Calvinists react to Jerry Vines interview (part II) by Peter Lumpkins

Calvinists react to Jerry Vines interview Part I may be found here. Part II is below and focuses on Joshua Breland's piece on Jerry Vines >>>

Part II

A brief rejoinder to Breland’s “lengthy response” to Jerry Vines may be helpful. First, Breland criticizes Vines because “citing Calvinism as the reason for current division within the SBC is not helpful to the discussion.” Why? Because, according to Breland, since “Calvinism neither walks nor talks” but is a mere “system of theology”, Breland concludes “ Calvinism is not creating division in the SBC but people are.”

Where to begin to respond to this is frustrating. So should Dr. Vines have named names?  Is this what Breland is advocating? Suppose Dr. Vines had said in the interview when quizzed about the challenges we face, “Well, basically our challenges are dealing with people like  ___ ___, ___ ___, and ___ ______. And everybody knows ___ ________ is our greatest challenge!" Not only is it just weird to complain that somebody didn’t personalize a challenge we face, it is also naïve to think that ideas have no more influence than Breland seems to acknowledge. I suggest Breland pick up a copy of R.C. Sproul’s The Consequences of Ideas, a very helpful book. But more importantly, the raw power ideas possess are detailed by Sproul.

Second, Breland complains at length about statements made by Vines without establishing any obvious reasons that Breland correctly understood the point Vines was making. For example, Vines wrote, “current attempts to move the SBC to a Calvinistic soteriology are divisive and wrong” to which Breland curiously interprets as “involv[ing] SBC seminary graduates going into churches and faithfully preaching and teaching God’s Word.”  Huh?  Where does Breland gather the assumption Vines was referencing exclusively-- if referencing at all--seminaries, seminary graduates, or becoming pastors of churches?  Even so, Breland argumentatively goes on in a lengthy paragraph assuming Vines was referring to seminaries, its graduates, and becoming a pastor, definitively pronouncing Vines’ statement to be “divisive and wrong.” Breland's point fails for the simple reason Vines argued, asserted, or implied nothing whatsoever Breland contests in the entire paragraph!

Third, though other problems exist in Breland’s “lengthy response,” enough has been recorded to question the legitimacy of those thus far publicly criticizing Jerry Vines’ remarks.  Breland criticizes Vines’s statement “that should the SBC move toward five-point Calvinism it will be a move away from, not toward, the gospel.” Breland writes:

This type of statement is beyond the pale… This type of rhetoric which attacks good and outstanding members of the SBC… will only cause problems and lead to a split in the convention. The statement is also anti-historical. I guess The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary founding president and five-point Calvinist James P. Boyce and many other SBC founders were leading the SBC away from the gospel all those early formative years. Am I to believe, according to Dr. Vines, that the SBC was at some point rescued from those who did not have the gospel? I am disappointed that Dr. Vines would make such a statement given his long history in SBC life”

Note that Breland asserts Vines’ rhetoric “attacks good and outstanding members of the SBC” and will only “cause problems and lead to a split in the convention.” Question: how is explicitly addressing an idea—“that should the SBC move toward five-point Calvinism…”—an attack against outstanding members of the SBC? Good criticism most always deals with ideas which is precisely what Vines did. Further, recall Breland’s rejection of Vines' point earlier because, in Breland’s words, a “system of theology” like “Calvinism neither walks nor talks”. I'm afraid Breland cannot have it both ways. Since “Calvinism neither walks nor talks” how does it follow Vines' non-Calvinism attacked “good and outstanding members of the SBC” who presumably both walk and talk?

Even more, Breland earlier defended his point about Calvinism not splitting churches by instead insisting unequivocally it is people who split churches. Now, however, Breland has apparently switched fiddles to play, insisting Vines’ rhetoric will “only cause problems” and lead to a “split in the convention.” But I thought it was “people” who do the splitting of both churches and presumably conventions. If the rhetoric of Calvinism itself cannot split people up, as Breland asserted earlier, then neither can Breland suggest now that the rhetoric of non-Calvinism or even anti-Calvinism can split people up. I'm afraid it just doesn't work that way.  

And, the answer is no, the Founders were not “leading” the SBC away from the gospel all those early formative years. If anything, the “Founders”--at least those whom Breland references--scratched and pawed their way through the latter part of the 19th century trying to hang on to their high-Calvinistic influence. Indeed strict Calvinism had apparently so waned in influence among Southern Baptists by the turn of the century that Z.T. Cody could answer the query, “Are Baptists Calvinists?” with a resounding no. Says Cody:

The so-called "five points of Calvinism" are the essential doctrines of the system.  Men have forgotten them now but they were once as familiar as the letters of the alphabet.  They are, particular predestination, limited atonement, natural inability, irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints.  Now if this is the system that constitutes Calvinism it is again very certain that Baptists are not Calvinists.

