Conversation on Calvinism by two Southern Baptist theologians: Matthew McKellar and Malcolm Yarnell

Dr. Matthew McKellar serves as Associate Professor of Preaching and Chair of the Preaching Department at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. McKellar joined the faculty at Southwestern in 2009 after having served as a senior pastor for 28 years. His current research interests include preaching Old Testament narrative texts and the exposition of the parables of Jesus.

Dr. Malcolm Yarnell serves as Professor of Systematic Theology, Director of the Oxford Study Program, Director of the Center for Theological Research, and Chair of the Systematic Theology Department at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Recently, Dr. John Mark Caton, Senior Pastor of Cottonwood Creek Baptist Church moderated a dialogue on Calvinism between McKellar and Yarnell. While it is lengthy, it will be well worth your time I assure. Unlike the obsession some so-called internet "apologists" possess concerning debates, this respectful exchange is truly edifying, and serves as a model from which we all may learn.

If the exchange is helpful, drop by Dr. Yarnell's site and leave Drs. Caton, McKellar, and Yarnell a word of encouragement.

Comments

[Ben Simpson]

Wow! A very excellent discussion. I appreciated not only the tone, but the content as well. I've never heard of Dr McKellar but was encouraged by him, and I have to say that my appreciation for Dr Yarnell grew extensively through this video. He was exemplary in his graciousness and fairness.

The primary take away was that both viewpoints can gladly coexist in the Southern Baptist Convention and even within Southern Baptist churches. My own church and many others I know are great testimonies to this.

Thank you, Peter, for promoting this video!

[Lydia]

Viewpoints can coexist if the other side is always open and truthful about their position upfront. Otherwise, they can't because that is enabling deception. (Quiet Revolution type of deception)

[David (NAS) Rogers]

Unfortunately Dr. Caton did not correctly describe the majority Arminian view of depravity. Virtually all Arminians believe that there must be an intervention of God's grace for totally depraved persons to respond to God. There is no natural ability apart from grace. Also the point about loss of salvation is not a necessary component of Arminianism.

[Max]

My concern is not whether or not Calvinism can coexist with non-Calvinism in the SBC going forward, but if "New" Calvinism (Piperism) can. There's a difference. The aggressive fringe of the young, restless and reformed movement, fueled by non-SBC influencers, is a significant issue that was not satisfactorily addressed by Dr. Page's Calvinism Committee.

[Ben Simpson]

Max, what is Piperism & why can it not exist alongside other orthodox soteriologies?

[Louis]

Malcolm Yarnell is a fantastic person and a dear friend. I look forward to listening to this.

[Lydia]

Max, Don't you get it by now? They cannot recognize themselves. It is their normal. We are to be marginalized. That is their normal. We are to be called heretics. That is their normal. They are to use deception to get into churches because the pew sitters are ignorant. That is their normal. Their leaders prop up rogues like Mahaney and Driscoll for the sake of "doctrine", that is their normal. When they argue doctrine it is love. God damning people before they are born is called "grace". When we argue doctrine, we are ignorant and don't believe God is really Sovereign.

They simply do not see the problem because it is their normal. It is what they have been taught is "godly". And we should "coexist" with such behavior.

So what is your problem? You have a different "normal". That is the problem. When you accept their normal, all will be well. Drink the koolaid.

[Scott Shaver]

Ben:

From the axiom of being unfamiliar with term "Piperism" per Lydia, what would be your first guess as to meaning?

Also, What exactly do you mean by "orthodox" soteriologies?

"Orthodoxy" can be a can of worms unless I understand exactly what you mean with your useage of the word.

Thanks.

[Scott Shaver]

I'm sorry Ben, Lydia:

Not "per Lydia" ... "per Max".

[Max]

Ben:

I suppose I could have used “Driscollism” or “Kellerism” or some other personality-ism to describe my concerns with the young restless and reformed movement in SBC ranks (the influencers are many). But since John Piper is the generally recognized godfather of New Calvinism, I chose “Piperism” to paint the picture. In regard to his “orthodox” theology, I would place him and other leaders of this movement as more neo-orthodox. The utterly unique transcendent Piperness of Piper and his Piper Points designed to Piperize young minds like a Pied Piper have captivated a generation of the newly reformed looking for a better way to do church. This thread of neo-Calvinism, with its over-emphasis of “Christ-follower” at the expense “Christ-believer” and its new set of gospel terms, shares some of the responsibility for the current confusion and divisiveness within SBC ranks.

