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

[Mary]

Diana, just join Lydia and me in the "monstrous regiment of women" Perhaps someone has made comments about you being "emotional" See when Calvinists go around questioning the salvation of Christians and calling Christians heretics they're called "passionate" or excused as "frustrated" but don't you dare be a nonCal and post something in frustration. And if you're a woman! Oh my Calvinist men go nuts wondering why the men in your life haven't taken away your computer! So welcome to the club! maybe the "doktor" (not a real doctor he just plays one on the radio) will mention you some time! Then you'll know you've hit the big time!

[Lydia]

Mary, Did you read the SBC Today thread where all this started? If you read it you will see that David Rogers is the one who floated Setzer as a good ecumenical/ambassadorial example for SBC Pres.

In fact, I was a bit shocked at David's original comment and thought it a bit pedantic for him. As if loyalty to the SBC means one automatically excludes what he describes as the Body of Christ. Well, there is a reason there are denominations and while I agree that part is sad-- chalk it up to problems in history and the need for them. For crying out loud, ours was started with the pall of slavery over it by Calvinists! Good thing we lost the war and changed. :o)

I was out of the SBC for quite a while and came back for specific reasons (one,the lie of "elder led" leading to the horrors of groupthink I saw in the mega industrial complex by a handful of guys. I think Miss Mildred who labors in the trenches deserves a vote) only to see it full of Presbyterians who call themselves Baptists! What happened? Al Mohler happened.

I thought David was poisoning the well so to speak and found it strange how intensely he pressed it. He rarely comments there.

If Ed was his first thought as an example of an ecumenical SBC Pres, that tells me a lot about how bad it has gotten out there with the pop culture Christianity. First of all, Ed is an EMPLOYEE of an entity. Sheesh! What is it with these guys? Secondly, Ed spends so much time chasing the celebrity circuit I often wonder what his job really entails.

Here is what I think MIGHT be the problem. SBCT is showing up with lots of hits. Who woulda thought it? A non Cal SBC blog with lots of hits? Not good.

Seriously, does anyone remember a bunch of Methodists involved in our CR? IFB? Presbyterians? Did we have entity presidents doing lots of conferences and speaking gigs with other denominations forging alliances with them WITHIN the SBC entities?

The endgame is obviously not ecumenicism as David dreams of as in the wider Body of Christ because there have been too many charges of heresy from the Reformed wing for that and the Reformed brand, itself, is exclusive. The endgame is power using what were the growing numbers for the Reformed brand and rallying the youngen's. I personally think now it is a maintain problem. I think the whole movement is imploding. More and more peeps don't like it when child molesters are coddled by pastors and their celebrity pastor leader friends not only ignore it but seek to make anyone who brings it up in sin for doing so.

That reeks of oligarchy.

You wanna hear something sort of funny? I heard two young YRR guys lamenting about Piper. Seems he let them down big time. They thought he would retire and then go off like Livingstone to some dark corner of the world. They were shocked he is going to be a jet setting 21st Century John Calvin global Apostle.

Anyway,I thought his comment on that thread was totally out of left field but look where we are now. So maybe it wasn't and I did not realize the real point? Now someone wrote that he tweeted it so I am assuming that is true. I have not seen the tweet. But I find that strange, too. A sort of promotion of his comment at SBCT. Then Dave Miller writing upset about it. Hmmm.

Look, if they want to be furious about something...how about Mahaney? But crickets.

[Mark]

Peter and Mary,

I agree with your assertion that Calvinist referring Christians as heretics is very insulting and need to be challenged.

Non-Calvinist isn't a Doctrine.

If you can give me a description who the Non-Calvinist are, let me know. But don't forget to include the Voo-Doo and Pegan Idol worshipers.

[Mary]

Lydia, I did read the thread at Today. What this whole kerfluffle demonstrates is that the Calvinists are not interested in talking about issues. They want to attack and look for ways to "margenalize" everybody who doesn't think like them. It's the Calvinist who are trying to force an identity on all SBCers.

The context from where Norm's quote was taken goes back to David Rogers hateful comment "Loyalty to the SBC = Disloyalty to the Body of Christ" (disloyalty by the way is a synomym for treason) So what we can conclude from the fact that no one is outraged by Roger's comment is that Stetzer, Dave Miller et all agree that to be loyal to the SBC means you are a traitor to the Body of Christ.

