« George Beverly Shea--Evangelistic Crusade Icon: 1909-2013 | Main | First Baptist Church Woodstock Georgia presents "What Makes a Godly Woman?" »

2013.04.18

Comments

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

peter lumpkins

Dr. Owen,

Thank you. I defer my time to you. You have the floor. :^)

Mary

Les, semi Pelegianism is heresy. Now you and your buddies can go around with your secret language where words only mean what the Calvinists say they mean but you and your buddies like Mr. Unity continue to expose yourself for the arrogant divisive people that you are. Calvinists do not own the world and they do not own all theological definitions.

peter lumpkins

How entertaining. While Les continues to state his "opinion" that Ronnie Rogers is ignorant of a theology he embraced for almost two decades, when asked to serve us some pudding to test whether there's any proof in it, he announces he'll do no such thing; and to boot, if we want to know how he came to his "opinion" we'll need to go and read somebody else's "opinion" to tell us how he came to his "opinion." Well, now that's just peachy...

Les Prouty

"Well, now that's just peachy..."

As I stated earlier, I have yet to read the book. I said at first, "I've started reading your review of the book. So far, you are making your case very well."

Then, "He demonstrates it very well so far as i can tell. im basing my opinion that Dr. Rogers doesnt characterize Calvinism well based on the quotes Ive read on Jon's site and SBC Today."

Then, "As I said, I have not read the book and base my opinion on what I've seen in Jon's posts and what I've seen at SBC Today."

I honestly don't know why this is so hard to understand. I agree with what Jon has posted so far as I have read it. I suppose I could copy and past his posts here, but that wouldn't fly. You want to see my rebuttal to Dr. Rogers? See Jon's posts. I can't improve on what he has written so far as I have read them.

Now Mary, about that quote from Chris?

Ron Phillips, Sr.

Peter,

I guess we just don't understand circular reasoning either. :)

Blessings Brother!

Ron P.

Lydia

"See my comment to Mary. It's the H word in question and looking for a quotation. Maybe he did. I've just seen him say explicitly SP is NOT heresy."

Les, You missed the irony? See above Mary's idea for Chris' next resolution.

Now if you can just convince me that Mohler does not think Semi Pelagianism is heresy we might be on to something. Otherwise you are reaching and splitting some hairs that already have split ends. But I give you guys credit where it is due. You all can parse better than Clinton!

Paul Owen

Here's some typical straw men you will hear from the YRR and others we might call "old restless and reformed":
* Arminians do not believe man is helpless to turn to God without divine grace freeing their enslaved will
* It is semi-Pelagian to deny that Adam's guilt is imputed to the human family
* Universal atonement is a curious compromise of Calvinism, rather than a longstanding view within the tradition (represented by many both at Dort and Westminster)
* No true Calvinists believe that fallen man retains a natural capacity to follow and obey God
* No true Calvinists reject compatibilism in favor of libertarian freedom
* No true Calvinists believe that God not only commands but truly wishes every human being would repent and be saved
* No true Calvinists have agreed that justification and regeneration can be enjoyed for a season (by the non-elect) and then lost

These examples show that many of these debates are made incapable of compromise through the lack of understanding which many would-be Reformed types have of the potential common ground between the Arminian and Calvinist traditions. People like this are more interested in preserving division than moving toward common ground.

Mary

Peter, I know you've noticed this perhaps Dr. Owen has also. It's not enough that only Calvinists understand Calvinism and everyone else gets it wrong. Calvinists truly believe that only they understand anything to do with anything to do with theology. Thus they believe they can control all definitions and control the conversation. So we see where semiPelegianism which was declared heresy for centuries is now not actually heresy. And it doesn't matter which current day scholars try to patiently explain that the Traditionalist statement is not semiPelegianism - Calvinists have decided that they have the right to tell everyone else what is they believe!

So we see the hubris of YRR like former Presby Mr. Unity who thinks he has a better handle on what the majority of the SBC believes then men like a Vines, Patterson et al - former SBC Presidents, current SBC Professors, State Denominational leaders, local Associational leaders - people with hundreds of years of service to the SBC between them and we're told by the Calvinists in the SBC that these people have no clue what the majority of the SBC they've served when these YRR were not even a glint in their dear ol' Presby momma's eye - these people have no clue what the SBC has believed during their years of service. Not only that but these people are too dumb to know that what they actually signed was a centuries old heresy. These people are dismissed as an aberration in the SBC because these YRR know more than those who've gone before them.