Many of us SBC old-timers are growing weary with an aggressive militant fringe of 20-30 year old Piperites saying "Either believe this or you aren't an orthodox Christian!" In a smug and unloving way, we have been declared Biblically illiterate and ridiculed for our traditional beliefs and practices. We have been advised that our invitations and altar calls are simply nostalgia, rather than avenues to win souls for Christ. New Calvinist adherents have even criticized the use of a sinner’s prayer to assist a lost soul to find Christ … acceptance of Christ into your heart (soul) has darn near been declared un-Biblical by the dismissive attitude of up-and-comer young leaders in SBC ranks! The message of the Cross of Christ for ALL people plays a secondary fiddle in theological triage as this precious message gets lost in the mumbo-jumbo to make God big (as if He wasn’t already).

And, I might add, it doesn’t help matters when the president of our mother-ship seminary declares: “Where else are they going to go? If you’re a theological minded, deeply convictional young evangelical, if you’re committed to the gospel and want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ, if you want to see gospel built and structured committed churches, your theology is just going to end up basically being Reformed, basically something like this new Calvinism, or you’re going to have to invent some label for what is basically going to be the same thing, there just are not options out there, and that’s something that frustrates some people, but when I’m asked about the New Calvinism—where else are they going to go, who else is going to answer the questions, where else are they going to find the resources they are going to need and where else are they going to connect. This is a generation that understands, they want to say the same thing that Paul said, they want to stand with the apostles, they want to stand with old dead people, and they know that they are going to have to, if they are going to preach and teach the truth.”

Thus, consider these the words of a frustrated old man if you like, but one who really is trying to contend for the faith without being contentious … one who believes that non-reformed Southern Baptists have been in the business of preaching and teaching truth for a long time. Perhaps you haven’t experienced this brand of New Calvinism in your neck of the woods, but it’s alive and well around me and moving forward in leaps and bounds via SBC’s church planting movement and church splits caused by young, restless, reformed (and deceptive) rebels of this revolution.

Ben, I know it’s hard to believe but I’m not Anti-Calvinist … I am Anti-Calvinization of a once great soul-winning denomination. It’s true that Calvinism and non-Calvinism have coexisted within SBC since its beginnings, but this new beast has a totally different look and feel. Sooner or later, things will come to a head as the (now silent) majority realize what is heading their way. The reformed movement should then no longer expect thousands of churches to contribute to institutions intent on charting a theological course which contradicts what the churches believe. I repeat, SBC’s Calvinism Committee did not satisfactorily address the impact of New Calvinism.

[Scott Shaver]

I wonder if it would help in this discussion if the following truth could be apprehended about the label "orthodox".

There is/once was the type of "Southern Baptist" who washes off the term "orthodoxy" like a bad smell.

History, consensus and collective church belief/practice are all guides to understanding but any ultimate standard of "orthodoxy" is the agreement of divine Scripture and the personal internal witness of God's Holy Spirit.

Do LifeWay, SBC Seminaries and reform church plants have anything in common with this kind of thinking?

[peter lumpkins]

Predictably, James White briefly responded to this video exchange (first 15 mins. or so). And, his response is consistent with what he’s done so often in the past. White declares Dr. Matthew McKellar is not a REAL Calvinist and neither understands Calvinism nor the beauty of the Calvinistic system. McKellar can pretend all he wants to that he knows what Calvinism is or proclaim he is a Calvinist but he’s just wrong. Remember what White said about my booklet on Calvinism?  I didn't understand Calvinism either. Nor did Ronnie Rogers.

One could easily get the idea James White apparently thinks he’s the only one qualified to make these judgments. One also sees the pattern in White’s ridiculous statements that whether a person has no education or a PhD in systematic theology, they’re all too dumb to understand what White says the Bible clearly and undeniably reveals. Strange, ah?  If White’s version of theology is so clearly taught in the Bible, it seems we’d all be able to grasp it does it not? Isn't this what Grudem calls in his systematic theology the perspicuity of Scripture? Well, apparently the perspicuity of Scripture goes out the door for White. Instead some type of special gnosis is required. McKellar has been a Calvinist for years but given White’s assessment, he’s too doofy-goofy dumb to know what Calvinism is. Sure, James. Sure.

