'it is most just, exceeding just'--Jonathan Edwards on the damnation of infants

"[I]t is most just, exceeding just, that God should take the soul of a new-born infant and cast it into eternal torments"

J. Edwards, The "Miscellanies," Entry Nos. a–z, aa–zz, 1–500, entry N

I'm indebted to John J. Bombaro who pointed me in the direction of a clear, concise statement of Edward's position on God's justice in damning infants to eternal torment in Bombaro's unpublished doctoral dissertation for King's College, the University of London, entitled "Beautiful Beings: The Function of the Reprobate in the Philosophical-Theology of Jonathan Edwards" (2001).

Comments

[Acamp]

And many early SBC leaders held to the necessity and goodness of owning slaves. Why not post about them? On this issue that they got wrong? This is unhelpful in forwarding the discussion in the SBC.

[Max]

Whoa! I doubt that even the hardest of the young, restless and reformed would print this on the back of their Jonathan Edwards' t-shirts!

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Aaron,

Excuse me? I just posted yesterday about Dagg's morally regrettable biblio-theological defense of slavery. Nor is this the first time I’ve lamented this unworthy blotch in Southern Baptist history.

And, what you mean by “This is unhelpful in forwarding the discussion in the SBC” I don’t have a clue. What “This”?

[peter lumpkins]

You're right Max. All we get of Edwards is, what a majestic divine he was. Neither would they print on their T-shirts about Edwards' little-know purchase of a personal slave.

[Greg Tomlin]

This is only a partial quote and not Edward's refined theology (misleading to some). It is a question and an answer to a hypothetical. Would God be just to condemn infants when their sin is, say, far less than the fallen angels? He would be just, is Edwards' answer. That is why it is called a theological "musing," for he is thinking through it on paper. Edwards, so far as I know, never issued any systematic statement on the disposition of infants in eternity. I think he would answer as any thoughtful theologian should if someone asked him, "Did my child die and go to heaven?" I believe he would say, "My child, God is good and he always judges rightly." Here is the full section:

"One of these two things are certainly true, and self-evidently so: either that it is most just, exceeding just, that God should take the soul of a new-born infant and cast it into eternal torments, or else that those infants that are saved are not saved by the death of Christ. For none are saved by the death of Christ from damnation that have not deserved damnation. Wherefore, if it be very just, it is but a foolish piece of nonsense, to cry out of it as blasphemous to suppose that it ever is [just], because (they say) it is contrary to his mercy.

Now such I ask, whether it is contrary to his mercy to inflict punishment upon any according to their deserts, and whether it was contrary to God's mercy to damn the fallen angels. There was no mercy showed to them at all. And why is it blasphemous to suppose that God should inflict upon infants so much as they have deserved, without mercy, as well as [upon] them?MS: "as they"; the reference is to the fallen angels, whereas the preceding "they" refers to infants. If you say, they have not deserved it so much, I answer: they certainly have deserved what they have deserved, as much as the fallen angels; because their sin is not accompanied with such aggravating circumstances, so neither shall their punishment be so aggravated. So that the punishment of one is every whit as contrary to God's mercy as [that of] the other. Who shall determine just how much sin is sufficient to make damnation agreeable to the divine perfections? And how can they determine that infants have not so much sin? For we know they have enough to make their damnation very just."

His point: God detemines what is right.

[Acamp]

Hi, Peter. Thanks for dialoging back. My wish is that rather than finding the things with a particular Calvinist theologian that you disagree with and limiting their belief to a sentence or two that you would just as passionately and just as intentionally seek to speak words of love, healing and reconciliation, rather than stirring up strife.

The "this" I refer to is the constant attack mode on Calvinists in the SBC. Brother, we are not the enemy. I certainly don't see you as the enemy. We have a common goal in seeing the lost saved, Jesus glorified and the church built up until He returns. I get that we will disagree, but let's not work to highlight those disagreements.

Brother, let's work together, not against each other for the sake of the gospel. Thank you for all you do to advance the kingdom and see lost people put their faith in Jesus.

AC

[Lydia]

I recognized this quote from reading Challies blog years 2006?)and this was quoted and discussed quite a bit in some comments. And quite a few commenters were adament it was truth. It was the first time I realized there were real people out there who believe God is "just" in condemning infants to eternal damnation. It was quite the shock for this gal. My experience with the Reformed up till then was they either baptized (sprinkled) infants or ignored the subject as much as possible.

What I think has happened is this sort of thinking and affirming the dead guys (Edwards, Puritans, Calvin, etc) has permeated so much of the YRR/NC (the young!) in the SBC it might be somewhat impossible find a common ground. Our very views of God's character is very different.

