More verbal abuse and implications of "heresy" by Baptist Calvinists

UPDATE: one of James White's supporters, Micah Burke, put up a post in response to my piece below. Entitled "Peter Lumpkins doesn't know who he's responding to," Burke suggests my critical commentary below is misdirected toward James White. Instead he claims my criticism presumably should have been directed toward Al Mohler since "Nearly 99% of the quote [the quote below I transcribed from White's broadband broadcast] is actually Al Mohler's own words" (italics and link original). What a rip-roaring revelation! I'd never thought of that! Of course, Burke (he apparently is a volunteer employee for White's ministry) completely ignored the two references to Pelagius that White employed in the context of speaking about Harwood which contains much of the substance driving my concern below, two references White could not have quoted from Mohler because Mohler didn't mention either Pelagius or Pelagianism in his piece. Hence, White went well beyond Mohler in theologically implicating Harwood by identifying him not with semi-Pelagianism but identifying Harwood with Pelagius himself. These are the kinds of vacuous defenses offered by James White advocates...

======================       

I've already mentioned the verbal assaults some aggressive Southern Baptist Calvinists levelled toward the presenters and participants of the 2013 John 3:16 Conference (here and here). One may now add to their literary hubris the voice of Reformed Baptist, James White. On his latest "Radio Free Geneva" internet broadcast White especially deals with presenters Adam Harwood, Eric Hankins, Emir Caner, and Steve Gaines.¹ 

Furthermore, he deals with my little book on Calvinism predictably suggesting I haven't the faintest clue what Calvinism is. I'll respond to some of White's specific criticisms later next week. For now, suffice it to say, to believe James White, it matters not whether one is an accomplished academic theologian-scholar like David Allen, Malcolm Yarnell, Adam Harwood, Emir Caner, or Paige Patterson on one hand or a pastoral theologian like Steve Gaines, Adrian Rogers, Jerry Vines, and, to a much lessor extinct, a bi-vocational pastor like me on the other; we all get sliced with the same dull blade by James White. For him, none of us understand Calvinism; none of us can get Calvinism right; we all have to make "straw" arguments because we are all incapable of refuting Calvinism. Hence, from my initial listening, White's critical commentary on my brief little book remains nothing more or less than substantially White's commentary on any man's work listed above. For that, I'm grateful to be placed in the same category with the men he criticizes.

Moving on presently to the J316C, I'd like to quote some words from White's broadcast, words I think offers an accurate summation of how we might expect White to view the rest of the John 3:16 Conference platform. After reading from Baptist Press's summation of Adam Harwood's presentation, White rightly acknowledged Harwood's claim that some Southern Baptists (particularly Dr. Mohler and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS)) disagreed with his interpretation of Scripture that though sinful human depravity includes the universal inheritance of Adamic sinful nature, it does not include the universal imputation of Adamic sinful guilt.

White then says,

"Well, I would hope so [that is, Mohler and SBTS would disagree with Harwood]. Umm, since Pelagious is supposed to have been dead and gone umm, and uh, so it, uh, would have been good, uh, if, uh that were the case that, uh, Southern disagreed with that. Harwood referenced a article Mohler wrote on his blog in 2012 titled "Southern Baptists and Salvation: It's Time to Talk" along with Mohler's claim that a 2012 document signed online by many non-Calvinist Southern Baptists, called "A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God's Plan of Salvation" which we have addressed before and, uh, demonstrated it was rather embarassing honestly for those who signed it...appeared to affirm semi-Pelagian understandings of sin, human nature and the human will –– understandings that virtually all Southern Baptists have denied endquote. As described in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, semi-Pelagianism quote affirmed that the unaided human will performed the initial act of faith endquote and quote the priority of the human will over the grace of God in the initial act of salvation endquote. 

"Harwood said unity within the SBC may depend, in part, on Mohler retracting his claim. So, so uh, if you're going to have...uh..if you're going to have unity within the, uh, Southern Baptist Convention, then we need to redefine history, yes, we know...we need to forget about what Pelagius said, we need to forget about what semi-pelagianism is, and synergism is, up, no no, if we're going to have unity, then we need to come up with new terms and, uh, with new ways of looking at things"²  (within approximately 10:00—14:30 min.).

It's not to hard to deduce where many aggressive Calvinists gain their abusive vocabulary toward non-Calvinist Southern Baptists. Not only did James White twice slanderously implicate Adam Harwood in defending a Pelagian understanding of fallen human nature, White grossly attributed to Harwood the mindless notion that for unity to take place in the Southern Baptist Convention, Harwood requires on the one hand we forget about Pelagius, pelagianism, and semi-pelagianism among other things and "redefine history," while inventing new terms and new ways of doing things on the other. Who would even think such absurd conclusions could be rationally deduced from either Harwood's actual words in his presentation or Baptist Press's summary of it? I challenge anyone--including White himself--to defend his jejune, mindless characterization of Harwood's words on this site.  

The truth is, James White has offered the very same type of hack on Adam Harwood as he offered on Ronnie Rogers' book, a book review which I criticized at length. Nor does White possess the kind of track record which, shall we say, lends itself to fair and balanced treatment in his criticism toward others (here, and especially note here). 

Even so, while James White is not a Southern Baptist, he continues to have influence among many Southern Baptists.³ White remains cozy with Founders Ministries, the largest network of Calvinists in the SBC and also is scheduled to speak at Reformation Montana, an organization apparently headed by aggressive Baptist Calvinist, J.D. Hall. I wonder if Hall and Ken Fryer's abusive rhetoric may be inspired by their relationship with James White. It seems probable though not entirely certain.

What seems certain, however, is the perception James White has created for himself that he appears incapable of offering fair, sober commentary toward those Southern Baptists who remain convictionally unpersuaded by his strong Calvinist views (indeed some scholars are convinced White holds Hyper-Calvinistic views).