In addition, White tries to pit what Dr. Yarnell said about hyper-Calvinism against what David Allen presented at the J316C and subsequently published in essay form in Whosoever Will. But Yarnell didn’t contradict Allen like White asserts. Rather he simply mentioned one theological factor that usually indicates a person is a Hyper-Calvinist while Allen mentioned another theological factor. In fact, if my memory serves me correct, there’s perhaps four theological elements which make-up  or indicate the presence of Hyper-Calvinism which Allen notes in his book. And the one Allen noted which seems most applicable to James White is James White’s denial that God salvifically loves all people, a theological trait Yarnell categorically did not mention. Nor did he contradict Allen either like White argues. White knows this and everyone else knows this who’s read the book.

Yet White makes out like Dr. Yarnell corrected Dr. Allen “his boss” and thanked Yarnell for setting the record straight. He further called on Allen to publicly retract his alleged falsehood about White being a Hyper-Calvinist based upon Yarnell’s “correction” to Allen.

The more one listens to James White, the more ridiculously absurd he comes across.

[Scott Shaver]

Well then,

It stands to reason that James White is not an example of how 5 point Cals could coexist with others in a baptist denomination.

[Ben Simpson]

Max,

Thanks for your substantial reply!

You said: "In regard to his 'orthodox' theology, I would place him and other leaders of this movement as more neo-orthodox."

I say: Do you mean what he teaches has become the standard of orthodoxy, or are you using "neo-orthodox" in the technical theological sense?

You said: "The utterly unique transcendent Piperness of Piper and his Piper Points designed to Piperize young minds like a Pied Piper have captivated a generation of the newly reformed looking for a better way to do church."

I say: I like the literary nature of that line! I do believe that you are right in that young folks are looking for a better way to do church. I mean, the current status quo ain't doing so hot, and I ain't just talking pragmatics. I'm also talking about conformity to Scripture.

You said: "Many of us SBC old-timers are growing weary with an aggressive militant fringe of 20-30 year old Piperites..."

I say: I can understand the frustration. Young people of any theological bent tend to be a bit arrogant and dismissive toward the older generation and their ways. Give them time. Befriend them. Love them. Mentor them. They'll come around, especially when they become the older generation with a younger one nipping at their edges. Also, I think that it would be wise to listen to the content of their critiques to see if there's anything helpful to be gleaned.

You said: "This thread of neo-Calvinism, with its over-emphasis of 'Christ-follower' at the expense 'Christ-believer' and its new set of gospel terms, shares some of the responsibility for the current confusion and divisiveness within SBC ranks."

I say: I suppose I'll quote you a line from a camp song we used to sing, "I will not a hearer only be. I will be doer then they'll see." It's one thing to claim to believe in Christ, but Jesus told us that we'll know if person's belief is real by the actions of that person's life. Certainly we are saved by faith alone, but faith that is saving faith results in works. One can claim to be a "Christ-believer," but if he's not a "Christ-follower," then I doubt he's really a Christ-believer. I've never really seen the distinction you've made put in these terms, but I like them, and welcome the emphasis on being a Christ-follower who rests in being a Christ-believer.

You quoted Mohler infamous quote.

I know I'm going to get hammered for this, but I love that quote!

You said: "Perhaps you haven’t experienced this brand of New Calvinism in your neck of the woods..."

I say: I guess I haven't. I know hundreds of churches and dozens of Calvinistic Southern Baptist pastors, and I don't know of a single church split over Calvinism. In fact, I know of only one church that got rid of their pastor by one method or another (whether it be by the manipulative forced resignation or simply voting to dismiss him) because the man was Calvinistic. Otherwise, these Calvinistic brothers seem to be doing excellent work. Most of them are leading churches that are not overtly Calvinistic and have been doing so for long tenures.

Honestly, I'd love to see a list put together done with scholarly standards that lists all of these churches that have been purportedly split over Calvinism. Peter, that would make for a great series here.

You said: "...young, restless, reformed (and deceptive) rebels of this revolution."

