Al Mohler and Hyper-Calvinism vs.The Traditional Statement and Semi-Pelagianism by Peter Lumpkins

I’m told one of the high-lights of the 2006 Southern Baptist Convention Pastors’ Conference in Greensboro, North Carolina was the formal exchange between Drs. Al Mohler and Paige Patterson on the biblical doctrine of election.  Entitled “Reaching Today's World Through Differing Views of Election” each speaker took a different perspective on biblical election, Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic respectively. Especially enlightening are Al Mohler’s words defending Five Point Calvinism against the charge of Hyper-Calvinism  >>>

Some Background First

Some billed the exchange between Mohler and Patterson as a dream come true while others undoubtedly scoffed at theological discussion as Rome burns. One particular observation concerning Patterson’s remarks is the full consistency with what he reportedly stated in the exchange with Mohler and the recent Traditional Statement on which he attached his name. According to the Traditional Statement (TS),  “Traditional Southern Baptist soteriology is grounded in the conviction that every person can and must be saved by a personal and free decision to respond to the Gospel by trusting in Christ Jesus alone as Savior and Lord” (Preamble). In addition, in “Article Eight: the Free Will of Man,” the author(s) write(s):

“We affirm that God, as an expression of His sovereignty, endows each person with actual free will (the ability to choose between two options), which must be exercised in accepting or rejecting God’s gracious call to salvation by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel” (embolden original)

Comparing the language of the TS with what Patterson reportedly said in 2006, we find perfect consistency. According to Baptist Press, Patterson then said:

• “The calling of God is made to all men, and then men must decide whether they will respond to the calling or not."
• “I just happen to believe that God is sovereign enough that He can make a man totally free if He wishes to do so”
• “If, in fact, men cannot resist the will of the Holy Spirit … then in fact salvation is coercive and a person does not have a choice about what he is going to do”

Hence, we saw in 2006 that Patterson affirmed wholeheartedly a robust understanding of free will, and, given the TS also proposed a robust understanding of free moral agency of human beings, no one should be surprised that Patterson’s name is attached to the document.

Mohler on Hyper-Calvinism

In the 2006 exchange with Patterson, Dr. Mohler pointedly addressed the issue of Calvinism—particularly Five Point Calvinism—being routinely and, in his view, wrongly confused with historic Hyper-Calvinism. He said:

Now we hear all kinds of language thrown around in the midst of some discussions and debates, we hear some persons referred to as hyper-Calvinists and there is always the danger of hyper-Calvinists… These are not persons who are merely five point Calvinists. Five point Calvinism is not hyper-Calvinism, it’s just Calvinism. However, if one takes an additional logical jump from that point and says, therefore, we should not present the Gospel to all persons, they’re in direct conflict with the Scripture and direct disobedience to the call of God and in direct contradiction to the model of the apostles.

And again, Mohler reiterates in Session Two:

I believe in all five points of Calvinism, but I want to tell you that there is a heresy called Hyper-Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism denies the well-meant offer of the Gospel. That is to say the key issue is, can we, must we, do we share the Gospel with all persons, believing that if they profess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ they will be saved? Yes we must. Anything less than that is not only ineffective, it is disobedient and it is heretical. Now Hyper-Calvinism is s small movement by definition. They do not reproduce very well, but where they are found they are to be defined as heretics.

As one may observe, Mohler repeatedly defended Five Point Calvinism from the charge that it is “Hyper-Calvinism” by definition. “Five point Calvinism is not hyper-Calvinism,” Mohler insists, “it’s just Calvinism.” And, for Mohler, Hyper-Calvinism is serious error. In fact, for Mohler, Hyper-Calvinism is blatant heresy.

Notice as well, from Mohler’s standpoint, biblical Calvinism becomes unbiblical heresy by a single step of logic: “However, if one takes an additional logical jump from that point and says, therefore, we should not present the Gospel to all persons, they’re in direct conflict with the Scripture and direct disobedience to the call of God and in direct contradiction to the model of the apostles.” From Mohler’s perspective, biblical Calvinism does not believe less than unbiblical Hyper-Calvinists believe; it believes more. Scriptures teach us no matter what our view of predestination and election happens to be, we are nonetheless to go and preach the gospel to every creature. What separates High Calvinism from Hyper-Calvinism is a logical leap Hyper-Calvinists take that High Calvinists like Mohler do not—ergo, no mandate exists to present a well-meant offer of the gospel to all persons. Now, granted there may be more in Mohler’s mind that separates Hyper-Calvinism from High Calvinism, but to be true to his words, Mohler mentions only the single logical leap.