White's approach epitomizes the very kind of aggression, unfairness, and emotionally-driven rhetoric from some sectors of Southern Baptist Calvinism against which I've stood the last seven years. And, for the record, I hope God gives me yet another seven years to stand against the raw, hateful, and theologically slanderous seeds ("You're a heretic!") men like White continually sow amongst our Southern Baptist Convention.  

 

James White's "Radio Free Geneva" and critical remarks on The 2013 John 3:16 Conference, Greg Boyd, and What is Calvinism? by Peter Lumpkins (link courtesy of Alpha and Omega Ministries)

 

¹between criticizing J316 and my booklet, White strangely criticizes Greg Boyd, a person whose views are mostly theologically repugnant to the majority of Southern Baptists

²White went on with more commentary on Adam Harwood's presentation (as summarized in BP) but nothing else was said pertaining to my present purposes

³Only recently did White remove from his website wording in his bio which made it sound as if he still taught adjunctly at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary (GGBTS), wording which I questioned in private correspondence and he subsequently removed. We're assured by the present adminstration James White is not scheduled to teach and will not be scheduled to teach at GGBTS.

Comments

[Les Prouty]

Mark, I sympathize with you on your experience. Sounds like you managed to find one of the bad apples from the Reformed side of things. There are no doubt some bad apples in every theological corner of Christendom.

May God bless you as you move forward.

Les

[Les Prouty]

Lydia,

I have problems with Wright. This has been a hotly debated matter (Wright's views) in the PCA for a number of years now. Here are three quotes by Wright which I cannot agree with where he seems to re define justification. I would not think you or most SB would agree with Wright on justification.

"“‘Justification’ in the first century was not about how someone might establish a relationship with God. It was about God’s eschatological definition, both future and present, of who was, in fact, a member of his people. In Sanders’ terms, it was not so much about ‘getting in,’ or indeed about ‘staying in,’ as about ‘how you could tell who was in.’ In standard Christian theological language, it wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.”

“Despite a long tradition to the contrary, the problem Paul addresses in Galatians is not the question of how precisely someone becomes a Christian, or attains to a relationship with God ... On anyone’s reading, but especially within its first-century context, it [i.e., the problem] has to do quite obviously with the question of how you define the people of God: are they to be defined by the badges of Jewish race, or in some other way?”

“What Paul means by justification, in this context, should therefore be clear. It is not ‘how you become a Christian,’ so much as ‘how you can tell who is a member of the covenant family.’”

But what did you think of Packer's quote I gave last night? Will that work for you?

Les

[Lydia]

Les,

I do not think Packers quote is heresy at all. (wink) I am all about having irenic disagreements on these issues until I am called a heretic.

I have read several of his books but it has been years. "Knowing God" stands out as most recent I read and that has been years ago. I do not really know what to make the quote because he tends to blurb/endorse most books he is asked to blurb so his quote does not tell me if he believes one should "preach the Gospel to themselves everyday" or if he believes in a sort of perpetual justification stuck at the cross going deep with sin instead of running for the prize as we see from so many Reformed these days. All of those things redefine justification, imo, even within a quote. (The devil is in the details, so to speak)

When one says the law has been "satisified" I never know if they mean that we have no law to obey in the NC OR if they think Jesus is obeying for us in a sort of automan sanctification which is also a hallmark of sorts for this reformed resurgence. I have also noticed that many Reformed pastors preaching to their congregation often sound as if they are talking to unbelievers and seem to be in constant Justification mode. It is odd. Like they are preaching to the same unsaved people for years and years.

Since man having no volition is a tenent of the determinist God of Calvinism I tend to take such quotes with a grain of salt. That would mean Packer has no volition in the matter. They are not his thoughts because he is unable to take his thoughts captive and make them obedient. :o) If there is one thing I have learned over the last 10 years is that discussing doctrine with a Calvinist is a huge waste of time. We, of course, cannot ever get their words right or we are heretics. And our hearts remain perpetually wicked even though saved. That pretty much sums up my experience in YRR land.

I believe that we can respond to the Holy Spirit drawing us to recognize our sin and need for a Savior. I also believe we can reject the Holy Spirit's drawing. So that would be a major difference in our views, too, and inform how we view Justification.

I really think this is a waste of time for both of us. What you say we agree to disagree?

BTW: Did you know Packers wife is an egalitarian? He seems to get a pass for it in the Reformed world. :o)

[Mark]

Les,

There are enough bad apples around that are causing churches to split.

I typed in Calvinist Controversies over a year ago and several sites came up. I was only interested in Stealth and Covert practices within the Calvinist School.

"Calvinist School" is a term used by a SBC affiliated State Executive Director who supposedly holds to a couple points of TULIP.

Just because I don't see myself getting into the Book of TULIP doesn't mean a Low Point or High Point Calvinist can't embrace it.

It would be ridicules for me to forbid any Calvinist from embracing any part of TULIP so why does a Calvinist secretly try to force feed any or all parts TULIP on me?

When Preachers are purposely vague about disclosing their Doctrine to the elders of a church they are purposely being deceitful.

Les, without you suggesting you don't know the situation, (you appear to be bold) if a Stealth Pastor is purposely being deceitful, is it Sin?

I'm seeing more war of words and verbal retaliation between Calvinist and Non-Calvinist in the SBC, partly over Doctrinal Indifference but another major issue is Calvinist not disclosing their Doctrine to Churches.

Low or High Point Calvinist have the ability to disclose the level of Calvinism they embrace to Churches. It's not that complicated.

[Les]

Two with one stone:

Lydia,

You surely have a skeptical view of any Reformed theologian, and probably to some extent with good reason from some of your experiences with YRR. Of course Packer hardly qualifies as an YRR. I'm not sure a healthy and irenic discussion is a waste of time, at least not for me. I try to say what I mean and mean what I say. I am in no way stealth about my Reformed theology. Anyway, packer has been on record for a long time. He has never been accused of being slight with his words and their meanings. His book A Concise Theology s a good little book and actually it is online here http://www.oocities.org/gary_bee_za/packer/index.html

Check it out to see if what he thinks on J and the law, etc.

