Dr. Tom Ascol, Director of Founders Ministries, is presently doing a lengthy series1 of responses to the recent Traditional Statement (TS) released by Dr. Eric Hankins, Pastor, First Baptist Church, Oxford, MS. As indicated here and elsewhere many times since the initial TS release, Hankins' statement of faith generated a sizeable amount of criticism—both sober and vitriolic in nature--particularly but predictably from Baptist Calvinists. Even Al Mohler publicly lamented the document's creation and content; and thankfully, Mohler represented the more sober criticism to date even if TS supporters understandably took Mohler to task for couching his criticism in subtle superciliousness >>>
Ascol represents the largest and perhaps oldest2 network of Baptist Calvinists affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. And, since he represents the theology of a sizable portion of Calvinists among us3 we think it important to rebut at least some of Ascol's more glaring mistakes. In what follows, we'll focus on Part 8 in Ascol's series, a piece dealing with regeneration (Article 5) in the TS document. It reads:
Article Five: The Regeneration of the Sinner
We affirm that any person who responds to the Gospel with repentance and faith is born again through the power of the Holy Spirit. He is a new creation in Christ and enters, at the moment he believes, into eternal life.
We deny that any person is regenerated prior to or apart from hearing and responding to the Gospel.
Luke 15:24; John 3:3; 7:37-39; 10:10; 16:7-14; Acts 2:37-39; Romans 6:4-11; 10:14; 1 Corinthians 15:22; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 2:20; 6:15; Colossians 2:13; 1 Peter 3:18
After quoting the above statement, Ascol asserts the article "seems to affirm a synergistic understanding of regeneration" which, for Ascol, is a "cooperative effort between an unbeliever and God." Before criticizing the article as synergistic, Ascol alleges the author(s) employ "imprecise language" because the phrase "any person who responds to the Gospel with repentance and faith is born again through the power of the Holy Spirit" is ambiguous and "can be taken two ways." According to Ascol, on the one hand, it could mean the gospel respondent "does so because he is a born again person" and on the other, the respondent "is by that response born again." This is a strange assertion in light of the explicit "We deny" in bold letters, specifically denying the first of Ascol's two options about what the author(s) supposedly could have meant; i.e., the basis of his charge of ambiguity. I confess the sheer pretension I perceive in this initial criticism.
Moving on to Ascol's concern about the TS's supposed "synergistic understanding" of the new birth, Ascol contrasts "synergism" and "monergism" in discussions about regeneration as "two opposing views of how regeneration comes to a person." According to Ascol, while synergism teaches that God regenerates a person "only if and after that person repents and believes," monergism perceives regeneration as a "sovereign work of God" with God alone as active and doing the rebirthing. Indeed, in monergism, God gives the new birth "without any cooperative effort on the part of the individual." Afterward, Ascol summarily dismisses the TS article as not only "biblically untenable" but also in "violation of the plain reading of Article IV of the Baptist Faith and Message (BFM) statement of the Southern Baptist Convention." And, while Ascol goes on to deal with one text in particular to demonstrate his aforementioned conclusion4, I'd like to first make a few observations about Ascol's focus on "monergism" and "synergism" and second, deal with Ascol's serious indictment that the TS violates the BFM.
First, Ascol's focus on "monergism" and "synergism" is specious at best. Nothing in the TS article mentions the two terms yet Ascol overlays the terms upon the document as an interpretative grid anyway. He justifies this by adding, "In the interest of clarity, let me note that when "synergism" vs. "monergism" is discussed in Calvinism/Arminianism debates what typically is in view is regeneration." Well that depends on who one is reading. I challenge Ascol to show how Southern Baptists have historically employed these two terms in their discussions on regeneration. I searched several systematic theologies from Southern Baptists but no discussion of monergism or synergism surfaced (including Boyce, Dagg, and Mullins). Interestingly, a focus on monergism did surface in the Primitive Baptist historical-theologian, C.B. and S. Hassell.5 In fact, like Ascol, Hassell makes "monergism" as opposed to "synergism" a key component in rightly understanding applied redemption. In addition, again it must be noted that Ascol presumptuously insists on making the discussion between Calvinism and Arminianism when not a single author of the statement claims to be Arminian. It appears, therefore, rather than attempting to understand the TS authors(s) on their own terms, Ascol a priori assigns the author(s) preconceived beliefs he has already predetermined to be suspect.