Now nowhere in the Rick whosit? original Op Ed at Today or in the comment stream has anyone suggested that everyone in the SBC has to look alike think alike. Nowhere at Today has anyone suggested that the SBC and her churches cannot be in friendly cooperation with other denominations when the opportunity provides itself. No one anywhere is talking about isolationism. But Calvinists being Calvinists and unable to deal with reality and facts, Calvinists being Calvinists and deciding that SBC Today must be destroyed because Calvinists can't control what's being said - why they won't even let Calvinists post their hate in the comments! Calvinists see an enemy they must destroy so they latch onto "ISOLATIONISM" thinking this new line of attack will help them destroy those who won't allow the Calvinists to dictate exactly what the SBC is going to be and do.

what this shows is the Calvinists are starting to worry and so they are doubling down on the attacks. They must stifle dissent before the people in the pews start paying attention.

[Diana]

Mary - I am an old foe of Jimmy's. It won't be the first time he will have mentioned me.

I take pride in being passionate about what I believe, and anyone who really knows me - know I can be quite blunt and to the point. Sometimes I do choose to show restraint - other times, not so much.

I dropped out of the calvinist arguments months and months ago. It was consuming, and I have since left the SBC because of the calvinist influence therein.

Good luck to everyone - really. I do not care if some sanctimonious pharisee declares me unregenerate - I know the Truth - as does my Savior; and sanctification is a process - even for us emotional women.

On the note (as an afterthought) of what my husband would say - When I conveyed to him that I apparently caused some kind of ruckus on a blog, he replied - "...and this is new?".

My husband knows me well - as do many of my friends. :)

Thank you for the welcome.

[Les Prouty]

Peter,
First, I apologize for this being so long. I’m not a great writer so I’ll be copying portions of your comments and then commenting after.

On the smiley face at the end of my comment, ‘Let the firing squad begin. :), I would have thought that the meaning was obvious. It had zero to do with “making this issue into some kind of laughing, light and humorous matter.” It had everything to do with anticipated responses to my comments.

When you said “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” that is simply not true. As I have said before here and elsewhere, my org has SB partners in ministry. Some are more Reformed leaning and some are not. This issue is not simply a “fun "debating" issue” for me.

“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.” Well Peter, we just disagree. If the letters that spell “pelagius” were used by Mohler (and they were) then it is very fine hair splitting to say Mohler didn’t connect Pelagius, only semi-pelagianism (named after Pelagius). In either case, no one called anyone a heretic. Parse Mohler’s words carefully. He didn’t call anyone a heretic.

“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?” Well I don’t know what else he may have meant. I do not think he meant to say that Harwood is a Pelagian.

“Fourth, you claim "For sure Mohler didn't call anyone a Pelagian or a semi-Pelagian." [That] seems to me to be absurd. Well so be it Peter. It is not absurd to me. Words mean thigs as many are quick to say. Mohler in fact didn’t call anyone a heretic anymore than Norm didn’t call anyone a “traitor.”

“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.” My theory is that Mohler had some problems with the document. He said that some parts of it appear to be SP. I personally think he believed that more care should have been taken in the document formulation and that those who signed on should have done more due diligence. That is my theory. Obviously many disagreed with Mohler. Now that is my theory (since you asked). I’ll read any responses but I’ll debate my theory no more.

“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"?” I disagree with the premise I read into this sentence that JW was identifying Harwood to Pelagius as stating or implying Harwood to be a Pelagian.

“Brother you've got a far far different understanding of what belongs in the bounds of brotherly dialog than do I. [Perhaps.]

“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.”

Well, I stand by my comment that the Vines statement was “unnecessarily inflammatory.”
“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.” Already said above that I do have some stake in this matter.

At the end of the day let me say this. I am not JW fan in any way. I have never (to my knowledge) listened to him or read him. Maybe a snippet here or there as someone linked to it. Can’t remember. And, I would not have used the wording he used. From what I know and have read, Harwood is not a P or a SP. But for JW, I cannot say he was out of line and ZI do not think he was calling Harwood a P or even a SP.

I will read your forthcoming reply, but I see no need to continue on this. I doubt you and I will agree on it.

Les