"Since man having no volition is a tenent of the determinist God of Calvinism ..." No Calvinist I know says man has no volition. I surely don't say that nor do any in the PCA, a decidedly Reformed church.

As to Packer's wife and her view, well just shows that even someone close to Packer can be wrong and that he apparently doesn't dictate to her her views nor does he "rule" over her on all things. :)

Mark, "Les, without you suggesting you don't know the situation, (you appear to be bold) if a Stealth Pastor is purposely being deceitful, is it Sin?"

Of course purposing being deceitful is almost always a sin (excepting maybe Rahab types of situations and even then some will see her actions as sin, but justified).

Les

[Debbie Kaufman]

Lydia: So preachers cannot preach on sin(which is in the Bible everywhere) and they cannot preach on justification(which is what Christ did for us on the Cross so we no longer have to do anything. We are who we are because of Christ), that pretty much would delete the Gospel wouldn't it?

[Mark]

Debbie,

Christ offered guidance of repentance and hope to the sinner and tax collector who were held in bondage by Leadership.

Christ offered much of his rebuke and correction toward the Leaders and Religious Leaders who were the Sadducee's, Pharisee's and the Sanhedrin who manipulated a reckless interpretation of scriptures for personal gain to hold the sinner and tax payer in bondage.

By holding the sinner and tax payer in bondage, is it possible that the Pharisee's may have been the first in the New Testament to practice a reckless and dangerous form of "Election Theology" that some of your Hyper Calvinist friends practice on the modern day of ordinary sinners and tax collectors in this age?

[Debbie Kaufman]

Mark: ?. I am sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about, as far as I can tell you are not even dealing with the text correctly. It seems you just made up some doctrine that you think the Reformed believe, but you are way off base.

God is God is God. That is the whole point of Reformed theology. He doesn't hold back any part of who he is. No earthly description can do God justice, as he is so much more in all of his attributes than we can comprehend. It's one reason I can't possibly believe as you do. I can't and be true to scripture. I do believe in election because I See it in most of the Bible and I really think you do too whether you will admit it or not. One can't help but see it.

[peter lumpkins]

Les,

I've noted several of your comments which make some questionalble claims, or perhaps a better way of stating it is, you sorta over-reach in some of the claims you're make. I'll only reference a couple of claims in your last comment which doesn't exactly give a balanced perspective of Packer. First, you deny J.I. Packer "qualifies as an YRR." I don't think Lydia suggested he does (I stand to be corrected because I've not thoroughly scanned every comment). But what you're over-looking in your claim is Packer's undeniable heroic aura amongst the YRR. A simple google scan shows the decisive respect they have for him. Mark Driscoll virtually bestowed upon him evangelical sainthood as Saint James he was (is?) so swooned with Packer.

Furthermore, you assert "Anyway, packer has been on record for a long time. He has never been accused of being slight with his words and their meanings." Yes, Packer has been around a long, long, time. The first of Packer's books I read with profit was Fundamentalism and the Word of God (1958???), one of the first "textbooks" we conservatives used in our Battle for the Bible officially beginning in 1979. And, as Lydia indicated, who could not benefit from his classic devotional theology, Knowing God? I used to read it once a year in the 80s.

But to suggest Packer has "never been accused of being slight with his words and their meanings" is an easily demonstrable over statement. One need only reminiscent about the ruckus he started when he signed the notorious Evangelicals and Catholics Together proposal in 1994-- http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9405/articles/mission.html -- You talk about a fireball of confusion! And his defense later? R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, and several other evangelicals got together and roasted Packer not because of his crystal clarity but for the very thing you deny--slighting words (theological concepts) and their meanings (the "Reformed" consensus).

Finally, while I like Packer and much he offers is sane, sober theology, one must beware of his classic Anglicanism which colors his theological perceptions and definitions. Therefore, while his Concise Theology is good, it would be a mistake to use Concise Theology as a definitive source and surely cannot be trusted as one's sole source (please do not read into this I'm suggesting you implied Packer to be the only source).

One final note: you deny any Calvinist you know "says man has no volition." Well, I am aware of some who come pretty doggone close. Of course, you're aware that Lydia was probably not implying Calvinists deny volition period. Instead she was more than likely asserting Calvinists deny human volition in any kind of libertarian sense. My guess is, you would also assert that most Calvinists deny "free will" in any kind of libertarian sense.

P.S. Lydia:

On the egalitarian thing, the stunning but nonetheless funny little fact most Calvinists want to kinda bury amongst the debris is, Founders Calvinist and Reformed Theology hero, the late Dr. Roger Nicole, was a founding member of Christians for Biblical Equality-- http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/endorsers#nicole --

CBE remains the nemesis of The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood now hosted at SBTS -- http://cbmw.org/ --

Nicole is still listed as an editor for Founders Journal
http://www.founders.org/journal/editors.html

[Mary]

I do believe in election because I See it in most of the Bible and I really think you do too whether you will admit it or not. One can't help but see it.

Posted by: Debbie Kaufman | Apr 08, 2013 at 11:31 PM

And there goes Debbie showing us idiots that we simply don't read or understand our Bibles like she does being a superior christian and all.

[Les Prouty]

Peter,

I may have misread Lydia's reference to YRR as related to Packer. Duly noted.

And, you are correct about his endorsement some years back of the ECT statement. A huge mistake indeed. I should not have used the word "never." With human actions, theologians included, blanket statements like I used are not good. I was really referring to his views on the Reformed faith in print, etc. Of course he has been wrong, notable so, as have I and all of us here and there.

As to his Anglicanism coloring his "perceptions and definitions," surely it has. As has my Baptist training (and yours) and Presbyterian training, etc. But generally Packer is a good source and his works are trustworthy, though should never be taken as a single source or the definitive source. I have differences with Packer in places. But I find him helpful as have you and many others through the years.

Volition. Lydia said, "Since man having no volition is a tenent of the determinist God of Calvinism ..." Of course Lydia might have meant in the libertarian sense. It's hard to tell from what she wrote. And not a few of the libertarian free will camp have stated (perhaps carelessly) that Calvinists say man has no free will or volition, without qualification. For all I knew, she meant what she wrote. But perhaps you're right.