Second, Ascol's definition of "synergism" is suspect. He contends synergism means that "God regenerates a person only if and after that person repents and believes" insisting to the contrary "that no cooperation on the part of the individual in securing his new birth" is monergism, the biblical view. In response, Ascol seems to completely misunderstand synergism. For example, while scholars propose more than one kind of synergism, Ascol convolutes all synergism into one single belief. Richard Muller, writes:
"A distinction ought to be made between the Melanchthonian and Arminian forms of synergism. Melanchthonian synergism, as debated in sixteenth-century Lutheranism and excluded by the Formula of Concord, argues a coincidence of the Word, the Spirit, and the human will not refusing God's grace. This form of synergism emphasizes the coincident work of the Word and Spirit and the openness of the will to the Word and Spirit but does not set will prior to grace as an active power or faculty capable of applying grace to the individual (facultas se applicandi ad gratium, q.v.). Melanchthon's teaching is synergistic, but does not deserve to be called semi-Pelagian. The Arminian view, however, not only supposes the cooperation of the will with the Word and Spirit, but the ability of the will to apply or attach itself to grace. In the Arminian view, the will is the effective ground of salvation. This perspective is not only synergistic, but also fully semi-Pelagian"6
The author(s) of the document in question continually and clearly concend that unless the Holy Spirit both moves initially and convincingly, a person cannot savingly respond to the gospel. No matter, however. For Ascol, all synergists are the same—semi-Pelagian. Yes, and what if non-Calvinists insist all Calvinists are the same? Or, what if non-Calvinists suggest all monergists (i.e. Calvinists) are the same, and since some Calvinists believe in eternal justification, all Calvinists believe in eternal justification? A Calvinist is a Calvinist is a Calvinist is just as meaningful as arguing as does Ascol a synergist is a synergist is a synergist, is it not? We agree with Ascol on the "importance of exercising care and precision when discussing fine points of biblical theology." Unfortunately, Ascol hardly lives up to this worthy ideal when criticizing his non-Calvinist brothers. Supposing one employs Muller's categories, the author(s) of TS could very well be confessing a view of the human will consistent with or closer to Melanchthon than developed Arminianism. However, Ascol does not give them a benefit of doubt. Instead he wrongly not to mention naively cooks all synergists into the same semi-Pelagian pot.
Nor does Ascol get the possibility—indeed probability-- that no one who authored the TS denies monergism but rather embraces it! Ascol admitted he saw no relationship to the texts TS author(s) cited and the article on regeneration. Perhaps some of those texts are key in understanding the TS author(s). For example, the author(s) cite John 16:7-14 as evidence of their position, a text which includes our Lord's prophetic summation of the coming Holy Spirit's work, "He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment" (v.8, NKJV). Perhaps the framers have an understanding of the Holy Spirit's convicting work not dissimilar to Lewis Sperry Chafer who believed the Holy Spirit did synergistic work of convicting lost sinners prior to His monergistic work of bringing about the new birth—"Within the whole divine enterprise of winning the lost, there is no factor more vital than the work of the Holy Spirit in which He convinces or reproves the cosmos world respecting sin, righteousness, and judgment."7 In addition, perhaps the TS author(s) would agree, in substance, with James Oliver Buswell, Jr., who though a convinced Calvinist, argued that prior to "either regeneration or faith, the Holy Spirit does convict the lost sufficiently so that those who reject God's grace are wholly to blame for their lost condition..."8 If the author(s) of TS is expressing an idea of Holy Spirit conviction similar to either Chafer or Buswell (both of whom are Calvinists by the way), then they are certainly not arguing that regeneration is less than monergistic. In their view, the experience of salvation would look something like this:
- Synergism (the Holy Spirit employs the gospel to convict unbelievers; unbelievers respond)...
- Monergism (the Holy Spirit alone effects the New Birth upon the believing responder)...
- Synergism (the believer works in cooperation with the Holy Spirit in effecting sanctification)...