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks Aaron,

First, I do not limit "their belief to a sentence or two" Aaron. Nor is quoting a single proposition always indicative of limiting one's theology.

Second, why would you not find the statement about Edwards helpful? You encouraged me to also write of Southern Baptists' horrifying alliance with slavery, which of course I just did (and have in the past) but you completely overlooked. Even so, you characterize my writing as unhelpful and "constant attack mode." Are you not doing to my writing similarly as you just accused me?

Third, nor do you take into account, Aaron, my defense of Calvinists having every right to both exist in our convention and boldly hold their Calvinism. Just yesterday one commenter called for booting Calvinists and Calvinism out of the convention. Here is my response:

“I haven't read all your comments. But I did note the last line in a prayer's form at the end of your last one, the line suggesting it your "solemn prayer" Calvinism be given ‘the boot.’ If your prayer be answered pertaining to Baptist life, then you've just prayed for the demise of Baptist life. Historically, we've not been anti-Calvinism or anti-Calvinist. In fact, as I've often showed, Calvinism has an undeniable rich history within the mainstream Baptist movement as does non-Calvinism. Hence our free church ecclesiology just won't hold up under a boot-out approach.

“What I and Southern Baptists like me continue to challenge is the Calvinization of the Southern Baptist Convention. That does not mean I do not challenge individual doctrines of Calvinism. I do. But I do so as a non-Calvinist who disagrees with some of the points of their theology not because I desire to "boot" Calvinism or Calvinists out of convention life. I concede this distinction perhaps has not always been as clear as it needs to be but I nonetheless continue to embrace it on this site” (//link)

You along with others continue to sing the chorus about how I “attack” Calvinists but never once stop to acknowledge I also defend Calvinism’s presence within Southern Baptists’ life. I frankly tire of the continual caricature of my purpose here but I’m nonetheless going to continue doing what I’ve done since 2006, Aaron. Namely, express my Baptist right to dissent from any biblio-theological idea with which I disagree, and offer my own perspective for people to consider.

[peter lumpkins]

Greg,

Thanks, but I'm sure readers understood it was a partial quote. Nor was there the least reason to copy/paste the entire paragraph since I linked to it in the OP. I sense you're suggesting I ripped Edwards from his context to make him say something he did not. Notso I assure.

What's interesting is, your summation would be precisely mine:

"His point: God detemines what is right”

Precisely!  If infants are damned to hell, then this is right because God does it! It is just because God does it! It is most just, exceeding just because God does it!  This smacks of extreme Voluntarism.

[peter lumpkins]

All,

The last comment drives home the point as to why it's unwise to just allow people to say, "Trust God. He'll do right" when it comes to Infant damnation. What they may mean is precisely what Greg above interpreted Edwards to mean--God determines what is right. So, if God does damn babies to the flames of hell, then, please know, it was the right thing to do.

[Carl]

I am a little confused about the uproar over the statement. Is it not just for God to send us all to hell? As we all know Romans 3 states that all are unrighteouss. No where in the quote above does Edwards state what God does with an infant that dies in infancy. I was always taught in Baptist churches that all are saved by grace through faith. Am I am missing something?

[Lydia]

"Would God be just to condemn infants when their sin is, say, far less than the fallen angels? He would be just, is Edwards' answer"

No, it would mean God is NOT just. Edwards based this on his belief that we are guilty for Adams sin and born with this sin goo in us passed on from Adam's guilt. Babies are born sinning. Squirming on the changing table proves they are horrible sinners, I suppose. The fact we humans exist is sin in that construct. So a God that imputes someone elses sin to others is considered just? That fact we are not judged based up on our own knowable sin is just?

Even the fallen angels rebelled. How exactly are babies rebelling against God for being born?

[Max]

"Trust God. He'll do right"

Truth - a righteous God always does what is right. It's a warped view of a right God which is wrong. What love is this?

[Acamp]

Hi, Peter. Thanks for your response. I've visited your site many times in the past and have never seen or read any thankfulness on your part for Calvinists brothers and sisters in the convention, and it was good to see your comment welcoming brothers and sisters in the convention who are Calvinists. You should post more often in that spirit in my opinion.

Admittedly, I did not see the post from yesterday, but you did not post it as the view of Southern Baptists as a whole in the early days of the convention, but rather posted it, saying that it was a quote from a Souther Baptist Calvinist. It is unhelpful because in my experience all that I hear from you is a desire to align Calvinists with slavery, align Calvinists with babies burning in hell, and it is unhelpful. I don't know of a better term.

Regarding the "chorus" from people "like me", if you are tired of the caricature, then change it. Do something about it. Become known for more than going after Calvinism in the SBC. Become known FOR something rather than being against something.