In any case, Lydia should be happy today after the game last night.

"My guess is, you would also assert that most Calvinists deny "free will" in any kind of libertarian sense."

In the "libertarian sense,' you would be correct.

Les

[Mark]

Debbie,

This thread addresses abuse or abuse of authority. Your views seem to counter those who address abuse, purely based that your Ideology fits the Ideology of the people the author is has brought to our attention.

Before Christ time came, if your Ideology lined up with Pharisee's Ideology and you dwelled among them, then you didn't have to endure the abuse they were making the sinner and tax payer endure.

[Lydia]

Les and Peter, I need to master the learned theological terms so as to communicate better.

Volition:
1.: an act of making a choice or decision; also: a choice or decision made
2: the power of choosing or determining : will

Doesn't one have free will in order to do the above? Merriams also describes Libertarian as an advocate of free will. Isn't this redundant?

Oh well.

Peter, thanks for explaining for me concerns about Packer even though I like him, too, and have benefitted from his writings. I have found his writings and his actions when taken together to be a bit confusing.

[Lydia]

"Lydia: So preachers cannot preach on sin(which is in the Bible everywhere) and they cannot preach on justification(which is what Christ did for us on the Cross so we no longer have to do anything. We are who we are because of Christ), that pretty much would delete the Gospel wouldn't it?"

Debbie, I don't seem to be communicating well in this thread at all! If I communicated in my comments what I THINK preachers are not allowed to preach, that would be would be seriuously delusional! I love free speech too much to even think such a thing.

I do think it is ok to discuss differening views on such concepts of Justifcation/Sanctification and how they relate to sin, being born again, etc, etc.

I was hoping to convey more of convo on HOW such concepts as Justification are presented and how it can be confusing.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Lydia]

"On the egalitarian thing, the stunning but nonetheless funny little fact most Calvinists want to kinda bury amongst the debris is, Founders Calvinist and Reformed Theology hero, the late Dr. Roger Nicole, was a founding member of Christians for Biblical Equality-- http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/endorsers#nicole --

CBE remains the nemesis of The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood now hosted at SBTS -- http://cbmw.org/ --

Nicole is still listed as an editor for Founders Journal
http://www.founders.org/journal/editors.html
"

What is so confusing about this is that both Roger Nicole and John Piper believe in a determinst God that wills all things. So the determinist God willed to Piper it is verboten for a women to read scripture aloud in worship cos men are present and it would be "teaching" them to read it.

While the determinist God has Roger Nicole believing that women can be preachers/pastors even to men.

One would think the determinist God would have willed them to be on the same page on such a serious subject.

Full disclosure: I am a mutualist but have free will. :o) I have a ton of comp friends who are actually backing away from official comp resources because of the influence of the patriarchs like Piper, Doug Wilson, etc, and some of the ridiculous Talmudic rules such as women are verboten to read scripture aloud in worship. (Challies has same rule at his church. Such discernment!)

[peter lumpkins]

Lydia,

I don't think you've actually missed anything. While there may exist some subtle distinctions between "will" and "volition" I think most are comfortable using them as synonyms. If I perceive correctly, the difference between classical Reformed view of "will" as in "free will" is, at least in the more modern sense, the "compatibilistic" nature of the "free will" while most non-Calvinists would speak of "free will" in terms reflecting some sort of "libertarian" form of "free will". That's why, at least in significant part, Calvinists like Les can say "I know of no one who denies 'free will'." Of course he doesn't, IF one means by "free will" a "compatabilist" type freedom. This becomes really confusing if it's not teased out what one means by "free will." (for the record, there are Reformed thinkers who embrace fully a "libertarian" understanding--e.g. A. Plantinga, Francis Schaeffer, among some other noteworthies)

[Lydia]

Thanks Peter. I will say I have learned some new terms in the last 10 years or so and lots of new defintions for old terms, too. :o)

I looked up "compatibilism" and it used "soft determinism" as a descriptor. To a novice, it sounds a lot like free will or synergism only when convenient.

[Craig]

James White is the Theological blogosphere's version of a pro wrestler. It's all an act to draw attention. The moves are predictable. The outcome is as well. Even the "doktorate" the good "Doktor" lays claim to is from the academic version of the WWE.
If not for the internet radio show he hosts, intermingled with his spending 5-6 hours a day stalking blogs like Jaws off the coast of Martha's Vineyard, he'd be wearing a short-sleeved white shirt, a necktie, and managing a Taco Bell.
But hey...that was the destiny God had in mind from the foundations of the world.
Nuttin but love for ya, Jimmy.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Lydia: I can never figure out why you would use the word determinism and God in the same sentence. I truly do not get that. Why in the world would I think that God would not do the very best thing for me. That's a sure bet, that's not determinism. Not by a long shot. We don't always know what God is doing and sometimes we don't know until we look back, but I can't understand the choice of that word for almighty God. I trust God explicitly and don't have a problem leaving all in His hands.

[Les Prouty]

Peter and Lydia,

On "man's will" it might be helpful for readers to be reminded what classic Reformed confessions say about it. There remains much confusion about the state of man's will pre and post fall and of course post fall, pre and post conversion. The WCF states:

"I. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil

II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.

III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good,[5] and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

IV. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin;[8] and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;[9] yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he does not perfectly, or only, will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.

V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only."

Now one may disagree with the classic Reformed view as stated here, but when referring to a Reformed view of the will of man, this is a pretty good starting point for definitions (The London confession 1689, as you would expect, is almost verbatim).

This view is over and against what I think is the view of the Eastern and Roman Catholic Church views that man's image was not so totally marred so as to prevent man's exercise of a totally free moral will. It's been a while since I looked at this in depth, but that's my memory.