- Monergism (God glorifies the believer in the age to come)
Hence, it's not that TS author(s) embrace a synergistic view of regeneration as Ascol wrongly asserts. They most certainly do not. What Calvinists like Ascol deny is the first step above which is likely to be synergistic in nature and based upon texts like John 16:7-14, a text Ascol admits he lacks understanding for inclusiveness in the TS citations.9 Rather the TS author(s)'s view of regeneration is entirely monergistic. That is, God effectually works the new birth without a single contribution from the person. Are there synergistic conditions that lead up to God's monergistic work in the new birth? Yes. But there are synergistic conditions leading up to the new birth in Ascol's position as well; namely, the preaching of the gospel which is definitively a human endeavor (or, at minimum, a divine-human endeavor, i.e. synergistic). Hence, to simplistically make the TS author(s) out to embrace a "synergistic understanding of the new birth" as Ascol does is both wrong-headed and, in my view, can only be viewed as theological sophistry since Ascol obviously tries to connect the TS author(s) with the so-called heretical notion of semi-Pelagianism. Perhaps Ascol needs to patiently understand what the TS author(s) mean in their statements before attempting to engage them.10
Incidentally, it's fairly easy to understand why Ascol refuses to accept any synergistic work of the Holy Spirit prior to the monergistic work of the new birth. His Calvinistic presuppositions prohibit such a work of the Holy Spirit. Not only does Ascol's view of total depravity (i.e. total inability) prohibit such a work, but also his understanding of irresistible grace will not allow a work of the Spirit prior to the new birth put a fallen human being in a position to freely choose Christ or freely reject Him. One could add Ascol's view that faith is a gift of God given only to the elect as also prohibitive of his accepting a synergistic but effectual work of the Holy Spirit prior to God unilaterally bestowing the new birth.
Third, Ascol's contention that the author(s) of TS is contrary to the Baptist Faith and Message is spurious on the one hand and just short of fabricated on the other.11 Calvinists continue to publicly assert that the Baptist Faith and Message is a Calvinistic document when it remains historically clear that the Baptist Faith and Message, beginning in 1925, was a definitive theological step away from the High Calvinism of Boyce, Manley, and Dagg. If Founders-type Calvinists like Tom Ascol, Tom Nettles, and Al Mohler want to decry the loss of Calvinism among Southern Baptists as a wrong theological turn in our history, they are free to do so. What they are not free to do, however, is reconstruct Southern Baptist history into their own liking. For Founders Calvinists to claim on the one hand that Calvinism sorely waned beginning during the first quarter of the 20th century and only began to be recovered during the last quarter of the same century but insist The Baptist Faith and Message (1925, 1963) remains a Calvinistic confession is as incredulous as it is unconvincing to anyone who reads Baptist history as any level.
Hence, to suggest not only that The Baptist Faith and Message reflects the view that "regeneration precedes faith" in the order of applied salvation (as Ascol does) but also that imputed Adamic guilt is explicitly affirmed can only be taken as wishful rhetoric. Southern Baptists must not allow Baptist Calvinists like Nettles, Ascol, and Mohler rewrite her confessional history into an exclusively "Reformed" faith.
1 As of the posting of this piece, Ascol is on Part 9
2 By “oldest” I mean age (Founders began in 1982) but not to overlook stability as an organization
3 I am fully aware of TS’s specific mention of “New Calvinism.” Thus, while it could be argued that Ascol represents “Traditional” or “Historic” Calvinism among Southern Baptists, we must not overlook two significant factors: a) Ascol chose to respond to TS offering a Calvinistic critique of its supposed theology; b) Ascol seems very much in support of ‘New Calvinism”
4 The text Ascol touches upon is John 1:12-13, a text he rightly wonders why the author(s) failed to cite in this particular article. Even so, I may later offer some correctives to Ascol’s less than conclusive exegesis on these two verses. I will say I find it highly presumptuous for an exegete to claim another view than his own is “impossible to reconcile” with the verses under consideration. The fact is, several scholarly commentaries I quickly scanned hardly offered the foregone dismissal Ascol did toward an alternate view. If anything, commentaries tended to dispute Ascol’s unshakable confidence in his interpretation. For example, D.A. Carson specifically says “these verses refrain from spelling out the connection between faith and new birth” (D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991). 126) while another concludes similarly not only of these verses but of the entire gospel, “John nowhere elaborates on the precise temporal relationship of these two aspects [i.e., faith and rebirth]” (Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2004). 38)
5 Church History, pages 31, 34, 94-101
6 Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1985). 294
7 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1993). 88.