[Robert Vaughn]

Peter, would you please flesh out a little more what you wrote in the last comment? You seem to be disagreeing with the statement, "God determines what is right." But if God doesn't determine what is right, who does?

Thanks.

[Carl]

First my comment was made before Peter posted his comment about trusting God to do what is right. Maybe that is the main argument against the Edward's quote.

Lydia,

So in your theology there are some who are righteous and do not need the forgiveness of God. Also do we also input Christ's righteousness or is that also not just? And how does this all jive with the comparison between Adam and Christ in Romans 5?

Also I will echo Robert's question. If God does not determine what is right then who or what does?

[peter lumpkins]

Acamp,

Thanks. First, look, Aaron. I could have quoted Boyce, Fuller, Manly, Williams, and perhaps Broadus and the view would have been the same. But you're attempting to fault me because I didn't suggest ALL Southern Baptists were slave-owners. How more petty one could be would be hard for me to imagine.

Second, that I don't live up to your quota for positive things to says about Calvinists and/or Calvinism is supposed to be corrective in what way exactly, Aaron? This makes entirely no sense and again is offering a petty complaint rather than constructive criticism in any substantial way.

Third, that I offer quotes of Calvinists--that they were slave-owners, believed in infants burning in hell, etc.--which are true and representative of their writings but nonetheless happen to rub you and/or others the wrong way may be unhelpful to you, granted. Then don't respond; don't contemplate it; don't perpetuate it. But please don't crassly blame me for putting up something that is true and representative of a certain worldview, theology, or biblical position.

The truth is, I mostly put up quotes and pieces which one rarely, if ever, finds on other sites--especially since Reformed blogs still outnumber non-Reformed evangelical blogs 5-10 to 1! Please!

Consider, Aaron: have you ever gone to Founders and complained that they publish way too much warm and fuzzy stuff about Calvinism? That they should even-steven it out and put up positive things about non-Calvinism? That Tom Nettles needs to be more loving and considerate of non-Calvinists when he puts up his perpetual Calvinistic propaganda? I didn't think so. Nor do any of the Calvinists who routinely whine about what I do. My advice is, get the beam out of your own theological eye before lecturing us here about the splinter in ours.

If I'm tired of the "caricature" then change it? Excuse me? If, in fact, my site is caricatured, you're actually counseling me to do something about it? Sweet heavens. The nearsightedness you reveal, Aaron, astounds me. I'm to blame if others--in some ways, I unfortunately have to say, including you since what you've offered as criticisms above can only be classified as petty complaints--unfairly make my blog into something, in reality, it is not? You take no responsibility for yourself or others for potentially mis-characterizing this site? Well, that's why, Aaron, we've got a problem, a problem you attempted on Yarnell's Facebook page to pass on to me when you're apparently the one who's carrying the personal vendetta against me. I'm to blame. I'm going to have to change my content so others' caricature can be remedied. Give me a well-deserved Georgia break! I don't believe this. Sheeesh...

Well, here's the bottom line brother: I have no intention of standing down. In spite of what others--including you, my brother--say of me or this site, I will continue just as I am going. I will not remain silent and I will not stand down.

Hope you a good evening in the Lord...

[lydia]

"As we all know Romans 3 states that all are unrighteouss."

Carl, Not all of us interpret Romans 3, which is quoting the Psalms, the same way. Not all of us interpret Romans the same way as talking about individual election. Some of us believe Paul is writing about Jew/Gentile corporate election and it has a specific historical context.

Robert,

God determines what is right and if I use your Augustine/Calvin filter to read it, I would also see that God determines infant damnation. And it would make sense based upon the belief we are guilty for Adam's sin. Babies are guilty, too. But I don't read it with that filter.

I simply do not believe scripture teaches that construct. I think that is a wooden reading and makes God into a moral monster. I believe He is a Just God who holds us accountable for our sins we know we commit. And I realize the Calvinists have a HUGE problem with that and think that is ignorance. That is ok with me. Just a pedantic example would be hoping the people around me will only hold me accountable for the wrongs I do. Not other people's wrongs. Seems a simple enough Justice principle. However, the wrongs people around me do, AFFECTS me. Just as the fall affected us all and the earth, too.

I say that Aug/Cal hermeneutic goes against His Character. We don't need a proof text to tell us God IS Love. And for Him to damn the more helpless and innocent of His creations, makes Him into a cruel God. More of an Allah type god.

I believe our view of God should be informed by Jesus Christ.

[lydia]

" Become known for more than going after Calvinism in the SBC. Become known FOR something rather than being against something."