Mohler on Semi-Pelagianism and the Traditional Statement

Given the paper-thin distinction¹ Mohler makes in his defense of Five Point Calvinism against the popular charge of being Hyper-Calvinism, one would anticipate him being extremely cautious in his judgments of associating a well-polished group of Southern Baptists with the so-called heresy of Semi-Pelagianism, a group that included Paige Patterson with whom Mohler exchanged in 2006 with not a hint that Patterson’s position nodded positively toward Semi-Pelagianism. If Patterson’s robust understanding of free will leaned toward Semi-Pelagianism, as Mohler apparently thinks now, why did Mohler not express this concern in 2006? Wasn’t that the reason for the exchange?  To express agreement and disagreement? And, surely a view leaning toward heresy (at least heresy in Mohler's view) would be a substantial difference to explore. Even so, Mohler is not so cautious but steps up to the plate and knocks a fly ball way out into right field toward the Semi-Pelagian bleachers all the while his Calvinist fans are cheering him on.² 

Consider also: couldn't the author(s) of the TS employ tight distinctions between their view of free will and Semi-Pelagianism? Could they not similarly argue as did Mohler that they do not believe less than Semi-Pelagians but more? While they believed wholeheartedly with John Cassian and the Marseilles monks in the free agency of human beings, contra the excessive divine determinism of St. Augustine which, in their view (and ours), annihilated human response and thereby made men and women more like regulated pawns than relational persons made in God's image, they would never divorce such a free agency from the active operations of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity in convicting, drawing, and wooing lost, condemned souls through the foolishness of preaching the biblical gospel for the simple but sufficient reason the Scripture prohibited them doing so. Would this not be similar if not identical to Mohler's reasoning for offering the gospel to every creature contra Hyper-Calvinism because Scripture prohibits us from not doing so?  Indeed over and over again, the author(s) of the TS make it abundantly clear that not only is an unregenerate person utterly condemned already in his or her free will, neither can he or she unilaterally deploy this free will to escape eternal condemnation apart from a sovereign initiating act of grace by the Holy Spirit Who employs exclusively gospel means:

• "every person who is capable of moral action will sin"
• "no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort"
• "we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel"
• "grace is God’s generous decision to provide salvation for any person by taking all of the initiative in providing atonement"
• "We deny that the response of faith is in any way a meritorious work that earns salvation
• "We deny that any person is regenerated prior to or apart from hearing and responding to the Gospel
• "We affirm God’s eternal knowledge of and sovereignty over every person’s salvation or condemnation
• "We affirm that the proclamation of the Gospel is God’s means of bringing any person to salvation" (all embolden added)

The collection of phrases from the TS above is not meant to be exhaustive but representative of a firm affirmation that any verbal similarity to either Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism so-called without also noting the explicit key distinctions—perhaps even paper-thin distinctions¹but distinctions nonetheless—between the TS and known heresy cannot and will not pass for legitimate, scholarly exchange, not to mention suffice as brotherly love. If Dr. Mohler and other Five Point Calvinists are offended that their system of belief is routinely mistaken as unbiblical Hyper-Calvinism which they vehemently deny, how much more offended might the supporters of the Traditional Statement be when their view is irrationally associated with the most infamous heretic in Christian church history?

Granted there may be card-carrying Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians among those of us who embrace and/or support, either publicly or privately, the general thrust of the Traditional Statement. But as Dr. Mohler said pertaining to Hyper-Calvinists, they surely are few in number. And, also with him we would gladly affirm, “where they are found they are to be defined as heretics.” But just because many of us hold a robust understanding of libertarian freedom, we are no more Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian than Dr. Mohler would be a Hyper-Calvinist because he holds to High Calvinism as do all Hyper-Calvinists. If he can legitimately express tight distinctions, so can we.

Perhaps our Calvinist brothers would do well to think carefully about that before they strike their next Semi-Pelagian match.    