8 Quoted in Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism: an Inductive Mediate Theology of Salvation, C. Gordon Olson, Global Gospel Publsihers, 2002. 197 italics original
9 Just because Ascol finds no value in citing a particular text counts exactly zero toward whether a particular text remains significant to those expressing their confession
10 Interestingly, Calvinists like Ascol routinely slight non-Calvinists for their “misunderstanding” of the “doctrines of grace” and yet this piece Ascol composed reveals a fundamental disconnect of not only the way many non-Calvinists view the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in conviction of unbelievers, but apparently also of his lack of knowledge that some Calvinists view the convicting work of the Holy Spirit in similar ways as many non-Calvinists
11 Since Ascol made this wrong-headed assertion more than once in his series of complaints against the TS, I intend to deal with it in a separate post
Does anyone else get the feeling that both Mohler and Ascol feel they have to press the semi Pelgaian charge? My guess is that this has been presented so much as the real argument against traditionalists for so many years, they have to make it stick or lose face. EVen though you and others have made very good cases for historical misunderstandings of the charge. Even showing how certain scholars they used as proof were not quoted in entirity. Something I have found coming out of SBTS on other issues and it bothered me greatly.
One of the most interesting results of this entire debate are the YRR in comments questioning the BFM. You can hear the doubt in their comments even if they do not come out and say it. Me thinks a can of worms have been opened that might prove uncomfortable for the SBC Calvinist leadership.
Another interesting aspect of this whole debate are many non SBC Calvinists coming over to debate. Nothing wrong with that at all. Just quite interesting. They are most likely T4G or GC followers and see "Calvin" as their responsiblity to defend. But they sure think we are ignorant peasants and are not shy about saying it. I wish I could find the talk Driscoll gave speaking of how backward the SBC was. He was spewing venom as usual. And we wonder why the influence?
Posted by: Lydia | Jun 18, 2012 at 07:50 PM
Peter,
As usual your keen insight into nuance is proving to be helpful in articulating the points. Humorously, the nit-pikers perhaps disdain your nit-picking, but it will turn out to make a fine piece of fabric. Kudos on this point.
Chris
Posted by: Chris Gilliam | Jun 19, 2012 at 08:14 AM
FYI, Tom Ascol has a free download of a book format of all his posts, including some remarks by Tom Nettles.
http://www.founderspress.com/shop/store.php?crn=1
Posted by: Les Prouty | Jun 19, 2012 at 01:28 PM
I don't think Timmy Brister was listening to the speakers about arrogance and pride in the NC camp. Here is one of his arrogant tweets:
@timmybrister 85% of the 61% who are concerned about the 31% of calvinists in sbc can't name 100% of the 5 points. #sbc12
BTW: I think Al Mohler should have been censored by the Trustees of SBTS for the comments in his response concerning his learned brothers not believing what they signed and suggesting they lean toward heresy. Allowing him to get by with such arrogance will only bring more and keep his YRR followers as arrogant and whiny as ever.
But my guess is that the trustees are yes men of his.
Posted by: Lydia | Jun 19, 2012 at 06:55 PM
Lydia, the tweets coming from the YRR crew have been pretty bad all day.
Have you seen the new Lifeway Poll? Calvinists are intepreting the resuls as SBC is now half Calvinist half Arminian. Of course the Calvinists are ignoring the questions the poll asked which pretty much makes it worthless for determining anything about the SBC, but I imagine Stetzer's agenda has been met.
Posted by: Mary | Jun 19, 2012 at 07:32 PM
I don't have a dog in the SBC fight, but this is an excellent post for other reasons as well. The sequence of Salvation you post is how I have understood Salvation since I was raised in the Church of God (Cleveland, TN). As I recall, it is also how Arminius believed, although it's been quite awhile since I've read his works.
I hope you don't mind me quoting this post. I have a Baptistic Calvinist friend that could use a trip here. He normally doesn't do the innertubez much, but I hope he will break down and come when I send his wife the url.
Posted by: Quartermaster | Jun 21, 2012 at 06:39 PM
Greetings, Dr. Lumpkins. It has been many months since I have commented on your site; I trust you are well and that God's blessings abound to you in His amazing grace.
I was going to note a few things, but will focus on just one -- the issue of monergism and synergism. I would agree that this is the main dividing issue between "Calvinists" and, well, everyone else, be they Arminian, semi-Pelagian, or "TS" as it were, and it matters not if one's synergism is that of Melanchthon or Arminius or anyone else. The issue remains the same.