This reminds me of a bio I read not long ago by Sebastian Heffner who escaped Nazi Germany in his late 20's. He was not Jewish. So his perspective was interesting as a young German.

He spends almost a whole chapter on this topic. Mainly the call for unity/comradeship and how it was eventually shoved down their throats but before that more subtle as in rebuking anyone not going along or even questioning whether at work, or in some social group.

How any questioning was seen as disagreement and divisive as in being negative about the great things happening and mostly going against people....his people and those he was to be unified with. He got lots of criticism for it until he simply had to shut up and knew he had to leave. He lost most of his friends. You want to be accepted in the early days of that regime? Then do not dare disagree or be viewed as divisive. (their definition because individual thinking was verboten)

This is collectivist thinking. Read any narratives of folks from the USSR and other group think type of nations and you will see the same thing. No individual thinking. No dissent or even questioning. If you disagree, you will be censored and shunned. You are not one of us, you can't be.

I am seeing this thinking so much in places in America it should NOT be and it scares me.

And it has NOTHING to do with spiritual unity. Spiritual unity does not mean we are robots and never disagree on doctrinal issues. But one did not dare question Calvin, either, so I think the roots are pretty deep from that movement. But that is not who we are to be so why be angry and insulting about discussing this?

[peter lumpkins]

Robert,

Thanks. Be glad to. Voluntarism was a well-received view of God during Medieval Christianity. Follow the link I provided and you'll see some of the divides on it. It basically says "whatever is right, is right because God wills it." Critics charged Voluntarists with divine arbitrariness. For example, if whatever is right is so because God wills it, then God could will rape to be right and sexual expression within marriage to be evil. God could will lying to be the right thing to do and truthfulness to be wicked atrocity.

On the opposite side of the debate, Essentialists argued whatever is right is right not because God wills it but God wills it because it is right, because He could not do other than what is right and good and perfect.

Much better summaries of Voluntarism are available, of course, from scholars who specialize in either philosophy of religion, historical theology, or philosophical theology. I'll be glad to recommend some books if you like, Robert. Thanks for asking...

[peter lumpkins]

Lydia,

Thanks for your contributions. Your sociological perspective gives teeth to the constant echo today about being "unified." It's almost like the mantra for which Jeremiah scolded Israel--"The Temple of the Lord," "The Temple of the Lord," "The Temple of the Lord," they kept saying (7:1ff).

[lydia]

"So in your theology there are some who are righteous and do not need the forgiveness of God."

I never said anyone did not need the forgiveness of God. You are adding a layer here and that is not nice. I said above I did not believe Paul was writing about individual salvation process in Romans. And he was writing to professing believers, too.

"
Also do we also input Christ's righteousness or is that also not just? And how does this all jive with the comparison between Adam and Christ in Romans 5? "

Well David says in Psalms 51 there is no one righteous. He also says this:

Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean;
wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.

Since we are going the wooden literal route instead of man lamenting to God in song...are you claiming that is how it is done? :o)

But wait, In Psalm 52 he says:

The righteous will see and fear;
they will laugh at you, saying,
7 “Here now is the man
who did not make God his stronghold
but trusted in his great wealth
and grew strong by destroying others!”

So which is it? None are righteous or there are righteous who will see and fear?

How about Paul was making a larger point in the Jew/Gentile dichotomy of the Roman church quoting Psalms which is man talking to God. There are also Psalms about bashing babies heads against rocks...and we don't tend to read them woodenly and literal for some reason. And I don't think Paul was either.

[Acamp]

Peter, I once had a professor in college that told me I had a rhetorical flare when I wrote. My brother, you have this is spades!

My intent was not to fault you for not calling out ALL SBCers, but for always, consistently, repeatedly, without fail harping on Calvinists as the whackos with particular bents toward slavery (for example). I don't know of a single Calvinist pastor in the SBC that believes slavery is a right and helpful practice. I don't know of a single SBC Calvinist pastor that would say God sends babies to hell. So, for you to repeatedly beat this drum is not a measure of my pettiness, brother. I think they are unhelpful, not to people who think like me, but for SBCers as a whole. It gives a false impression on which people build straw men, that all Calvinists must be like minded on this.

As to the Founder's blog, they have some whack views that I don't subscribe to, that I've called them on and I don't read their stuff either anymore. So, while you think you can write me off as just one of those YRR's that are so pesky and petty, I'm not the one who is posting quote after quote to incite responses and reactions against a particular theological system.

And yes, as much as it depends on you and me, we should strive to be at peace with all people. If you are so offended by people saying that you have a vendetta against Calvinism then prove people wrong. I'm not saying change your convictions. I'm not saying become a Calvinist, though stranger things have happened (see Saul's conversion to Paul). I'm saying that we have bigger fish to fry. Or you can keep doing the same thing, being accused of the same things, and having the same arguments over and over and over.