I say: I agree completely that a potential pastor should not be deceptive. He should plainly lay his theological cards on the table when they are asked to be shown. However, I'm on the fence as to whether or not it's wise for a man to muddy the water unnecessarily. There are some things that are just not on a church's radar that would be best left alone. That's why it's incumbent upon the church to ask. I once interviewed with a church and asked them several times, "Do you have any doctrinal questions for me?" Finally they asked me if I believed Jesus is the only way to heaven and if I believed the Bible to be true. I answered the affirmative on both of those and left it at that. If they wanted to know more, they had every opportunity, even opportunities expressly given by me, to ask me. I saw no reason to muddy the water any further. In the end, I was offered that church but didn't take it, but that's another story.

You said: "I am Anti-Calvinization of a once great soul-winning denomination."

I say: Is the Calvinization of this once great soul-winning denomination this denomination's problem? In my opinion, the Calvinization is actually the result of the denomination's problem. Furthermore, is there actual scholarly evidence demonstrating causation that this Calvinization resulting in a drop in soul-winning?

You said: "The reformed movement should then no longer expect thousands of churches to contribute to institutions intent on charting a theological course which contradicts what the churches believe."

I say: Then these churches will bring about the end of the Cooperative Program as we know it.

Blessings, Max!

[peter lumpkins]

Ben,

"Honestly, I'd love to see a list put together done with scholarly standards that lists all of these churches that have been purportedly split over Calvinism. Peter, that would make for a great series here."

You know, Ben, this is completely unreasonable to request simply because of the low response one would get from churches which would allow one to publish their conflicts publicly. That's a fact. This is little more than sandbagging on your and others' part in so much as suggesting it.

On the other hand, you appear to deny what is considered a problem in our convention by a broad sampling of SBC leadership not the least of which is Page's Calvinism advisory team. What is more, several voices outside the SBC have rehearsed the conflict Calvinism causes in the local SBC church.

Happily, few will embrace such a head-stuck-in-sand approach to the question that you appear to be suggesting.

[Ben Simpson]

Peter,

I listened to that same Dividing Line this morning. I understand completely that you are not a fan of James White, given y'all's history, but do you agree with Dr Allen that Dr White is a Hyper-Calvinist? Didn't Dr Allen say something like, "Ladies and Gentlemen, James White is a hyper-Calvinist,"? That's seems categorical to me. He didn't say that Dr White has some agreement with Hyper-Calvinists but squarely labeled Dr White a Hyper-Calvinist. Do you agree that Dr White is a Hyper-Calvinist?

It's funny that Dr Allen used Phil Johnson's primer on Hyper-Calvinism to claim that Dr White is a a Hyper-Calvinist, but Phil Johnson himself claims that Dr White is not a Hyper-Calvinist (http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/11/james-white.html). Very interesting indeed!

What a trip it is to jump in the way-back machine and rehash that controversy that played out in the blogosphere in 2008 after Dr Allen's charge against Dr White at the first John 3:16 conference!

[Ben Simpson]

Peter,

You claim that I'm sandbagging by asking for a list of churches that have been split because of Calvinism, but that's not my intention. My intention is to move from the soft generalized evidence to some hard evidence.

I've only been a pastor for 11 years, but in that time, I've encountered numerous times people trying to convince me of something because "people" are doing this or saying that. I'm sure you've run into similar things in your more than 11 years. Soft generalized evidence is employed to make things sound bigger than they really are. Over the years I've learned to ask "Who are the people?" Almost every time it's a very few, but "few" doesn't carry the same weight as "people."

The same thing is going on here in this "Calvinism is splitting churches" line. Undoubtedly it's happening, but the actual frequency we'll never know. Soft generalized evidence sure makes it sound like it's a really big problem though. I have hunch that it's not so big, but there's no hard evidence to prove either way. Maybe Stetzer will make this his next project.

[Paul Owen]

Ben, your response to Max is deeply troubling. You defend the behavior of this trendy crowd of YRR pastors by saying: "Young people of any theological bent tend to be a bit arrogant and dismissive toward the older generation and their ways." That is completely illegitimate as a defense. One of the specific qualifications of a bishop is that he not be "quarrelsome" (1 Tim. 3:3). Paul instructs Timothy, "Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father" (5:1). Paul warns the church to watch out for the man who is "puffed up with conceit and understands nothing," and who has a "craving for controversy and for quarrels about words" (6:4). Perhaps the unease people are feeling toward the YRR has a lot to do with the fact that men are planting churches and taking pastoral charges who do not meet the qualification of the pastoral office. A lack of respect for one's own heritage is never a good sign in a man who presumes to shepherd God's flock.

