to ask the question "when is the last time a conference was held to promote the doctrines of grace" seems to betray an almost complete ignorance of what goes on in the "reformed" world. We are constantly having conferences from "together for the gospel" to "the Gospel Coalition" to the "founders conferences" and the "shepherd's conference" while these conferences may not be labeled "Great Big Calvinist Conference" look at the speakers and tell me that is not what they are. BTW, I love the conferences mentioned above and think everyone should attend them :)

[Kevin Jackson]

Good thoughts Peter.

[Jonathon Woodyard]

Dave,

I have attended both T4G and TGC. They are stacked with reformed men to be sure. However, none of those conferences are held to promote the doctrines of grace in a way that this AL conference is held to refute such doctrines. Ignorance? Possibly. Denying that one such Calvinistic conference exists, is spot on. These conferences have continually been gospel centered and pastorally challenging. Having a conference with reformed men on the docket is different than hosting an entire conference to refute non-reformed theology...at least in my ignorant opinion.

[Ron Hale]

Jonathon,
Your response seems to indicate that these fine pastors in Southwest Alabama are wrong spirited in hosting their conference.

After several decades of books, blogs, conferences, networks, journals, study bibles, and a growing list of college and seminary presidents and professors and SBC leaders of the reformed ranks ... aiming their message of reformation at the SBC - you have a problem with a group of pastors hosting a meeting to teach about the grace of God from a non-Calvinistic point of view?

Amazing!

[darryl brunson]

As one of the conference participants, I would hope that we are not acting out of ignorance. The fact that our little conference is garnering any attention is amazing to us. We are small churches taking a Biblical stand on our beliefs. Reformed Theology has been published, preached, taught, shared, and communicated in every possible venue and form. It has penetrated every facet of Southern Baptist life and entities. If you are not Reformed you are "ignorant" or Arminian or both. The fact is, it is because of the magnitude of Reformed Theology that you must begin there to descibe and explain who you are. That is what we are doing. It just happens to be a few churches doing it. If we had done this individually, you would never have heard about it. But, we are doing it together in a Bible Conference format. If you will check out those Reformed Conferences, you will also find they almost all have something in their promotion about the "one true gospel" or the "only churches who stand on the truth". Brothers, the line was drawn in the sand a long time ago, and a Reformed boot did the drawing. Our goal is to help our people with understanding Scripture, everything else is secondary. Thank you Peter for all you do.

[Dave]

Jonathon,
I have also attended these conferences (granted I was not at the last tg4 conference) and loved them. To say that they do not promote the doctrines of Grace though seems a bit absurd. Yes they are "Gospel centered", the Gospel always being defined from a monergistic standpoint. Of course we do not claim that the "biblicists" are not saved but we regularly claim that God has has actually secured their salvation through the shed blood of Christ and that salvation is appropriated through the faith that God creates in them. We say that we are together for the Gospel and we always seem to define that Gospel in monergistic terms in my opinion. This does not bother me because I am a monergist but lets be honest and see why the non-Calvinist might be turned off by the way we talk, the speakers we invite, and the books available at these conferences.

As a side note I was not saying that the gentlemen from Alabama were "ignorant" I was simply saying that Mr. Woodyard seemed ignorant of what went on at "reformed" conferences, obviously this is not the case at all and I should not have used the word. I am fine with a Church in Alabama having such a conference. Baptist Churches are autonomous and they should challenge doctrines that they think are misguided. I appreciate their zeal even while I think they are wrong on this issue.

[David B. Hewitt]

Dr. Lumpkins, this is something certainly worth considering, and would give excellent opportunity to address the Scriptures in the matter! The "this" I refer to is a question you raised in the OP:

"Consider: Is it possible that the 1689 confession is caught in a little inconsistency here? I don’t know why it would not be possible. After all, confessions are not infallible, are they? Even so, affirming one thing, then denying what many perceive is a necessary conclusion from the affirmed premise(s) as does Galyon’s quote, does not necessarily solve a problem—much less remove an alleged inconsistency. If I am correct, just what does Galyon hope to accomplish by citing the 1689 Confession? That the standard Calvinist response has been credalized? That’s hardly a sufficient response."

The suggestion that the 1689 Confession is inconsistent could certainly be a launching point for a very beneficial discussion. I may well take it up in the future (though I'm a little behind in a previous promised response that I'm currently working on).

Anyway, hope you are well.

sdg,
dbh

[Sam]

Darryl,
The majority of churches within the SBC are non-calvinist churches some of which are anti-calvinistic churches. Yes, there has been a recent resurgence of reformed doctrine.
The Building Bridges conference was a fair handed look at the issue of Calvinism. Conferences like the John 3:16 conference and now your conference are just an attempt to tear down the strawman caricatures of Calvinism that have been around FOREVER. You are not teaching your congregations about responses to the teachings of thre reformed faith but merely indoctrinating them to be anto-calvinists.
Arent there bigger problems within the SBC other than attacking your Calvinistic brother in Christ. Why dont you for instance have a conference on how unbiblical the altar call is for example. Or lets say, how there is no "magic prayer" for salvation. There is no such thing as asking Jesus into your heart. Or how Finneyism is alive and well in many SBC churches today.
if you really desire to have your congregations learn about calvinism, here is a novel idea...ask calvinists to speak at your conference. Then you can speak as to what you believe. But that might mean that some of the congregation may actually listen and come to embrace the doctrines of grace.
The SBC doesnt need another anti-calvinistic conference. But thats ok, keep running the younger generation out of the SBC and we wont have to worry about the SBC in the next 25 years.

[peter lumpkins]

Darryl,

Thanks for logging on, brother. And, I am grateful any single thing I do may assist the good people of God even in the smallest way. I also appreciate your sharing your heart for the conference as well as wishing you and all the participating churches the best...

Sam,

You write,

"The Building Bridges conference was a fair handed look...Conferences like the John 3:16 conference and now your conference are just an attempt to tear down the strawman caricatures of Calvinism..."

Really? Did you attend the BBC, Sam? Have you read the follow up collection of papers from the conference? What about J316? Did you attend that conference? Have you read the follow-up collection of papers as a result of the conference? I'd really like to know, for someone who comes here insinuating "strawman caricatures" toward Calvinism presumably is prepared to produce the goods.

Nor is it helpful to glibly cite the triple danger of "altar calls," "magic prayers," and "Finnyism" as if either were a major problem for Southern Baptists. If you want to continue commenting, either offer serious engagement or don't bother logging in.

I trust your evening well.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Chris Gilliam]

Thanks Peter for the post.

[Rick Patrick]

Several have commented on the issue of whether or not we really need any "non-Calvinist" conferences. The reason I think they are necessary is that they balance out all of the Calvinist ones. I am a non-Calvinist Southern Baptist Pastor. According to Lifeway's 2006 survey, that places me among 90% of all Southern Baptist Pastors on this issue. However, at the 2010 SBC Pastors Conference which I attended in Orlando, at least 50% of the Pastors on the program were Calvinists. While that may not make it a "Calvinist" conference since the discussion was not primarily soteriology, one cannot help but wonder about the disproportionate share of Calvinist preachers chosen.

[Michelle]

Thank you for writing. It was worth the read.