Brother, thank you for the time you took responding. I won't take any more of your time, nor will I spend any more of mine writing responses.

May you relish in the spiritual blessings that are yours in Christ Jesus,

AC

[lydia]

"I'm not the one who is posting quote after quote to incite responses and reactions against a particular theological system."

Look at the NAME of your doctrine. Why is it called Calvinism by so many...even you, if that is not significant? What is interesting is some had to come up with a name for Non Calvinists in the SBC! At least it was not named for a human. :o)

"If you are so offended by people saying that you have a vendetta against Calvinism then prove people wrong. "

A huge mistake is to fall in line with this sort of groupthink tactic. No matter where it comes from...those who claim to be for spiritual unity. Never try to prove such groupthink wrong. Just keep pointing out facts and information and perhaps little by little some will start thinking for themselves.

Why? Because at some point, as the group thinks alike and shuns others who don't, they become insulated and it becomes harder to disagree with the narrowing of accepted views over time. And those who do will become the new shunned.

Why read here? Stay within your tribe that thinks like you. But once we venture outside that tribal thinking, we must be prepared to accept disagreement, analysis, etc, that makes us uncomfortable.

Unless they leave, there are going to be some in the SBC who are very uncomfortable with Calvinism (Peter is NOT one of them as far as I can see).

What I hear you suggesting is that it is a sin to point out why publicly. But is that not what Calvinists have been doing for many years unchallenged in churches and on blogs? Telling people they have the true Gospel and some even saying we must go back to our roots? I don't want to go back to our roots and I don't believe Calvinism is the true Gospel and will say so. I find our roots deplorable and am glad we changed course for the most part around the turn of the century.

I am not buying into the sufficiency of a unity statement which comes off as ex Cathedra to me. And I am not buying into a false unity which is basically saying: stop talking about it and it will go away. And I have huge ethical problems with Mohler and Dever, too boot. I cannot ignore they were on a "unity" committee which I find unbelievable.

[Acamp]

Lydia, my sister in the Lord, I am thankful for you, even though we disagree on this. With that said, do you really see it as a positive to compare brothers and sisters in the Lord and the disagreement we have with the USSR and Nazis? Really? Really???

I think the unity Jesus prayed for in John 17 is achievable, even for those who disagree over this issue in the SBC, even in this fallen world. And comparing each other Nazis or Communists is not helpful to that end. That's a pretty big deal. The loving disagreement I'm talking about I hear from preachers who will state their belief and say something like, "This is where I disagree with my less Calvinist brothers and sisters because _______________." I'm not calling for blind agreement no matter what. I'm calling for generosity in the way we approach this issue. I'm calling for a tempered approach in dealing with disagreement with those we have the most in common with, i.e. fellow Southern Baptists. I call other Calvinists out on this all the time- for speaking in a divisive, unfruitful way about other brothers and sisters for whom the Lord died. So, let's be charitable in our disagreements. And not call each other Nazis.

Praying with Jesus,

AC

[peter lumpkins]

Aaron,

Not sure you're being facetious, funny, playful or serious with the ‘spades’ remark but I’ll assume it playful.  Thanks!

First, while your intent may not have been to fault me for not “calling out ALL SBCers” for their slave-owning shenanigans in our founding period, that’s precisely what you did, Aaron. You specifically complained because I “did not post it [i.e. Dagg’s quote] as the view of Southern Baptists as a whole in the early days of the convention…” It most certainly WAS NOT the view of all Baptists in the south. In fact, most Baptists in the south, if I recall history correctly, were not slave-owners. But it was the default view of elite Baptists of the south, the overwhelming majority of whom were High Calvinists. And, let’s be clear—Calvinists as “wachos” with “particular bents toward slavery” constitutes whose words, Aaron? Yours or mine? Yours, I think.

Nor did anything thing in my commentary on the quote (or that I‘ve ever mentioned) about Dagg, Boyce, Broadus, or Manly could remotely be construed, either explicitly or implicitly, as them being Calvinist “wachos” who possessed particular bents toward slavery. So sorry we must bring up caricatures so soon after your denial, Aaron.

Nor does the fact that not a single Southern Baptist living today either belives in or practices slavery got jack squat to do with whether J.L. Dagg believed in and practiced slavery. My focus on much of this site is history and setting the record straight since many new generation Baptists are rapidly forgetting our history or are being spoon fed the truncated historical trajectory of the Founders Movement.