[Eric]

Unqualified elders is always a problem. Some of these untested guys leave school and think they can start a hip church because they have charisma. As the saying goes......danger...danger....danger.

[Eric]

That should say "are always"

[peter lumpkins]

Ben,

First, I'm poised to do so, but before I get deep into this with you, I need to know if you've read Allen's chapter in Whosoever Will and if you actually attended or listened to Allen's full presentation at the first J316C.

Second, did you not carefully read what I wrote above, Ben? Whether I believe White is Hyper-Calvinistic at this juncture has absolutely nothing to do with whether White accurately gave the scenario concerning either Yarnell or Allen. I complained he did not: "Rather [Yarnell] simply mentioned one theological factor that usually indicates a person is a Hyper-Calvinist while Allen mentioned another theological factor." And for this I get irrelevant questions like a) Do you believe White is a Hyper-Calvinist; b) Did not Allen "categorically" allude to White as a Hyper-Calvinist? as if I implied Allen did no such thing. How could you so miss the point, Ben?

At both the J316C and in Whosoever Will Dr. Allen identifies White's theology as Hyper-Calvinism. No question. But my point is, James White completely skewed the reason for Allen's dubbing his theology hyperism. It had nothing to do with White's rehearsal of all the "evangelism" White claims to do which he mentioned on the Radio broadcast as evidence he is NOT a Hyper-Calvinist. Rather, Allen's point had to do with White's apparent denial that God salvifically loves all people in some sense. White's rant for that reason is patently absurd. Allen said nothing with which Yarnell would disagree. Nor would Allen disagree with Yarnell since Hyper-Calvinism has more than a single indicator to which scholars point.

Finally, you're dead wrong about Allen building his case of White's Hyper-Calvinism based solely upon Phil Johnson's little booklet on Hyper-Calvinism. What you did is simply become James White's mouth-piece on this blog site, Ben for you fairly well parroted what he spoke on the broadcast.

The fact is Allen built his notion that White is Hyper-Calvinistic upon several sources before he ever mentioned Phil Johnson. At least three Calvinist scholars--E. Hulse, Curt Daniel, Iain Murray--were all quoted prior to Johnson concerning the denial of God's salvific love for all people being a key indicator for the presence of Hyper-Calvinism. Hence, Allen's point does not stand or fall on Johnson. If you actually read the book carefully, you'd know this, Ben.

[peter lumpkins]

Yes Ben Calvinism splitting churches IS happening. But no one I know suggests any type of percentages so your "demand" for numbers or lists is again, unreasonable. I can go back all the way to 2006 on Founders' blog where they were claiming Calvinism was splitting churches--for the good I might add (at least according to them). They also posted pieces where rather than splitting, the church ousted the pastor who was trying to bring Calvinism into the church. Even calling for love offerings, etc.

So yes it happens and happens far too often. Hence to request we actually name or list all these churches or we may conclude it's not that big of a deal may appease you. So be it. I find it naive, however.

[Robert I Masters]

1) No person is a calvinist who does not hold to all five points...period.
2) this debate was only between two non-calvinist.
3)Why does Michael Yarnell not debate Al Mohler or James White or RCSproul.

From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

[Max]

Dr. Owen - I appreciate your input to this and earlier discussions regarding the young, restless and reformed movement in SBC ranks. Your outsider-looking-in perspective has been very helpful - you accurately nail what ails us. As you note in your comment to this particular blog stream, there is no shortage in New Calvinism of arrogance and lack of respect for older believers, particularly those who offer correction to their course. They've got it all figured out, you know, and have no problem slamming the faith of their fathers.

For SBC Tomorrow readers not familiar with your interpretive essay "What Is Wrong With the Young, Restless and Reformed Movement?", I refer them to: http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2013/06/what-is-wrong-with-the-young-restless-and-reformed-movement-an-interpretive-essay-by-dr-paul-owen.html

Thank you sir for your wisdom in this regard.

[Robert I Masters]

Louis,
What relevance is the fact that Dr Yarnell is your friend.