You see, it is also important to define the term Monergism in the way that Calvinists define it if there is to be a discussion of it. The way you define monergism above is not how a Calvinist would define monergism:
"Monergism (the Holy Spirit alone effects the New Birth upon the believing responder)", emphasis mine. If I am understanding you correctly, you are suggesting that it is God alone effects the new birth upon someone who already has faith and is believing, similar to the position of Melanchthon above. The problem is, Calvinists would not affirm that definition of monergism, but would affirm the statements contained in the Formula of Concord about free will:
II.5--II.7:
"[5]....the pure teachers of the Augsburg Confession have taught and contended that by the fall of our first parents man was so corrupted that in divine things pertaining to our conversion and the salvation of our souls he is by nature blind, that, when the Word of God is preached, he neither does nor can understand it, but regards it as foolishness; also, that he does not of himself draw nigh to God, but is and remains an enemy of God, until he is converted, becomes a believer [is endowed with faith], is regenerated and renewed, by the power of the Holy Ghost through the Word when preached and heard, out of pure grace, without any cooperation of his own.
6] In order to explain this controversy in a Christian manner, according to the guidance of God's Word, and by His grace to decide it, our doctrine, faith, and confession are as follows:
7] Namely, that in spiritual and divine things the intellect, heart, and will of the unregenerate man are utterly unable, by their own natural powers, to understand, believe, accept, think, will, begin, effect, do, work, or concur in working anything, but they are entirely dead to what is good, and corrupt, so that in man's nature since the Fall, before regeneration, there is not the least spark of spiritual power remaining, nor present, by which, of himself, he can prepare himself for God's grace, or accept the offered grace, nor be capable of it for and of himself, or apply or accommodate himself thereto, or by his own powers be able of himself, as of himself, to aid, do, work, or concur in working anything towards his conversion, either wholly, or half, or in any, even the least or most inconsiderable part; but that he is the servant [and slave] of sin, John 8:34, and a captive of the devil, by whom he is moved, Eph. 2:2; 2 Tim. 2:26. Hence the natural free will according to its perverted disposition and nature is strong and active only with respect to what is displeasing and contrary to God."
So then, when we say monergism, we mean something that God does to bring about the new birth that results in a believing responder, believing the Gospel he or she has heard. This would be a logical order rather than a temporal one, but it is still an order that must be affirmed if one would affirm what the formula of Concord says above (or any Reformed confession for that matter).
So no, the authors of the TS statement would not be monergistic according to a Calvinist, Baptist or otherwise.
sdg,
dbh
Posted by: David Benjamin Hewitt | Jun 24, 2012 at 02:16 PM
Hi David,
Thanks for the response. First, you deny it matters if one's synergism is that of Melanchthon, Arminius, etc. which seems directly contrary to Muller's definition. If I must choose between your and a recognized Calvinistic authority's understanding, no offense, but I choose the latter. Second, just on the surface it most certainly does make a difference concerning one's understanding of "synergism"--for example, the difference between believing the Bible at certain junctures or not (cp. Jn 6:44). Third, the last time I checked, David, there is no official spokesperson for all Calvinists which your statements twice seem to suggest--"Calvinists would not...when we say, we mean..." Calvinists are not as monolithic as you seem to indicate.
Fourth, congratulations are in order. So far as I can tell, no Baptist Calvinist has ever--ever--appealed to a Lutheran Confession of Faith on this blog or others blogs I have read. Nor has any major figure in Baptist history appealed to Concord to get his theological marching orders on the new birth. While I obviously have not read exhaustively Baptist history, I have dipped into it perhaps more than the average Baptist. Nonetheless, if I am mistaken, please educate me.
Even so, I suppose next you will tell us Baptist Calvinists also believe in baptismal regeneration of infants which Concord also confesses, a baptism the necessity of which saves a baby from burning in hell. Congrats again! ;^)
Fifth, I do not accept the categories of "temporal" and "logical" you cite above and believe them to be false categories imposed upon the Word of God. Neither can be exegetically mined from the text of Scripture but must be read into the meaning of Scripture. These scholastic hermeneutical ploys are much of the reason we as Southern Baptists find ourselves in this debate today. So far as I am concerned, Calvinism is a systematic template overlayed on the straight-forward reading of God's Word.
Thanks for stopping by.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | Jun 25, 2012 at 06:56 AM
Hello again, Dr. Lumpkins.
Obviously you believe that Calvinism is a systematic template overlayed on Scripture otherwise you would accept it I would suspect. :) Truth is, exegesis must lead one to any conclusion, which is why I affirm what Concord said at the point I cited. Surely you must know that I by no means affirm the whole of the Formula of Concord just because I agree with a certain portion of it. I merely brought it up because the quote you referenced mentioned it as being opposed to Melanchthon and also semi-pelagians. Both are synergists (or perhaps more properly, groups of synergists), and both therefore disagree with monergism. So, even though there are differences in various kinds of synergism, at the end of the day, all of them involve something more than the Spirit of God involved when it comes to bringing someone to spiritual life.