You further suggest  you don't know of a single SBC Calvinist pastor that would say "God sends babies to hell.” Congrats. Neither do I. Nor did Gerald Harris in his essay. Why then did David Dockery suggest to Harris the statement leaving as open ended the question pertaining to all babies being elect indicating the “breadth” of Baptist representation on the subject? And why were some members of the Calvinism Advisory Team uncomfortable with suggesting all babies are elect?  Hence, this most certainly is a relevant question whether you think it relevant to you or not.

You assert, “So, for you to repeatedly beat this drum is not a measure of my pettiness, brother. I think they are unhelpful, not to people who think like me, but for SBCers as a whole.” Well, we disagree on what pettiness means then. I think it’s petty to suggest I don’t meet your quota for positive things to say about Calvinism. I think it’s pettiness for you to complain that had I only prefaced the quote on Jonathan Edwards with “It's helpful to know that even the most brilliant of theologians could blow it on certain points of theology..” that it would be acceptable and “helpful” to you. Excuse me? It’s only helpful if I preface the quote with a defensive posture toward it to prime people’s mind in the way they receive it? You’re not asking me to be biased or prejudicial, are you Aaron? Whatever the case, your point is petty. I also think it’s a very low form of pettiness—something Yarnell called you on, I see—to say “But, considering the source, this is meant to be inflammatory and argumentative.” Tell me, Aaron, was your remark more of a sober constructive criticism or was it a petty, cowering insult toward yours truly? That’s why I brought up the personal vendetta to begin with, brother. You apparently don’t like the quote because I quoted it. At least that's how those words come across to me.

You also assert, “It gives a false impression on which people build straw men, that all Calvinists must be like minded on this.” Really? Well, this is their fault not mine. I’m not stupid enough to believe one quote summarizes all a person believes, and I give others that same benefit of doubt.

You also say “As to the Founder's blog, they have some whack views that I don't subscribe to, that I've called them on and I don't read their stuff either anymore.” Well, if I recall correctly, they still have about a half million hits a month according to their PR. And, yes, please log me a couple of times when you called out the Founders blog on something. I’d actually like to know. And please name for us a few of their wachy ideas. Speaking of whacky, or “whack” views, do you have a problem with always describing those with whom you disagree as whacky or wacho?

Again you write, “So, while you think you can write me off as just one of those YRR's that are so pesky and petty, I'm not the one who is posting quote after quote to incite responses and reactions against a particular theological system.” Well, there you go again caricaturing what I do here. To my knowledge, the only two times since 2006 I’ve actually put up a series of quotes on particular issues is a) Calvinists on John 3:16; b) Calvinists on infant damnation. Out of over 1300 posts, about a dozen or so have actually been a series of quotes. If you're going to criticize me, please offer some teeth with your criticisms, Aaron. Pettiness is not going to cut it.

You also state, “And yes, as much as it depends on you and me, we should strive to be at peace with all people.” Excuse me?  How you’d sneak that in here? Have I denied this Apostolic injunction? Perhaps according to you I have. But then again, I don’t dance to your drum my brother. My Beat stands remarkably higher than you or others I assure.

You write, “If you are so offended by people saying that you have a vendetta against Calvinism then prove people wrong.” Who said anything about being offended? Just because I’m tired doesn’t mean I’m offended. Nor did I say jack squat about a vendetta against Calvinism. I said you apparently have a personal vendetta against me. Dr. Yarnell even called you on it, Aaron. So please make sure you quote people correctly. It’s “unhelpful” to me when you don’t (gotta laugh!).

You insist you’re not saying I should change my convictions or either “become a Calvinist, though stranger things have happened (see Saul's conversion to Paul).” Well, a) I never supposed you were saying such; b) I’ve already been to Geneva, lived in its city (theologically speaking), but soon saw the inadequacies of the town square. I moved back home to a little country village known as simple biblicism. It’s there my final resting place lies. And yes, Paul was converted but you wouldn’t be equating Christian conversion with Calvinistic conversion would you? Of course not! But I assure you I’ve met my share of Calvinists who are but a pint short of doing just that.

You suggest “we have bigger fish to fry.” This is your personal opinion, Aaron. Thank you for sharing it. Now may I also be entitled to mine?

Finally, the alternative I have according to you is, I can “keep doing the same thing, being accused of the same things, and having the same arguments over and over and over.” By all means, thank you. And, if I may, you can continue to offer petty criticisms, caricature my writings, and especially impugn my motives to your heart’s desire, brother. But the bottom line is, I will insist on my Baptist right to offer dissent where I think it needs a voice. I will not remain silent and I will not stand down.

Thanks for the discussion…

[lydia]

"I'm calling for a tempered approach in dealing with disagreement with those we have the most in common with, i.e. fellow Southern Baptists."