Your Pastor and Friend, is a Calvinist but that does not make him right(or wrong) about Calvinism!

[Ben Simpson]

Peter,

I did carefully read what you wrote in your comment above and completely agree that whether you believe White is Hyper-Calvinistic at this juncture has absolutely nothing to do with whether White accurately gave the scenario concerning either Yarnell or Allen. I just was curious and pursued an interesting aside. So, do you?

As for reading Allen's paper in Whosoever Will or attending the first John 3:16 Conference or watching his presentation, I've done none of those things. From what I understand, Dr Allen's is the only one worth reading, but I couldn't justify dropping the necessary dimes to purchase any of the media.

However, although I've not read the book, after reading what you said above, I googled "James White Hyper Calvinist," and found an article on your blog where Dr Allen responds to his critics (http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2008/11/hypercalvinism-professor-david-allen-responds-to-critics-1.html). Phil Johnson's name is listed no less than 20 times in that article, but most important is this quote from Allen himself, which is a quote from the conference:

Ladies and Gentlemen, James White is a hyper-Calvinist. By the definition of Phil Johnson in his A Primer of Hyper-Calvinism, Phil Johnson of spurgeon.org, who is the right hand man of John MacArthur, Phil Johnson tells you the five things that make for hyper-Calvinism, and James White by his teaching is a hyper-Calvinist.

Allen then goes on to lay out Johnson's Primer and argue from it that he believes White is indeed a Hyper-Calvinist. If you are right in saying about me, "you're dead wrong about Allen building his case of White's Hyper-Calvinism based solely upon Phil Johnson's little booklet on Hyper-Calvinism," then he was awfully emphatic about Johnson being applied to White in his presentation and spent a ton of time talking about it afterward.

You went on to assert about me, "What you did is simply become James White's mouth-piece on this blog site, Ben for you fairly well parroted what he spoke on the broadcast." Was Johnson mentioned in yesterday's Dividing Line? Honestly, if he was, I missed it. I wasn't listening that closely and didn't connect Johnson with the whole thing until I got to looking around the internet at the media from 2008. So, parrot I am not.

Throughout the course of noodling around I ran into several other articles about the whole deal from various authors (Taylor, Brister, Johnson himself, Allen himself, White himself, and of course, yourself). Quite an interesting couple of months there in blogdom, but let's not dig up anymore bones.

[Ben Simpson]

Paul,

Forgive me for troubling you, but despite your assertion, I defended the arrogance and the dismissiveness of nobody. I simply noted the preponderance of arrogance and dismissiveness among the young of all theological stripes. It seems to be in our fallen DNA.

You are certainly right that we must be careful whom we make an elder.

[Paul Owen]

Thanks for the kind words Max!

[Scott Shaver]

I find the comment of Robert Masters refreshingly honest (albeit a little dogmatic)...but heck I'll run with it.

Thanks for this Robert: "No person is a Calvinist who does not hold to all five points ...period".

Glad to be excluded from the tribe, in particular the SBCYRR branch. Let em have their Spring Breaks a la Calvin folks. Life expectancy for a lot of these "church plants" appears to be not much better than that of a housefly.

[Scott Shaver]

Bravo Ben:

Your responses to Max,Peter,Paul are case study in print for the very problem perceived and I believe aptly described as "the Calvinization" of the SBC.

I never got an answer to the "orthodoxy" question by the way.

After reading your work, answer no longer needed.

Night night.

[Scott Shaver]

Would appear from the posts that James White is neither fish nor fowl ... or perhaps he's both.

5 pointer when he needs to be, non-hyper when he needs to be.

What ever works best for him in any given discussion perhaps?

Who knows.

LOL. Maybe if they're 4.57 percent of TULIP we should just go head and round off the number a general rule of engagement with these guys?

[Paul Owen]

Ben, actually you did defend them, as though we were talking about teenagers and their inevitable mistakes as they grow. Men who have the qualities you take for granted, and are widespread among Calvinists, are not fit for the ministry. Maybe that's the heart of the problem.

[Lydia]

"I say: I can understand the frustration. Young people of any theological bent tend to be a bit arrogant and dismissive toward the older generation and their ways. Give them time. Befriend them. Love them. Mentor them. They'll come around, especially when they become the older generation with a younger one nipping at their edges. Also, I think that it would be wise to listen to the content of their critiques to see if there's anything helpful to be gleaned."