You mentioned John 6:44 -- this is as important as verses come when we are discussing man's ability to respond to the Gospel. An exegesis of this text (more properly, 6:35-45, perhaps as far as 65 or at least including it) would be tremendously helpful. What I am sure you have noticed when these kind of conversations go on is that there is often, in fact, nearly always, more light than heat. One person says, "I believe this, and you misrepresent me!" The person on the other side says, "No, you are mistaken, because what you believe is refuted by what I believe, and you are the one misrepresenting!" and on it goes. The only way to solve any of it is to do solid exegesis of a text that is disputed (such as John 6 above) and see which side is using consistent interpretation to arrive at one's conclusions. Let Scripture decide between us -- we are people of the Book, after all -- aren't we?
What do you say?
sdg,
dbh
Posted by: David Benjamin Hewitt | Jun 25, 2012 at 06:14 PM
David,
You said, "Calvinists would not affirm that definition of monergism, but would affirm the statements contained in the Formula of Concord about free will..." Now you're saying you "merely brought it up" because the quote I referenced mentioned it as being opposed to Melanchthon and also semi-pelagians. Yes, it was in Muller's definition. Now, care to cite where Baptist Calvinists employ the FC to define their understanding of the new birth and/or free will? That was the challenge, remember?
And, while I haven't the least reservation in affirming Jn.6:44 pertaining to ability, it says nothing about irresistibility which Calvinists like yourself demand it bear. There's nothing else to say, David. We just are not going to come to any kind of agreement on this issue. Baptists in the south have been divided on this since the early 1800's. I'm perfectly comfortable with you believing as you do. What I am not comfortable with and refuse to allow without push-back, is for your view--or even mine for that matter--to become the default view of the SBC. It ain't gonna happen--not without a fight it's not.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | Jun 25, 2012 at 06:28 PM
Sir:
There is no where that Baptist Calvinists cite the FC to support their position that I know of, including this thread. :) I mentioned it and said I agreed with it, not that it defined my position. My position is defined by Scripture. :)
I would indeed love an exchange on certain texts, especially John 6:44 and Romans 8:29-30. I don't doubt you would affirm that people cannot come to contradictory positions and both be right, and that Scripture's meaning is not many but one in a given passage. So, if two people come to different conclusions, one or both of them must be wrong of necessity, and the wrong one(s) are being inconsistent in how they are handling the text in some way.
Truly, the Word must define us. Just because there has been disagreement for a long time is nigh unto irrelevant -- if we cannot discuss the Word, then why bother having any kind of discussion at all?
If I may, I would like to bring John 6:44 to bear:
John 6:44 ESV No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
Who is the "him"? What does the text say happens to this "him"? What then is this drawing that the Father does?
sdg,
dbh
Posted by: David Benjamin Hewitt | Jun 25, 2012 at 07:39 PM
David,
A) These are your words, David, not mine: "Calvinists... would affirm the statements contained in the Formula of Concord about free will". And, again, "when we say monergism, we mean...This would be a logical order... that must be affirmed if one would affirm what the formula of Concord says above (or any Reformed confession for that matter)". Now you're welcome to say you didn't mean what your words specifically imply. Fine. But do not suggest to me your words didn't imply the Concord confession defined not only your position, David, but Calvinists' (plural) position. They are clearly there for anyone to examine.
B) I am uninterested in a round and round about Jn. 6:44. I've read James White's arguments about it and I'm confident you'll have identical "points" to explore. Uninterested, David. I cannot state that any stronger. The exception would be when and if I post an exposition on the text. Then you are free to examine my conclusions all you wish.
Thanks. With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | Jun 25, 2012 at 08:00 PM
Well, Dr. Lumpkins, all I can say is that you inferred something I never intended to imply. If you refuse to believe me, then well, I guess you will believe what you will.
Further, the lack of exegesis in general is what continues to make much of this conversation (not just ours, but the one in the SBC in general) fruitless. Unless that gets resolved, then we fail to make any progress at all.
I hope you do post an exegesis. It would be refreshing. I'll sit out until then.
sdg,
dbh
Posted by: David Benjamin Hewitt | Jun 25, 2012 at 10:21 PM