And that is modeled by ALL your comments here for us? See, we have a problem. What you define as tempered or generous may be different than others. Just as Calvinism defines grace differently. It might mean to you that Peter does not write posts questioning Calvinism or leaders at all since you think his writing posts on any of it is "divisive".

I have an idea. Why don't you write a post with Peter's same concerns and show us how it is done correctly. Surely you have a blog or could post it some other blog. I would love to see his concerns modeled correctly. Or is it the fact he has concerns and writes about them that are the real problem?

[Robert Vaughn]

Peter, if Voluntarists and Essentialists got together and understood that what is good and right is so because He wills it AND that God wills what He wills because it is good and right, they might be getting somewhere. Guess I'm not smart enough to determine where one exists without the other.

Lydia, I think I understand you to agree that "God determines what is right" -- unless you don't intend that to be taken seriously. As far as using a "Augustine/Calvin filter to read it," I guess I'm not doing so properly because I don't believe in infant damnation.

[peter lumpkins]

Lydia,

Thanks for the challenge to Aaron to write a theme I would write but not like I actually would write it. I think it would be instructive for us all to compare!

Also, as Aaron suggested and you noted, he's "calling for a tempered approach in dealing with disagreement." I wonder how his "tempered approach" justifies his twice referencing views from which he dissents as "wacko" or "whacky" not to mention his low-ball remark on Malcolm Yarnell's Facebook page referring to me: "But, considering the source, this is meant to be inflammatory and argumentative.” If this is what Aaron means by "tempered approach" in disagreeing with others, I'm sure it's no better than what we offer here and quite sure that, more times than not, it's worse than offered here.

[Acamp]

The views I describe as "whack" are those outside what would be considered common SBC thought and practice. For example, the belief that God sends babies to hell, that the civil war was unjust (i.e. Doug Wilson- not SBC but wrong on this issue). Those are whack views and I think you would agree. On the other hand, there are views that I don't agree with, but I understand their perspective. Non-Calvinists would be one such camp for me. Not whack. Just different (although I would disagree with them and think they are wrong).

Forgive me for posting what I did on Dr. Yarnell's FB page. I regret it and ask your forgiveness.

In no way would I ever ever equate salvation with Calvinism.

I'm not afraid of telling history as it is. That means the ugly truth about slavery in the SBC and all the warts and everything else.

I'm not calling you to meet a "I'm cool with Calvinism" quota of sayings. I'm merely suggesting that you have a reputation for stirring up division in the SBC over the issue of Calvinism. You seem to welcome this, and that is fine. I don't understand it and I don't need to. I get that.

I haven't been to the Founders blog in a couple of years because of the inflammatory approach they take to dealing with detractors. It's unhelpful.

In no way do I deal with disagreements perfectly. I freely confess this and again ask your forgiveness for the words I wrote on Dr. Yarnell's page.

Thankful for grace,

Aaron

[Acamp]

Lydia, while I have not handled myself like Jesus, none of us have here. I do want to push back on you regarding the comparison of brothers and sisters in the Lord with the evils of Nazi Germany. Too far, sister.

I don't have a blog. It's too much work dealing with all those jerks (like me) who show up in the comment section and want to pick a fight. :)

Grace and Peace,

Aaron

[lydia]

"Lydia, while I have not handled myself like Jesus, none of us have here. I do want to push back on you regarding the comparison of brothers and sisters in the Lord with the evils of Nazi Germany. Too far, sister. "

When I see the same sort of mantra like groupthink going on--- because I am an avid reader of history--- it concerns me. People don't love history enough and are unable to see the methods and tactics used and where they lead. I am going to relate parallels in how such thinking can manifest itself, if allowed. I think it can be instructive for all of us to beware into falling into such non thinking traps.

Thankfully, church discipline such as practiced by Calvin or even as recent as the Puritans is illegal because of our Founders belief in "self determinism". Funny that.

The "unity" mantra is getting old. The 'divisive' mantra is not working as well as it used to, thankfully. It is used as a way to try and shut down dissent or disagreement. It is also used to "marginalize" people.

I have seen it used to take over churches way too often, to shut down any dissent, so the leaders have control. In the Name of Jesus, of course.

So, I don't feel the slightest apprehension in mentioning what I have read about concerning groupthink, movements and how it starts, whatever realm it is in. I think it is wise to discern such things and ask ourselves hard questions. Are we speaking a party line? Why doesn't this person have a right to disagree without being marginalized?

Keep in mind, the Nazi party was able to bring the Lutheran church in line by distributing the writings of Luther on the Jews. Is it a sin to mention that? Divisive? OR, is it something to consider, be warned and learn from? In my view, Luther was the divisive one. Not the person pointing out the facts and questioning them.