This system can be, it is true, found in some of the older confessions of faith and it was at that time held by some Baptist churches.  It is also true that there are now many of our churches which hold some of the doctrines of this system.  All Baptist churches, so far as we know, hold to the perseverance of the saints.  But it can be very confidently affirmed that there is now no Baptist church that holds or defends the five points of Calvinism.  Some of the doctrines are repugnant to our people.  Could there be found a minister in our communion who believes in the theory of a limited atonement? (embolden added)

So far as I am concerned, while our Baptist heritage is something in which we may remain healthily proud, we nonetheless are obligated by our unwavering commitment to the Word of God and to the God of the Word in evaluating our heritage in light of inspired Revelation. Hence, it follows that just because many of our Founders were strict Calvinists—high Calvinists—does not necessitate an on-going allegiance to strict Calvinism anymore than because they were pro-slavery, so should we be pro-slavery as well.

Finally, Breland rhetorically asks: “Am I to believe, according to Dr. Vines, that the SBC was at some point rescued from those who did not have the gospel?” And, precisely where does Dr. Vines imply anyone needed to be rescued from those missing the gospel? As we saw in Part I, Dr. Vines indicated a move toward Limited Atonement would be a move away from the gospel. He did not suggest a move toward Limited Atonement would be a loss of the gospel.

The irony is, Calvinists are the very ones who imply we have lost the gospel! Again, in Part I, we saw how Founders Calvinists promote a reformation in SBC life in order to “recover the gospel,” a gospel we’ve apparently lost. And, according to Founders, intrinsic to this recovery is the promotion of the Doctrines of Grace (i.e. T.U.L.I.P.).

Hence, I’m afraid like Mark Lamprecht, Breland needs to concern himself more with Founders rhetoric than the statements of Jerry Vines.

With that, I am…

Peter

Comments

[Max]

It was with great sadness that I read Joshua Breland’s assessment of Dr. Jerry Vines’ interview with SBC Today. For this young man to challenge the heart and insight of Dr. Vines, a former SBC President and elder to Breland in denominational tenure, is disrespectful to say the least. Dr. Vines offers his perspective on theological drift within the SBC with a burden over that which has diverted our attention from reaching a lost world for Christ. Dr. Vines speaks with spiritual maturity and wisdom developed during a faithful Gospel ministry spanning 50+ years. Dr. Vines has interceded and labored through many spiritual battles to preserve Truth within SBC ranks. Mr. Breland has yet to serve his first day as pastor and offers only the echos of his reformed influencers. Dr. Vines has something to say – listen to him.

[Mary]

Max, I don't think Breland and his ilk have any understanding of how much of a debt we owe to Jerry Vines, Patterson, Rogers and others. Without them and their tenacious fighting for the truth the SBC today would be ordaining lesbian ministers and teaching the Bible as myth. but yeah, boys just barely old enough to shave think they have something to teach Jerry Vines.

[Leslie Puryear]

Breland is incorrect in his assessment that Dr. Vines' comments will lead to a split in the convention. Calvinists have already caused a split in the convention. The split existed a long time before Dr. Vines ever spoke about it.

[Kevin]

Leslie – Indeed there is division in the SBC. God forbid there is ever a split. But if that ever happens, it will be due to a lack of cooperation on both sides, not just one.

[Steve Evans]

Thank you, Dr. Vines, for your faithfulness to the Word throughout the years. Many souls have a new home in heaven. Keep preaching brother! Praise God!

[Debbie Kaufman]

Ordaining lesbian ministers? Really Mary? That statement is just ridiculous. Are you saying women ministers are lesbians? I don't get this statement at all. Good grief!

[Mary]

Debbie, good grief! that' not what is said at all. Get a grip and stop jumping to conclusions because you want to attack.

Debbie's logic, some women are lesbians and some women are ministers so to put the words lesbian ministers together must mean I think all women ministers are lesbians. What a leap. yeah I'm really that dumb and naive Debb

[peter lumpkins]

From what I have observed, Breland started out on his blog by raising fair questions, offering historical references, and employing historical analysis. This cheap shot at Vines--especially the low caliber "points" he was attempting to make--may offer predictable ends where he is now headed: the Tribalogue/Founders/Alpha-Omega type of scorched earth criticism which warrants little respect in the on-going dialogue in the SBC. I hope this isn't the case, but one must wonder...

With that, I am...
Peter

[lmalone]

I think Mary is astute enough to know that not all women preachers are lesbians. LOL. It would the same as if she believed all complimentarians agree with Driscoll's brand of comp doctrine.

[Mary]

lmalone, Debbie's problem is that I mentioned ordaining women and since she wanted to attack me on that point she had to make up some ridiculous statment - "Mary says ALL women minister's are lesbians."

lmalone, I hope you'll take this in the spirit it's written:) the logic is thus:

Some men are gay
Some men are mutualist
lmalone is a man
lmalone is a mutualist
therefore lmalone.... apologies to Mrs. lmalone!

Of course some doesn't equal all. I fear for the country when I see the lack of critical thinking skills among so many on these blogs.