¹by “paper-thin distinction” I do not necessarily mean an illegitimate distinction (i.e. “distinction without a difference”) for some distinctions are both valid and extremely tight

²not to mention at least one Arminian theologian rooting in another stadium     

Comments

[Mary]

To tease this out a little bit. Did Al Mohler and Tom Ascol not know exactly what men like Paige Patterson and Jerry Vines et al believed? All these years and we're to believe the Traditionalist document is full of completely new ideas?

And so I think what we see here is just pure politics. If we hint that these men are heretics, maybe they'll shut up and we can scare away anyone from delving too deeply, lest they learn something beyond the indoctrination going on in the Calvinist Seminaries.

How many times have the YRR crew declared they know exactly what the other side believes because they used to believe it themselves? And yet it turns out they don't know what the other side believes, at all. All they know are the pretty straw men that have been given to them in a box from the Calvinist Seminaries. Their education has not prepared them to think outside that box. And so if it's not in the box, it must be heretical. Because everything about Salvation and any Biblical Doctrine must fit inside this box.

And then you see the elitism of Calvinists - they know everything there is to know and if you say something they haven't encountered it's just because you're too stupid and don't have a box like them or you must be a heretic.

[peter lumpkins]

Mary,

I think you make some good points. Consider how thus far the definitions of Semi-Pelagianism that appear to be most employed come specifically from Reformed theologians themselves. If I get to define all the terms, I can win any debate with anybody. Calvinists frequently pull this rabbit out of the hat and don't even realize it.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

Exactly, Peter! Only Calvinists scholars have anything to teach us. Only Calvinists scholars are worth studying. Thus this theological elitism and tribalism. I'm smarter than you because I know about acceptable sources (Calvinists) and I'm better than you because I'm part of the tribe who knows who the superior thinkers are (Calvinists).

[Wayne]

Why didn't you include this statement with the others? "We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned." It was right in the middle of the other statements. I'm surprised you didn't trip over it. In my opinion, this is the statement that seems to have Semi-Pelagian leanings. Perhaps there is some nuance that I'm missing, but it seems to indicate that the Fall of man was merely a setback. Original sin has a much greater effect on man than this statement seems to suggest.

[Lydia]

There has long been a concern where I live that more indoctrination was going on at SBTS than education. I think this debate has brought a lot of that out in the open. Of course, the indoctrination is going on in other NC places, too, that we have become indirectly affilated with such as T4G, GC, Mars Hill, SGM, etc.

If there is going to be unity in the SBC, New Calvinists will have to accept there is another viable view outside the Augustine/Calvin determinst God filter. Not only accept it but stop teaching it is heresy and not biblical truth. You cannot continue to try and marginalize those you claim to want unity with. It is ridiculous.

With the attitude and practice of NC toward those who do not agree over the last 10 years or so, one wonders why they are so determined to stay in the SBC instead of trying to Calvinize it (again). If they use the "Founders" argument they have to accuse you of ad hominem when you remind them the Founders were pro slavery and some trained by Presbyterians. So, the Founders argument can only go so far. They want to claim we moved away from that because we became liberal. I am starting to wonder if they believe subconciously the Priesthood of believer is really a liberal doctrine? The Calvinist practice, historically, is very hierarchical and elevates man.

[peter lumpkins]

Wayne,

Well, no I didn't over look it. In fact I quoted on another post. Nor does the assertion you cite mention the Holy Spirit's divine operation on the human heart like the other assertions I mentioned.

More directly, you seem to assume the language in the proposition you cite both positively affirms Semi-Pelagianism and the language is so strong, it overturns all else affirmed and denied in the document, a spurious assumption in my view. The author(s) are clear they do not mean by that statement what you assume they ought to mean by it. While you may assert it is unclear what they mean by a proposition, you have no rhetorical right to define for them what they actually mean by a proposition they pen. It remains their confession, after all.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Wayne]

"While you may assert it is unclear what they mean by a proposition, you have no rhetorical right to define for them what they actually mean by a proposition they pen. It remains their confession, after all."

That is not what I was trying to do. I think the phrase is problematic. I was trying to assert that perhaps others found it problematic as well. The reason I mentioned the phrase in the first place is that I get the impression from you that Dr Mohler has no basis for characterizing parts of the confession as having semi-pelagian leanings. You seem offended that Dr Mohler would make this statement, as if he is trying to insult those who penned it, but I had the same concerns as Mohler did before I ever read his response.