Paul Owen

The above examples are given to illustrate that the YRR and ORR tend to lash out against Arminian positions which have historically been allowed a place even within the Reformed tradition. Furthermore, modern Calvinists are locked into problematic doctrines that Arminians rightly criticize. For example, Arminians rightly point out that Calvinists today typically deny the sufficiency of Christ's death for all men. That is biblically hard to defend (just watch Nettles' antics). Calvinists usually respond by saying his death could have saved all men had God willed it. But what Arminian denies that most Calvinists could affirm (unlike Nettles) such a thing? The reply misses the point. Arminians point out that Calvinists usually deny unregenerate man has any chance to believe (despite the fact that many have affirmed man's continued natural ability). Calvinists reply that this is a straw man because they affirm man still has a will. Like Arminians aren't smart enough to know that Calvinists believe man still has a will! Or, Arminians will say that Calvinists deny man has any free will (many do). But then, Calvinists say that's a straw man, and appeal to the freedom of spontaneity that you have with compatibilism. But compatibilism (as Edwards explained it) still makes our "free" choices necessary in their mode of operation! Is that real freedom? Not according to the Westminster Confession!

Another habit of Calvinists is exegetical naivete. They so often think that John 6:44 and Romans 9 settle the argument simply by citing them and proceeding to "exegete" them. Like Arminians cannot give reasonable explanations of these same texts! Or on the other end, Calvinists actually think their artificial readings of Matthew 23:37 and 2 Peter 3:9 can pass serious exegetical scrutiny! They cannot, and Arminians typically give much more plausible readings of these passages, not to mention John 3:16, Hebrews 6 and 10, John 15:1-6, etc.

Mary

Les, I already provided the quote. To call someone a semiPelegian is the same as calling them a heretic. Take it up with the Council of Orange if you've got a problem with that. Words have meaning. Just look at all the hulabaloo over calling it treason when an SBC employee cares more about reaching those outside the SBC than those within. You can be all smug and act like you've proven a point but the only thing you've proven is that Calvinists like you think you can redefine historical defintions for your own convenience. Pretending like you don't know that semiPelegianism has been defined as heresy for centuires doesn't make you look so good there Leslie. So glad we've dropped the pretense that you're moving toward a "more grace filled blah blah"

Remi

I've known a lot of godly calvinists in my life. Many are dedicated to understanding the Bible, God, and theology in general. Many are humble.

Then there are those such as James White and the other foaming-at-the-mouth, dogmatic hyper-calvinists. They are able to justify any unchristian and hateful behavior yet still claim to be on the moral high ground because only they have the correct theology.

The correlations between they and a lot of Catholics are pretty startling. Many Catholics, and orthodox, will justify the most unchristian behavior by telling you, should you point out an inconsistency, that, "we are the ones that put the bible together, and we are the only ones with the right theology, who are you to question us?" In other words, we cannot hold them to the standard that they claim to represent, because we do not have that authority as people who have incorrect theology, and their lessers. They are an elite group of "super Christians" that the rest of we spiritual peasants are unworthy to question.

What I have seen from James White over the years, in terms of his own personal behavior, and those in his employ such as his anonymous attack dog TurretinFan, is worse than I have seen from many who openly claim to not be Christian. It falls under this bizarre idea that hyper-calvinists tend to espouse, that somehow, other parts of the bible are not as important as parts referring to the 5 points of Calvinism. i.e., you can be as unholy, wicked, hateful and arrogant as you like, and your "theology is correct" as long as you are a 5 pointer. You hear this same nonsense from those who defend Mark Driscoll's gutter preaching. "But his theology is correct," they say.

How can one's "theology" be correct if they act so contrarian in terms of love, holiness and humility?

Mary

From the Quiet Revolution which can be found at Founders - just plug semiPelegianism into the search - this is the first link:


"The Westminster Confession of Faith and the First and Second London Baptist Confessions of Faith refute the heresies of Arianism, Socinianism, Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Universalism, Arminianism and Antinomianism without even mentioning them by name."

Maybe Les and Mr. Unity can wander over to the newly relaunched Founders blog and tell them they don't know what they're talking about when they define semiPelegianism as heresy!

Mary

Peter, I found this wandering around Founders. Tom Nettles had some ideas why we lost "Historic Baptist Soteriology" - see when you go to outside sources that lead you away from Calvinism - bad, bad, bad. Buuuut don't point out that Calvinists are now using outside sources to lead others to Calvinism because that's just a ridiculous idea! You're just paranoid, living in your mom's basement eating doritos with a tin foil hat. How dare anyone suggest that the SBC can influenced from outside resources!


http://www.founders.org/journal/fj11/article3.html


Demise of Historic Baptist Soteriology........