It is the people in positions of power who pushback on being questioned that concern me the most. When it becomes "disunity" or "divisive" to question leaders, there is a big problem.

[lydia]

"Lydia, I think I understand you to agree that "God determines what is right" -- unless you don't intend that to be taken seriously. As far as using a "Augustine/Calvin filter to read it," I guess I'm not doing so properly because I don't believe in infant damnation."

Robert, Perhaps we are not on the same page at all?
when I see deterministic sound bites about God coming from that construct it makes me a bit apprehensive to declare any position until I understand where one is coming from.

An example would be agreeing with someone on God's Sovereignty only to find out it means to them He is controlling every molecule 24/7 and determined who would be saved before Adam even sinned.

Nope, not THAT sort of Sovereignty. I believe God created human beings who can say No to Him, rebel against Him and even choose Him. I think He is that Sovereign and secure in Himself. :o)

So when someone comes up with a soundbite demanding I agree or disagree, I will push back until I understand where they are coming from with it.

I think there might be some interpretive license on what some interpret "God determines what is right". Like damning babies to hell. That sort of thing. I might not agree on what the "right" means or even what God determines or not.

It is always nice to know if we are working from the same definitions and interpretations. :o)

[Robert Vaughn]

Lydia, we are likely on the same page about some things and not on others. "God determines what is right" is not my "sound bite". It is part of a question I asked Peter for some comment on (regarding his post at 09:55 AM). Then in my comment to you, since you mentioned it in reference to me, I noted that you seemed to agree with the statement. It is your prerogative to say you agree with it or not, and define what you mean by the statement if you make it.

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks Aaron. No problem. All is well. Lord bless...

[Jerry Chase]

I believe that to discuss the eternity of infants that die at the same time discussing slavery serves no good purpose,
and, in fact, is injurious. Plainly, discussing both at the same time only serves to "muddy the waters" . . and it gains nothing positive. Separate these subjects, please.

[Jerry Chase]

Peter Lumpkins does not impress me. His comments here strike me as "all law and no love". He seems more interested in establishing himself as an authority, amateur or otherwise, than he is with balance and objectivity. Lumpkins is not a person that I would like to have as a friend, and I expect that others think likewise. He does not attract----he repels. What good does that do?

And, "No, Peter; most people do / did NOT easily recognize
that your quote of J. Edwards was a PARTIAL one." Lumpkins is utterly fixated with linking these two subjects together, which do not have a natural linkage. Lumpkins is merely trying to bolster his weak argument(s). I suggest that Lumpkins re-read the Apostle Paul, particularly in Philemon. Lumpkins does not serve the cause of Christ very well, in my opinion.

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Jerry,

A) I don't know you so be assured I wasn't trying to impress you.

B) What "all law" and "no love" has to do with what I've written here I cannot discern. But since you brought it up, the "all law" and "no love" fits perfectly Edwards' quote above!

C) If you could point me to a place where I've presumed myself to be an "authority" it would be helpful

D) What "balance and objectivity" has to do with my quoting a snippet from Edwards I cannot discern. Perhaps it's because you just don't like the quote. I accept that. I don't either. But unless you can show it's not an accurate quote, then your point is exactly what, Jerry?

E) Well, since I don't know you, I'm not sure I'd want to be friends with me either! Same for many others on the internet.

F) Well, now that's whose problem, Jerry? I gave the link to the document. People can make up their own mind. And, if some are stupid enough to think a 22 word quote represents ALL J. Edwards (or anyone else for that matter) believed on any single subject whatsoever, well, then I see no hope for them--or us come to think of it...

G) Uh, what two subjects?

H) And, believe me, Jerry: I give you my express permission to believe as you wish about me.

Now, if you log on again, I will insist you actually have a contribution to make about the post itself rather than pooh-poohing the one who posted it.

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. by the way, "Jerry" I can see by your email address that it is bogus from which I infer the probability that your real name being "Jerry Chase" is highly questionable. Therefore, you need to drop the anonymous aura of your presence if you decide to continue...

[Lydia]

Here is a snippet from Edwards that is more than troubling which makes God a moral tyrant. Maybe if we read all of him, he changed his mind?

God did from all eternity will or decree the commission of all the sins of the world, because his permissive will is his true and real will.
Jonathan Edwards
On the Decrees Chp 3 pg, 104

"Lumpkins is not a person that I would like to have as a friend, and I expect that others think likewise. He does not attract----he repels. What good does that do?"'

Well, I for one, am just devastated for Peter. What do you do, Jerry, to "attract" people? And what is the point of "attracting" people? Is that our goal in life? Sounds like form over substance to me. Very Platonic of you. (wink)