Oh this is rich. Nice try, Ben. Make it the responsibility of the older pew sitters to try and help the arrogant, rude, seminary trained (which the older pew sitter helped to pay for) young YRR pastor/youth pastor --a Christ like figure.

How rich!

This is very typical of that movement. The blame shifting. The attack then act hurt when people respond in anything but what they define as loving. They can dish it out but cannot take it. This sort of thinking is so ingrained I cannot see how one can coexist with such faulty beliefs from a seminary trained pastor.

It is immature thinking. And that is all we are seeing from the movement.

[peter lumpkins]

Robert,

To suggest on this thread that "No person is a calvinist who does not hold to all five points...period" is theologically simplistic and historically indefensible. Given we were exchanging Allen's book, it's also actually humorous since Allen's book nicely demonstrates precisely what you deny. Don't you guys ever read outside your own little bubble?

As for the "debate" being between "two non-calvinist" [sic] and why Yarnell won't "debate" your Calvinist heroes; it only shows you think in categories spooned out to you by others, Robert.

The exchange between the two professors at SWBTS was not a "debate," wasn't promoted as a "debate," and obviously wasn't a "debate" when one watched it. Can you not recognize this Robert?

[Lydia]

"I've only been a pastor for 11 years, but in that time, I've encountered numerous times people trying to convince me of something because "people" are doing this or saying that. I'm sure you've run into similar things in your more than 11 years. Soft generalized evidence is employed to make things sound bigger than they really are. Over the years I've learned to ask "Who are the people?" Almost every time it's a very few, but "few" doesn't carry the same weight as "people.""

Ben, As long as you stay on your lofty perch and don't have to mix too much with the plebes, this might not be a problem for you but I doubt it. You can pontificate that they are just ignorant and there is nothing to it.

Soft generalized evidence. I like that. Enron/MCI middle to upper management were thinking the same way. And what brought them down was not just the numbers but their leaders arrogance! That was at the root of all of it. Bernie even taught SS.

Like some at Enron, Mohler had his "leadership moment" in the SBC and used it to further defend the Sheperding cult Apostle, Mahaney.

Good thing you are a YRR pastor because you can teach folks that you are the authority. You will decide what they should think and believe and anything else is gossip and not provable. The trick is in how long that can last.

The biggest problem is we are sending out little boys to do grown up jobs. They are not seasoned, have little wisdom and demand proof for things that there will never be proof for. (their demands of such proof are not even required in many criminal cases to convict!)

We ignore certain things at our peril. And one thing we ignore at our own peril is "soft evidence". Most of us with any experience in dealing with groups/organizations/etc know that about 80% of the people will drive miles out of their way to avoid conflict. We even know that many organizations will give good references to GET RID OF a serious problem.

All of this creates a sort of moral chaos out there but it is how it is usually done. And unfortunately the church is no different. The YRR are ignorant of such nuances. And that is because they have not been trained in critical thinking skills. They have been indoctrinated. They only know seizing power in the Name of Jesus. "We know truth so we should be in charge". That is about the sum of their critical thinking skills. Since Sovereignty is more important (and different!) than loving your neighbor, this can get ugly.

I hate to say this but they are some of the most unthinking young men I have ever come across. If they will engage, one can pick apart their assertions in minutes. They have not been trained to think things through but to make assertions and not question them.

The only thing left for them when it comes to those who disagree is sarcasm, nastiness, accusing the other side of trying to ruin them and seizing power and control. The typical bully tactics of winning. (Not a win in the spiritual realm at all)

This sort of indoctrination only has one place to go....it will turn on itself in due course. History is replete with examples.

[peter lumpkins]

Ben,

A) If you agree your question(s) was irrelevant, but to continue to ask it, what does this reveal? To me, I suppose it reveals you’re trying to get me into a gotscha situation but I have no clue why. If you want to know if I believe James White is a Hyper-Calvinist, all you have to do is type it into google (but you know that don’t you?). To my recall, in the 1300+ posts I’ve had here since 2006 most posts of which address in some form SBC Calvinism, I’ve personally identified only two contemporary men as Hyper-Calvinists—Robert Reymond and James White. From history I may have identified Gill and Brine. As for others I can’t recall. I will say you came dangerously close to the Hyper-Calvinistic threshold, Ben, when you started trying to posit the love Jesus had for the “kosmos” in John 3:16 was some other kind of love than salvific love. If I remember the exchange correctly, you backed away from that before actually stating it. So let me be clear: if you come to a place where you deny God possesses salvific love for all people, then you, my brother, have just become a classic Hyper-Calvinist.