Les

[peter lumpkins]

Les,

We're very much aware of both the WCF and London statements on the will of man. Neither however goes far in explaining why Lydia could state Calvinists deny free volition and you affirm it suggesting you know no one who denies free human volition. Nor does how you've framed the issue assist but only fogs the issue further. You seem to set up the Reformed view as the official Protestant view contrasting it with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. This is much too simplistic. The "Reformed" view of the fallen human will is definitively not the Protestant view but only a sub-view within Protestantism. I mentioned two easily identifiable streams of thinking earlier: 1) "compatibilism" which may usually although not exclusively be identified with Calvinism (as I mentioned earlier, Plantinga and Schaeffer are examples who hold both Calvinism and a libertarian understanding of human volition); and 2) "libertarianism" which may usually although not exclusively be identified with non-Calvinism (though frankly I can't think of a soul who both holds to non-Reformed views and is a "compatibilist"; but that doesn't mean there's no one who does).

I hope this is the end of this particular point. It adds little, if any, in understanding the original question posed: that is, whether J.White was fair or unfair and even abusive to Adam Harwood by identifying him with Pelagius.

[Les Prouty]

Peter,

Sorry to have gone off track following Lydia. Frankly I wish she hadn't brought man's volition and the so-called "determinist God." Just a brief rely and I will drop it.

"You seem to set up the Reformed view as the official Protestant view contrasting it with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. This is much too simplistic."

I apologize if what I said came across that way. I really meant to only reference Eastern and RC churches as in contrast with the Reformed view, not all Protestant views. I realize that the Reformed view is not the official view, albeit the best and most scriptural view in my opinion. But surely not the only and official view. I think, for instance, Pelagius is very close to the RC and Eastern view, preserving man's (unregenerate man) ability to repent and believe.

As to JW, my take on what he said is that I didn't see him as unfair or abusive to Harwood based on the quote in your OP. He would not be the first person to associate Harwood via the Trad document with Pelagius. So for JW to do so as well seems appropriate given what I can imagine JW's views are.

It was Mohler who said, "“Some portions of the statement actually go beyond Arminianism and appear to affirm semi-Pelagian understandings of sin, human nature, and the human will — understandings that virtually all Southern Baptists have denied.”

No as I read JW above and Mohler in that quote, no one is calling Harwood a Pelagian or even a semi-Pelagian (unless I am mis reading JW...the quote is sort of rambling). For sure Mohler didn't call anyone a Pelagian or a semi-Pelagian.

So with that, I conclude that in the arena of ideas and responses, JW was not out of line.

Let the firing squad begin. :) But I'll be pretty bust today and will reply if I think I need to as I can.

Les

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks for finally getting to posting your view on White's words. Les, frankly it's careless words like you just posted which fuels the division between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC. A few things in response.

First, to place your little smiley face at the end of your comment making this issue into some kind of laughing, light and humorous matter only demonstrates why guys like yourself have no real business in this discussion. You have absolutely nothing to gain or lose in this issue because you belong to a Presbyterian fellowship which has no stake in an issue ripping the SBC apart. For you, it's apparently fun "debating" this issue; for you Calvinism is an ecclesiological creed but for Southern Baptists, it may turn out to be a convention splitting phenomenon.

Second, I've argued White implicated Harwood as a heretic by identifying him and his position with arguably the most notorious heretic in Christian history, Pelagius. You respond by suggesting it was Mohler who first did so. No, Mohler did not. He didn't mention Pelagius or pelagianism but only semi-pelagianism. So connecting Mohler and Pelagius is incorrect.

Third, if White did not implicate Harwood being connected with Pelagius, then what do you suppose White meant when he twice mentioned Pelagius in association with Harwood? Nor does it matter if White is not the first to do so as you wrongly imply. That others theologically slandered first has zero to do with whether White was right to do so.

Fourth, you claim "For sure Mohler didn't call anyone a Pelagian or a semi-Pelagian." That's correct. He didn't "call anyone" anything. Instead Mohler indicated his problem with the Traditional Statement was that "Some portions of the statement actually ....appear to affirm semi-Pelagian[ism]..." But to deny his words do not necessarily imply those men and women who either wrote, supported, affirmed, and/or agreed with those "portions of the statement" which "actually ....appear to affirm semi-Pelagian[ism]..." do, in fact, themselves "actually ....appear to affirm semi-Pelagian[ism]..." seems to me to be absurd.  If it does not necessarily imply the authors/supporters appear to hold to what Mohler theologically objects, then what does it necessarily imply, Les?  Give me your theory.

Fifth, you suggest White was "not out of line." So identifying another's theological position with a notorious heretic without offering indisputable proof is "not out of line"? Brother you've got a far far different understanding of what belongs in the bounds of brotherly dialog than do I. In fact, you have a far different understanding of what counts for brotherly dialog than you did a year or so ago. Here’s what you wrote about a statement Jerry Vines made:

“As to the substance of the article, Dr. Vines' statement: "should the SBC move toward five-point Calvinism it will be a move away from, not toward, the gospel" is unnecessarily inflammatory.”

So, a statement Vines made which didn’t by any stretch necessarily imply heresy of any sort can be summarily judged by you as “unnecessarily inflammatory” while White can identify Harwood by name with a notoriously known and universally accepted heretic and you judge that as in no way “out of line”? Yeah, right, Les, right.

Until Calvinists like yourself stop making excuses for men like James White and even Al Mohler in implicating non-Calvinists as embracing heresy, nothing will ever get better in the SBC. But like I mentioned in the beginning, Les, that really is no sweat off your brow. You don’t have an ecclesial stake in this issue.   

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: Mohler wasn't speaking of non-Calvinists. He was speaking of Traditionalists in particular and the document which was put online. Non-Calvinists expressed their concern that this was semi-pelagian.

[peter lumpkins]

And who do you think wrote the Traditional Statement, Debbie? Do you think traditional Calvinists both assisted in writing it and then supported it? And who are the non-Calvinists who supposedly "expressed their concern" that the Traditional Statement was "semi-pelagian"?

[David (NAS) Rogers]

Here is a possible equivalent.