This omitted statement at the very least muddies the waters. Whether they intended for it to mean what I thought it meant or what Dr Mohler thought it meant goes to the problematic nature of the confession. And if they are asking others to sign it, shouldn't we be allowed to determine what is meant by this statement? And if they are asking others to sign it aren't they inviting us to make it our statement as well? Shouldn't we know what they mean before we sign it? Isn't it okay to ask? I wasn't making a determination, I simply claimed that the phrase seems troubling. Is that wrong? (These questions aren't meant to be rhetorical or sarcastic - I'm being as sincere as I know how to be).

[Lydia]

"You seem offended that Dr Mohler would make this statement, as if he is trying to insult those who penned it, but I had the same concerns as Mohler did before I ever read his response.
"

Wayne, You seriously do not see the part of his comment that they "signed something they don't really believe", as not insulting? You cannot separate that from his "leaning toward semi Pelagianism". He was calling his scholarly brothers ignorant. If you don't see that, there is little hope for unity.

Dave Miller is over at SBCPravda telling Dr. Brumblow that he is taking the same statement by Mohler as "too personal".

I am telling you all there is a mass delusion in this NC movement. There message is: Forget insults by the great and not so great NC. In other words, be more spiritually mature than we are as we continue because when we do it it is ok. It is the conumdrum of dealing with "Chritian" bullies. How does one do it?

[Wayne]

Lydia,

Maybe you're right. I can't speak for Dr Mohler's intentions because I don't know his heart, but I can say that it seems unfair to paint with a broad stroke. I consider myself to be part of the NC movement because I accepted it within the last 15 years. And while I don't consider myself to be delusional, I'm sure that there are some that would. I'm not looking for a fight. I'm not trying to draw lines in the sand, or make people choose sides. I just thought that maybe I could shed a little light on the subject. I It appears that you have been on the receiving end of some unkind words and/or behavior, and I'm truly sorry for that. There's no room for it. I know that in every camp (or tribe) there can be nastiness, I hope that my words aren't ever interpreted as such. If so, I apologize.

[bigfatdrummer]

Great post Peter! I am learning so much from all of these "happenings!" Thanks for your input, I look forward to meeting you.

[Lydia]

"Maybe you're right. I can't speak for Dr Mohler's intentions because I don't know his heart, but I can say that it seems unfair to paint with a broad stroke."

Wayne, You don't need to "know his heart". He put it in WRITING. Sheesh! Here we go again. Somehow he did not really mean what he said. OR, we just do not have the mental processes to understand what he said
'in context'. Now, there MIGHT be something 'in his heart' that is different from his words?

It is not a "broad stroke". It is what he said about his own colleagues he claims he wants unity with that the NC wants to ignore or blow off with excuses like yours.

[Mary]

The arrogance is just astounding. You have these YRR punks declaring the Traditionalist statement is heresy and so therefore the men who were doing ministry when their mammas were in diapers really don't know anything about anything These men need to get their document straight to appease the YRR. Because of course in their few short years out of high school they've learned all there is to know about everything. Clearly these men after all these years of actual life, ministry, fighting the conservative resurgence - are not nearly as bright as the young Skippys of the SBC. How on earth has the SBC survived to this point without them? Boggles the mind.

[mlynn]

Peter,

This is a ploy that is being used by Calvinists to try to disarm those who disagree with them by calling them a semi-pelagian or a pelagian. James White started this name calling.

Your article is very good!!

[Lydia]

Wayne, Think about this as a "New Calvinist", accusing someone of leaning toward heresy in Calvin's world would have gotten them imprisoned, tortured or bannished. In Servetus' case, burned. That is how seriously heresy was taken by your namesake.

[Lydia]

From Joshua over Pravda:

"The problem for many of us is that letting our brothers draft a document that affirms unorthodox doctrine is just as dangerous as letting them fall down the ravine. Words have meaning. The document, though unintended as it may be, is not doctrinally orthodox.

Let it be known, I have not called anyone a heretic or plan to do so. The issue is the poor wording of the document which I hope will be fixed but from all sources I have read, it will not be revised. This is unfortunate."

Note the first sentence: "letting" our brothers draft a document that affirms unorthodox doctrine....

Pray tell, how would Joshua go about "disallowing" it? Send in magistrates?

This is the typical language, ergo thinking, of the YRR. Joshua looks to be 20 something and has easily bought into the superiority of his thinking, his Calvin doctrine and even suggests that scholars who think different than him should not be "allowed" to draft documents in the SBC!!!!. That is the future of the SBC folks...because this thinking is being planted in YRR only churches. And we have paid for it!