......Another factor is the popular dominance of Dispensational theology. Southern Baptists were not forced to form alliances with Dispensational and largely Arminian teachers in the fight against Liberalism, as were orthodox men in other denominations (the Presbyterian Church being one example, which resulted in a weakening of that denomination's adherence to the Westminster standards). Still, among Baptists, the influence of popular, non-Southern Baptist, evangelical literature along with growing acceptance of the Scofield Reference Bible brought doctrines into Southern Baptist life that were not consonant with the doctrines of grace. It might be argued that the late twentieth century controversy mirrors the earlier controversy in other denominations minus the influence of leaders who are themselves committed to the historic Baptist doctrine of salvation

peter lumpkins

All

Sorry. We hosted a regional vbs clinic at our church today. Fairly consuming. Found two of Dr Owen's comments in trash. Church them out...

Andrew Barker

Les, communicating with you can feel at times like a re-run of that old joke .."why do you always answer my questions with a question of your own" .... (pause for effect) .." well, why not"?!

So, if you could please explain where in Peter's 'book' Calvinism is misrepresented, I will then give you my honest chapter and verse, strong's numbers, multi-version checked opinion on whether or not I agree with you.

Les Prouty

All,

I response to Peter above, "What's even more interesting is, you've proven more than once in our exchanges that you many times simply cannot articulate a reasonable defense for the points you attempt to make about Calvinism,"

I will be posting on "What is Calvinism" at my seldom used blog. Feel free to comment there (or on my Facebook page where the links to this article are public) if you would like to interact on the subject. I plan to even bring in quotes from Peter's booklet of the same (partial) title from time to time.

Les

http://reformedfaithandlife.blogspot.com

peter lumpkins

Sitting in DC airport. I welcome Les' interaction. I'm surprised however Les just didn't refer everybody to James Whites review :)

Les Prouty

Peter, have a safe flight. BTW, I don't follow JW.

Andrew,

"So, if you could please explain where in Peter's 'book' Calvinism is misrepresented..."

I'll refrain from answering you with a question such as "Where did I Peter has misrepresented Calvinism?"

Rather, I'll say that I don't think I've said that. I have ordered his book and have received it. I've not yet read it.

"...I will then give you my honest chapter and verse, strong's numbers, multi-version checked opinion on whether or not I agree with you."

Feel free to do just that at my site when I do quote from Peter's book. BTW, I assume Peter and I will have some disagreements, but I cannot know for sure since I haven't read it yet. I know we disagree on much of Calvinism. I do not know that he has misrepresented it in his book though.

Les

Andrew Barker

Les,

I guess I'm guilty of getting my retaliation in first, since you haven't read Peter's 'little' booklet. However, from your previous response ....

"Don't you guys ever learn?" What am I supposed to be learning? A new line different than 1854? It's not whining to disagree with a brother over theology.

'you've proven more than once in our exchanges that you many times simply cannot articulate a reasonable defense for the points you attempt to make about Calvinism."

... I'm not exactly holding out much hope for a change of heart.

In addition, I think I've picked up on the fact that have definitely stated that ...
"The fact is, in my opinion, DR. Rogers mischaracterizes Calvinism. That is either intentional or ignorance of true Calvinism. I choose to believe it is not intentional."

My belief is that Peter is pretty much in agreement with the way Dr. Rogers explains himself and hence when you call Dr. Rogers ignorant of true Calvinism, by inference you are calling Peter ignorant. This I fully accept is 'guilt by association', but then as a true Calvinist yourself, I would have thought you are more than capable of understanding the consequences of holding such beliefs? NO?

Lydia

"There is a big elephant in the room here that often goes unnoticed. Arminian critics of Calvinism often understand Calvinism much better than the YRR crowd. So, given the fact that these "Calvinists" themselves often do not understand what they are talking about, it is no wonder that they accuse Arminians of misunderstanding Calvinism. An accurate description of Calvinism will look like a misunderstanding to them!"

I do not know how I missed this comment! Excellent and so very true.

I think it has been great to put Calvinism/NC/YRR/DoG/REformed doctrines in the public square to be debated/argued by the peasants and scholars. It has not really ever gotten such a publicb airing before as it was against the law up until a few hundred years ago to disagree. But now we have social media really taking a close look. And the seminaries, Reformed pastor celebrities, etc are not preparing the youngen's who are involved in the trench debate. The celebs don't get questioned in public...they only tell others what to think.

All these guys end up knowing to say is: You mischaracterize Calvinism or you don't understand it. That is why Mohler's "mental processes" comment was so important for them. So obviously there has been indoctrination. Not education. Our Public school/University system is much the same...most students have NO idea how a free economy works so we are on the road to Serfdom. Calvinism is a perfect partner for political serfdom: Take care of me and tell me what to believe since I am a worm and have no ability to think or make decisions.

The comments to this entry are closed.