What if I looked at some Calvinist document and said that some statements "appear to affirm pantheistic or panentheistic understandings of sin, human nature, and the human will."

Would any Calvinists rise up and say that I called them pantheists or panentheists or accused them of pantheism or panentheism?

Would any Calvinists want me to clearly explain the reasons for my making the statement that the Calvinist statements "appear to affirm pantheistic or panentheistic understandings of sin, human nature, and the human will"?

Would any Calvinist feel condescended to or demeaned or taken less seriously if I said "I do not believe that those most problematic statements truly reflect the beliefs of many who signed this document"? Is that an accusation of doing sloppy theology and making sloppy statements?

[Mary]

Peter, Debbie's "nonCalvinists" are the "acceptable nonCalvinists" according to Calvinists - 4 and 3.5 point Calvinists. Calvinists are now pretending that Traditionalism is something new that they've had no clue about until the Tradtionalist Statement. Just think men like Al Mohler and Tom Ascol are pretending that they had no clue what men like Jerry Vines and Paige Patterson actually believed! This is all a complete shock to Mohler et al. BUUUUT if one were to do a little research into the Founder's movement you would see that it is exactly those of us who share the beliefs of men like Patterson and Vines that the Founder's want to drive out of the SBC. So the Traditional Statement was not a shock or suprise to Mohler and Founder's at all because it is the Tradtionalist in the SBC who the Founder's have been declaring as having lost the Gospel. Is is the Traditionalist Churches who are need of reforming.

Tradtionalism isn't something new for those of us who've been in the SBC forever. It's what the SBC has been for as long as we can remember. Furthermore how insulting is it for people to imply that men who fought to save the SBC like Vines and Patterson believe something that is so outside the main stream of the SBC. All those proclaiming Traditionalism is just an aberration are trying to claim that these recognizable names in the SBC have no clue what the SBC actually believes!

[peter lumpkins]

And, to further your analogy, David, what if I made statements associated with a particular Calvinist like, say Al Mohler, which parallel statements White made about Harwood. Consider:

--Well, I would hope Harwood and Truett-McConnell would disagree with Mohler's view of reailty. Since Goethe is supposed to have been dead and gone, it would have been good if that were the case that Harwood and Truett-McConnell disagreed with Mohler's view.

--Mohler said unity within the SBC may depend, in part, on Harwood retracting his claim. So, if you're going to have unity within the Southern Baptist Convention, then we need to redefine history, to forget about what the pantheist Goethe said; we need to forget about what Pantheism and semi-Pantheism is and come up with new terms and new ways of looking at things

Or, another parallel is Hyper-Calvinism which, if non-Calvinists utters the word in exchange, they are summarily hung by the neck until they are dead. Hyper-Calvinism is a curse word to Baptist Calvinists. Consider:

--Well, I would hope Harwood and Truett-McConnell would disagree with Mohler's Calvinism. Since John Brine is supposed to have been dead and gone, it would have been good if that were the case that Harwood and Truett-McConnell disagreed with Mohler's Calvinism.

--Mohler said unity within the SBC may depend, in part, on Harwood retracting his claim. So, if you're going to have unity within the Southern Baptist Convention, then we need to redefine history, to forget about what the Hyper-Calvinist, John Brine said; we need to forget about what Hyper-Calvinism is and come up with new terms and new ways of looking at things

Of course, Calvinists would find our hypothetical situations entirely acceptable and, in Les' estimation above, absolutely "not out of bounds" whatsoever. Yeah, right...

[Debbie Kaufman]

And who do you think wrote the Traditional Statement, Debbie? Do you think traditional Calvinists both assisted in writing it and then supported it?

Traditionalists(a term I think is totally erroneous) wrote it and supported it. It was who Mohler was addressing and he specifically said it was leaning toward. I think accuracy is important, especially among Christians. As you know I rarely support anything Mohler, but to be truthful, there were quite a few non-Calvinists who are not Traditionalists questioning the leaning as well. You know this. All anyone has to do is go to the comment section of said document.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Mary: You are right and you are wrong. There are defintely those who believe at least 1 or 2 points. But that doesn't matter. As I have stated too many times to count over the years. We are all SBC, which is only in session one time a year. Isolation from other views is simply not SBC that is Independent Fundamentalist thinking that has been around for a long time. It is not SBC thinking. Never has been. Not as a whole.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Mary: Acceptable non-Calvinists in my opinion are those who truly wish unity and not this extremist role on either side. Acceptable non-Calvinists are those who put Christ at the center and missions as the only goal. Not isolating those who disagree. I am tired of the fighting and stupid character assassinations. I am tired of a small minority attempting to throw out those who disagree. It's just not productive and it's sin done in the name of wining and power using the name of God. It's as dumb as the current legislation to make Christianity the state religion. It's ridiculous.

[peter lumpkins]

Please Debbie. It doesn't matter if some "traditionalists" were against it. That wasn't my point. I asked if any traditional Calvinists wrote it. I asked if any traditional Calvinists were supportive of it and signed it.

[Mary]

Debbie, this "isolationist" rhetoric is just a new attack the Calvinists are launching isolate those who disagree with their agenda. There are no isolationists except in the heads of the Calvinists who themselves are starting major battles by yanking comments out of context. Loyalty to the SBC is not disloyalty to the Body of Christ. And I don't care who said it - that is a hateful comment to make and/or imply.

Ed Stetzer got his widdle feelings hurt because people are noticing that Lifeway all of sudden is not concerned with Southern Baptist - oh no they want to reach out to other denominations. Some of us don't think this growing ecumenicalism is such a great idea and how dare anyone disagree with the powers that be. So now we have the dorky high school kid who wants the cool kids to like him because when they like him they fly him on the big ol plane and give him lot's of great food and tell him that he is too one of the cool kids - the dorky kid posts his ME TOO ME TOO post attacking and taking out of context a comment about this move away from Baptist distinctives into this idea that now the SBC should throw away everything it means to be Baptist so we can all be cool because the kids think it's just not cool to be Baptist anymore.

