« Southern Baptists and their silence... | Main | "Compromise is everywhere"–A.W. Tozer »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Debbie Kaufman

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:18.

peter lumpkins

How delightful. Palmer quoted the same verse. Unfortunately, Paul hardly thought the gospel either nonsensical or illogical. Nor would anyone in the right mind try to witness to a person and preface it by saying, "What I'm about to tell is nonsense so you need to know that before I begin." That in itself is nonsense.

Nor do Calvinists take kindly to responses that their position is ridiculous and nonsensical but would immediately require the one who said so to demonstrate just how it is so. And then the argument begins about how their position makes sense.

Nor does Palmer actually believe the statement he wrote on page 85 for he had already said on page 60

"The Five Points of Calvinism all depend on each other. If T is true, then U is true, and so are L, I, and P. They all hang or fall together”

This is pure logic and rationalism to suggest if one falls they all fall, if one stands they all stand. Calvinists routinely appeal to logic but when they cannot explain logically their position, they turn to the 'nonsense' approach Palmer did. And, then they have the audacity to tape Paul's name on the wrapper.


Nice to see you using scripture to clobber those who aren't Calvinists this morning Debbie. Now we see Calvinism is just the message of the cross. Alrighty then!


Mary, I'm becoming more and more convinced from postings/comments in the blogosphere that the reformed brethren sincerely believe that Calvinism = Gospel.

Peter, reformed pastor and author R.C. Sproul suggests "there is confusion about what the doctrine of limited atonement actually teaches. While he considers it possible for a person to believe four points without believing the fifth, he claims that a person who really understands the other four points must believe in limited atonement because of what Martin Luther called a resistless logic” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyraldism).


Interesting that Palmer makes that statement in the context of saying that Arminians and Hyper-Calvinists are both wrong and instead wants sovereignty and responsibility to go together, calling them a paradox. What Calvinists deny responsibility?


"What Calvinists deny responsibility?"

Well, they may not "deny" responsibility but it most certainly is not a result of what they teach about God's determinist Sovereignty. I would not call it a paradox but cognitive dissonance.

Peter, Great quote!


Max, over at Voices the NC were claiming that Calvinism is on the rise because they were told to read their Bible and the Bible teaches Calvinism and that's not an arrogant statement because of course other "christians" read their Bible but they don't understand how their views are not logical which is again not arrogant it's just happens to be "truth" and the "truth" is offensive. So basically if you're not a Calvinist you don't read your Bible or you're just too darn dumb to understand it. But please don't imply the YRR NC's are arrogant - they are just a generation in possession of the "truth"


Max, Here is one for ya from Martin Luther concerning "reason":

"But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest whore.

Martin Luther's Last Sermon in Wittenberg ... Second Sunday in Epiphany, 17 January 1546.

But my all time favorite is his teaching that "free will is the special doctrine of the Anti Christ".

Sorry about the language, Peter. Quoting Martin Luther is like trying to quote Driscoll at times. I won't quote him on women or Jews it is too insulting and vulgar.


Mary, this indeed has been a sad thing to behold ... the indoctrination of young minds in SBC ranks to believe that generations of Southern Baptists before them had "lost the Gospel." In my opinion, the "New" Calvinism movement has been carefully orchestrated by a handful of "Old" Calvinists (e.g., Piper, Keller, Mohler). Sure, there are the more radical young guys in the mix (Driscoll, Platt, Chandler, etc.), but the old guys are leading the charge.

There is no doubt that there is tremendous influence from certain SBC leaders and non-SBC reformers on this new breed of Southern Baptist pastors. “New" Calvinists entering SBC pulpits have a strong allegiance to such influencers and their closely-connected network of reformed organizations. While most “Old” Calvinists may be opposed to the message, method, and mission of their neo-brethren, others in the old guard appear to be putting up with this new brand as long as the essential reformed message moves forward in SBC ranks and elsewhere.

I don't hold out much hope that Dr. Page's committee will deal with the heart of this problem.

peter lumpkins


Go back and read Palmer again. He doesn't just call them a paradox. He calls them a contradiction. For him, paradox, antimony, and contradiction are synonymous. That's why he concludes Calvinism ridiculous, nonsensical, and illogical.

And, what's entirely entertaining in this approach is, Palmer frames the issue in such a way as to make his High Calvinism the "middle" way, or what we could call, "moderate" Calvinism. He apparently considers himself a "moderate" Calvinist. What a Georgia hoot!


I don;t have Palmer's book. But searching the quote itself, I found this link on Google Books. It does help to see the quote in the fuller context. Maybe others would like to see it too.




Les, his broader explanation is pure Greek philosophy that Augustine brought into the picture, Luther, an Augustinian monk agreed with and Calvin systematized. He projects it onto 1 Corin 1:18 just as Debbie did above. It must be a well known Calvinist proof text?

It is too bad Calvin did not understand this (or what foolishness implied) so perhaps the Ana Baptists would have not been banished, drowned or tortured for disagreeing about God:

26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”


Hi Lydia.

"his broader explanation is pure Greek philosophy that Augustine brought into the picture, Luther, an Augustinian monk agreed with and Calvin systematized."

Yep, y'all keep saying that.




Lydia, BTW the "y'all keep saying that" was just an acknowledgment.


Thanks Les. I think Calvinism being debated and analyzed in the public square is a good thing and long overdue. Just a few hundred years ago, we would have been put in stocks by the Puritans!


Yes, I'm glad there are no stocks around too. In fact, I'm about to think some stocks would be rolled out for me (if they were still around) over at another well read SBC blog because of my paedobaptism views! :)


Thanks for the link, Les. Perhaps it will prove we just can't make this stuff up...:-)


You're welcome Peter. Always good for people to see quotes in context. I don't have his book so I'm thankful to have found the Google books link. It helped me better understand what he was communicating.


the Old Adam

Calvinists make some good points. But then again, they tend to go off the rails by turning the believer 'inward' for any assurance of their salvation (which is not good).

The external Word and the promises of God to us in the things which He has commanded of us (to do and to hear) is the place to go for assurance.

God loves and died for all. That's the message. I hardly think the focusing on 'the elect' and making people wonder about if they are , or not, is really very helpful.


"Yes, I'm glad there are no stocks around too. In fact, I'm about to think some stocks would be rolled out for me (if they were still around) over at another well read SBC blog because of my paedobaptism views! :)"

You have nothing to worry about. It is nowhere in our traditions to whitewash over. We do not have a history of believing that disagreeing about God are punishable crimes.

The comments to this entry are closed.