Please tell me more and more of the SBC is waking up to this!

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks Mlynn! And, yes our old nemesis, JW was in on this blistering propaganda. Alas, however, the you-sir-are-a-liar King just doesn't do much to me anymore. Far too predictable I suppose...

BIGFATDRUMMER,

Looking forward to it...!

Wayne,

It is not that I am "offended". Good heavens after 6 years it's fairly difficult to do that to me. Nor should I be "offended" since I have not formally aligned myself with the position. Even so, you read right past the point I was making with the "offended" rhetoric. My point was and is, Mohler dismissed charges High Calvinism is equal to Hyper-Calvinism by a single, paper-thin distinction despite the fact that every Hyper-Calvinist embraces virtually the same predestinarian theology as does Mohler. The one distinction is, how it is pragmatically teased out. And, while the author(s) of the TS surely embraced a robust understanding of free will, they negated the effects of the free will by safe-guarding the active, initiating, enabling monergistic work of the Holy Spirit. Now if you cannot accept and/or see my point, I'll just leave it at that. Thanks for the interaction...

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

Lydia, I'm sure in Joshua and other YRR's Bibles there must be a verse which says something like "If an elder is not a Calvinist you owe him no respect. You may be arrogant, condescending and dismissive to such as these."

I haven't come across that verse, even in my ESV, but it must be there.

Our YRR High Priests are so considerate to look out for us by not "allowing" us to produce a statement that is heresy/unorthodox. I mean everyone knows that the Traditionalist statement must meet with the YRR's approval if we wish to remain in the SBC. If only we'd accept the approved language of the YRR we might one day be smart enough to graduate into the college of election! The YRR only want unity you know, it's for our good that they point out how stupid and heretical we are.

[peter lumpkins]

All,

Yes, I messed with the comments again. Now the oldest appears first and the latest at the bottom. This actually is better since the comment block is immediately after the last comment. In addition, I'm informed by at least one reader the exchanges flow more sensibly by going down rather than up.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Jonathan.]

Peter

Do you know where one might find video of this discussion/debate from 2006?

[Ted Bigelow]

Hi all,

John Gill, famous Baptist pastor from England of the late 1600s, was a hyper-Calvinist, but no heretic. The unconverted sat in one area of church and Gill refused to look their way lest he be "too promiscuous" with the offer of free grace. Sounds so strange to us!

Likewise, there are a lot of Baptist Semi-Pelagians who give gospel assurance to people who make "decisions for Christ" but are carnal unbelievers and still enemies of Christ. These Baptists often refuse to show integrity in allowing their methods to be challenged doctrinally. Some of these men truly are in the faith and are not heretics.

At the very least we can read Gill and see integrity connecting his private theology and public methods, even while we are hopefully disgusted with both at that point!

So too we can be disgusted with modern men who provide assurance of heaven to people who will end up hell.

This is one of the great matters that is the Baptist SP will either be judged on now, or in the bema judgment.

[Mary]

Well if you're a Calvinist it shouldn't be disgusting that people end up in hell. People are in hell because God didn't elect them. It has nothing to do with what anyone did or didn't do. For a Calvinist there's nothing anyone can do to change who's elect. So what' the big deal with "false assurance" - If one is elect, there will eventually come an effectual call. It's as if the Calvinists can't stand it that people who God didn't elect aren't miserable enough here for there time on earth.

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Jonathan. I've never seen a video or even heard it advertised. You can get the audio at the link provided.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Ted,

Don't know any Baptist Semi-Pelagians off-hand. Sorry. As for judgment, we'll all be judged not for doctrine only but every word we utter.

Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Mary,

Kudos. Calvinists of all people should not needlessly concern themselves with people's false assurance.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Ted Bigelow]

Mary and Peter,

Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall.

[Lydia]

Ted, How can one make sure their calling and election is sure if one is a Calvinist? How does that work since we never have one thing to do with it?

[Max]

Ted, I'm sure I got elected when I gave my life to Christ. When I stood up from that tear-stained altar, the Holy Spirit gave witness that I was a child of God. I haven't looked back since! In my long life as a Southern Baptist, I've seen a lot more folks get called and elected in the red hot fires of revival. Oh God, bring back the evangelist to SBC ranks!