It's the Calvinists posting today at Between the Times declaring that those who have an issue with the direction that Lifeway is taking should get out of the SBC. It's the Calvinists over there declaring that anyone who says boo against one of their idols Ed Stetzer might not even be saved! Talk about hateful comments.

Isn't amazing how often the Calvinists go off the rails and the dorks who just want to be liked claim they "didn't see those comments" but the dorky kid always will jump to the defense if he thinks one of the cool kids is being attacked. Some people have no crediabilty for calling out attacks because they NEVER EVER EVER call out their side even though claiming they do.

[Mark]

Debbie,

This thread exposes Calvinistic abusive Stealth deceitful behavior and terminology directed at Christians who aren't part of the Calvinist School.

Nobody is stopping you from defending Calvinism but I don't agree with it. There are too many dialects within the Calvinist School that make it impossible for even the Calvinist to come up with a concensus to what they believe.

Peter,
The term "Non-Calvinist" covers a little too much ground and doesn't necessarily mean they are Christions.

[Mary]

Here we go Peter, let's see some outrage about this comment across the internet. Let's see some blog posts dedicated to this one which is way worse than anything Norm Miller said even when you yank him completely out of context.

Jeff says:
April 10, 2013 at 12:49 pm
Thanks, Dr. Stetzer for this well written, accurately reasoned, response. In my opinion, so of the leadership in the institution you mentioned, as well as the ones who run the SBC Today website, are the ones who should be isolated. Personally, I wish they would leave the SBC. I’m tired to the rhetoric, the divisiveness, and the ignorance. They are pseudo intellectuals in my book, regardless of the degrees the have earned. I’ve lost all respect for the them over the years, and I even the salvation of some of these men. Yes, I thank for the work of God through some of men in the battle for inerrancy. But, God working through a person means nothing about the spiritual character and condition of the person. God work the through the vile high priest, Caiaphas, regard the death of Christ. God worked through the false prophet Balaam to bless the people of God instead of cursing them. God work through Balaam’s donkey. But that doesn’t mean any of those were saved or right with God or approved of God. Eternity will be interesting, to say the least. Sorry, if this is taken as coming from a sinful attitude, because I really am not trying to have one. But I am sick and tired of the God dishonoring stuff that goes on the SBC. No wonder we don’t have true revival.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: I didn't say some "tradionalists" didn't sign it. I said some non-Calvinists didn't sign it. Many non-Calvinists did not sign it and a few gave their reasons why, and agreed with what Dr. Mohler said concerning leaning toward semi-pelaganism.

[Craig]

Peter,
Repent! You unregenerate heretic!
How, sir, can Micah Burke be a "Volunteer Employee"? This is a mutually exclusive term, sir. One cannot volunteer for employment, as the term employment implies one receives remuneration for ones services.
What I want to know is when is Doktor Jim going to REALLY expand his Internet Radio presence and to a "Morning Zoo" format show featuring funny Calvinist shtick in between Top-40 hits?
Think about it Jimmy...you're a natural

[peter lumpkins]

Debbie,

I wrote:

"It doesn't matter if some "traditionalists" [i.e. traditionalist non-Calvinists] were against it...I asked if any traditional Calvinists wrote it. I asked if any traditional Calvinists were supportive of it and signed it."

To which you responded:

"Peter: I didn't say some "tradionalists" didn't sign it. I said some non-Calvinists didn't sign it. Many non-Calvinists did not sign it and a few gave their reasons why, and agreed with what Dr. Mohler said concerning leaning toward semi-pelaganism."

My point concerned Calvinists writing, signing, and supporting the Traditional Statement. It had zero to do with whether non-Calvinists were supportive or non-supportive or how many there were. This is not hard and it puzzles me why you seem to often make things harder than they are.

Now, either address whether Calvinists--traditional, non-traditional, conservative, liberal, emergent, or even YRR Calvinists, it doesn't matter to me--assisted in writing and/or developing and supporting the Traditional Statement or don't address my comment at all.

[peter lumpkins]

Mark,

You assert "The term "Non-Calvinist" covers a little too much ground and doesn't necessarily mean they are Christions [sic]." Whatever your point is, Mark, it flew right by the lower part of my left ear.

[Les Prouty]

Peter,

Well, my opinion is just what it is. We all have them. And if ours are different, well we each think the other is wrong. I frankly didn't think anyone here would agree with it. For the record, Pelagius is sort of connected since his name is used in semi-Pelagian. But I'm not convinced that JW, Mohler and surely not I have called Trads heretics.

Anyway, I don't remember Mohler as "mplicating non-Calvinists as embracing heresy" your statements notwithstanding.

"But like I mentioned in the beginning, Les, that really is no sweat off your brow. You don’t have an ecclesial stake in this issue."

Au contraire. I have more of a stake than you apparently know.

Les

[Mark]

Peter,

I'm not being critical at all with you and I wish I had your sense of humor.

If Calvinist want to call themselves Calvinist, Reformed or whatever, fine.

This thread is revealing that Calvinist are referring Christians who aren't within the Calvinist School as heretics, it is very personal and very insulting.

Non-Calvinist is not a specific Doctrine.

You have people who profess to be Christians but are not Calvinist, you have people who deny the existance of God that aren't Calvinist.

I'm not a Calvinist or Non-Calvinist, I'm simply a born-again Christian.

What you are really exposing "for real" is certain Calvinist are focusing their "heretic rheutoric" on Christians. (which to me is more personal than the term Non-Calvinist)

Now go easy on me, if you think I'm splitting hairs.

[peter lumpkins]

Les,

Yes you've your opinion. Now please address the questions I raised rather than dismissing them...

[Lydia]

"Lydia: I can never figure out why you would use the word determinism and God in the same sentence. I truly do not get that."

I know.

" Why in the world would I think that God would not do the very best thing for me. That's a sure bet, that's not determinism. Not by a long shot. We don't always know what God is doing and sometimes we don't know until we look back, but I can't understand the choice of that word for almighty God. I trust God explicitly and don't have a problem leaving all in His hands."

I am sure you have some mantras or declarative platitudes for the molested child who now as an adult is supposed to believe God controls every molecule and meant the abuse at the time as a good thing. I am not saying good cannot come from it so do not go there. but there are cases all over the world outside your bubble where people are molested, mangled, kidnapped sold into sex slavery and die there without knowing Christ and you are calling it good as God controls every molecule. Since man has no volition and God is controlling every molecule (which includes evil) then what? God gets glory from people's suffering for no reason? He gets glory for heinous sin? Not persecution for His name sake but suffering for the sake of evil, period.

The problem with Calvinism are Calvinists who don't apply their own words logically. But then I remember they think reason (thinking) is evil because WE are totally depraved and evil. They try and make cognative dissonance make sense and that really makes your Determinist God into a moral monster and impugns His Character along with ALL His attributes.

So while it makes you feel good to come here with mantras and declarative statements, it really is not a convo. I am not changing my mind because "Debbie said so" because Debbie offers nothing but mantras and declarative platitudes (God is God is God????) that really say nothing at all.

My conclusion is that you do not have the mental processes to understand what you declare you believe. :o)

[Diana]

Oh my! I am so very sorry to have started such a ruckus with my post!! wow. I had no idea.

Anyway - my apologies everyone. It literally was just a vent....and I believe Craig articulated MUCH better than I the gist of my statements. His appears directly below mine, and says the same thing - just much more eloquently, and with less crudeness.

My apologies for being crude.

I did not read every response, I don't need to. Everyone is entitled to their opinions of me. Faceless me. Peter knows who I am - as does Craig. Anyone who REALLY knows me, knows I am blunt.

To address the ABSOLUTELY ridiculous idea that I wish "James White" - the MAN would die - is complete absurdity. My wish is simply that people would stop listening to him altogether. I believe Craig said as much in his post directly beneath mine. Which is EXACTLY what I mean - that his influence, his self-inflated sense of importance, his diatribe would simply just fade away - die OUT -.

James White's giggling when he attacks someone on his broadcast reminds me VERY much of the ficticious character "Heinz Doofenshmirtz" of Phineas and Ferb.

So - anyway - all of that - and really - I'm sorry I hijacked your blog Peter. I did not intend to. In fact, I didn't think my post would even make the public view. Thanks for allowing it though. It brought out the best in everyone. :)

Go in peace people. Please don't post about some imagined "read between the lines" - "what she didn't say" nonsense -

I do not wish James White dead. I apologize for the offending word. I believe James White reminds me of Heinz Doofenshmirtz. The end.

[Mary]

Lydia, if Debbie would only read the Bible it's all so clear! Scripture interprets Scripture. Scripture should be our final authority!

[Mary]

And Lydia, I just posted that comment and I realized that you get what I'm doing there, but Debbie won't "get it" and will just declare "I believe all that's true! The Bible is the Final Authority! Scripture interprets Scripture!" She's doesn't really have the skills necessary to carry on a conversation.

[Lydia]

Off topic!

Posted by: Mary | Apr 10, 2013 at 01:21 PM Referencing this comment I will say that David Rogers tweeting Norms comment blew me away. I was shocked he did that.

I think folks miss the point about Ed. What IS his job? Why are we paying him (and yes, I know about Lifeways structure but we have some say in how they operate) and to do what EXACTLY? Is his job to provide resources to the SBC? I would like to see his job description. I think his focus on celebrity Christianity has gone far enough. I don't think it is about Calvinism as much as it is about promoting the Ed brand and so that means going along with whomever is the power or the latest hot preacher. The Gospel project wine and dine was it for me with Miller/SBCV who seems to want to play both sides but then deletes Harriet over an Acts 29 benign comment? The vitriol he has ignored over there for years makes his blog post a bit hypocritical.

From my perspective there seems to be a lot of building of Ed's national brand on Lifeway's dime. I did see this sort of thing all the time in the mega industrial complex from guys who used the resources of people they were there to serve as a way to project their careers in the larger evagelical bubble. I have a real problem with it. But I know it is the new normal in evangelicalism which is really a business and about building personal brand identity.

[peter lumpkins]

Diana,

Thank you for logging back on. I appreciate your candor and your apology. Accepted. Lord bless...

[peter lumpkins]

All,

I'm thankful Diana also clarified about the alleged "death-wish" to which White's supporters offered a classic knee-jerk reaction attempting to squeeze every drop of inappropriate meaning they could from her frustration-driven comment. Her explanation substantially concurs with the interpretation I and some others had contra White's supporters who vigorously maintained she literally wished him dead.

For my part, on that particular part of her comment about which they presumptuously and erroneously inferred what she neither intended nor her language necessarily bore, they owe her an apology just as surely as she apologized for the crude term she wrongly employed.

And, know I will not post any further accusations toward her or further argumentative points about why she uttered a "death-wish." Enough is enough. I will post apologies to her for erroneously presuming her words produced necessary inferences indicating a literal "death-wish" toward James White.

[Mary]

Lydia, I didn't know David Rogers tweeted the comment. It's as if the powers that be want to gin up the base. why on earth would someone tweet that comment except to say "see let's all get riled up over these "isolationists" And now we see the Calvinists picking up the rallying cry "isolationists" - let's kick them out! And then Stetzer whining today and Pravda posting their ME TOO ME TOO post which served absolutely no purpose but to allow the pitch forks and tar and feathers to come out. And of course joke of all jokes Stetzer posts in a comment that "some people just want to fight" What a hoot!

Sounds to me like the "Calvinism Task Force" (snort) isn't going like Al Mohler wants so now we see the relaunching of the Founders Blog along with this kerfluffle to gin up emotion. It's funny how many claim to not read SBC Today and yet - boom! They're all wailing and gnashing their teeth because some of us think Lifeway is actually an SBC Entity, accountable to the SBC.

For all the talk that Traditionalist are a fringe group there sure is a lot of worry over what these few people are saying on the internet.