B) Though you admit you’ve not read Dr. Allen’s chapter in Whosoever Will where, in an extended footnote, he clearly identifies what he means by White’s identity as a Hyper-Calvinist; nor have you taken either the time or resources to secure a copy of Allen’s book or J316C presentation; and the only thing you can actually say about the source documents is “from what I understand [i.e. hear from others who are hostile to Whosoever Will]…”; you nonetheless scurry along over here and make pronouncements about what Allen both said and wrote doing so on the authority of others. I don’t know what could more represent what rightly is called indoctrination than what you’ve just done. Allen’s book is dissed based upon someone else. And, rather than think your own thoughts, you parrot others.

I’m not sure where the break-down is—college or seminary. But a break-down exists somewhere along the line. I’ve conversed with far too many young Baptists like you coming from our seminaries who simply don’t know how to think for themselves. I get no kudos from your generation by making such a statement I know. I’m seen as arrogant, big-mouthed, ornery, closed-minded, and sometimes evil. But I rarely care anymore. The fact remains: Southern Baptists are producing a generation of young Baptists who are addicted to intellectual spooning. They cannot theologically stand on their own two feet. They must be told what to think; what is a good read; what is a bad read; who to listen to; who not to listen to. In essence, this constitutes the ugly side of raw Fundamentalist Legalism, a pair of spectacles I smashed a long, long time ago.

C) And rather than reading the main sources with which you have absolutely no knowledge or understanding except what you’ve been spooned by somebody else, you did turn to your generation’s major resource for “proving” another wrong—Dr. Google. And what did you turn up?  Why an authority like me!  Sweet heavens!  I’m honored. I’m not usually considered an authority by guys from your generation. Again, I say, I’m positively honored.

More importantly, Ben, you still are only thinking a quarter of an inch deep but a quarter of a mile wide. What you quote means jack squat to the points I made here. Dr. Allen was defending his use of Phil Johnson’s quotations in that article. Why? Because James White went on a rampage dubbing him a liar, a fraud, a virtual ignorant theological nincompoop. James White had been doing best what James White does—“you, sir. are a liar.” That’s the essence of James White’s “apologetic” against those whom he has little respect—in this case, David Allen.

So yes, it’s not surprising you found Johnson’s name “no less than 20 times”. So what?  Allen’s post was defending his use of a Johnson quote in the very same sense I would defend my use of a quote when  I quote someone since I have a high regard for quoting people accurately. Moreso could be said about Allen.

Hence, your conclusion that my statement regarding your error about Allen building his case of White's Hyper-Calvinism based solely upon Phil Johnson's little booklet on Hyper-Calvinism not following since Allen was “awfully emphatic about Johnson being applied to White in his presentation and spent a ton of time talking about it afterward” makes no sense whatsoever. Allen was defending his use of Johnson in his presentation.

What is more, even if one granted Johnson’s view was misunderstood by Allen, like I said, Allen had already quoted at least three Calvinist scholars—Hulse, Murray, Daniel—who gave the essence of Hyper-Calvinism from their standpoint; namely, denying God’s salvific love for all people. And, Allen contended his understanding of Johnson’s view agreed perfectly with three other well-known scholars--Hulse, Murray, and Daniel. That’s the point of my authoritative post you cite. Allen was defending his use of Johnson.

D) And just why would White have needed to have brought up Johnson in his video when in your first comment to me you brought him up, Ben?-- “It's funny that Dr Allen used Phil Johnson's primer on Hyper-Calvinism to claim that Dr White is a a Hyper-Calvinist..”  Even so, White most certainly did indicate that Yarnell contradicted and/or corrected “his boss” with what he said about Hyper-Calvinism, and went on to completely skew what Allen said was the reason he believed White was a Hyper-Calvinist. Allen connected Hyper-Calvinism to White via the denial that God salvifically loves all people. That’s explicitly written in the book and forthrightly stated in Allen’s presentation, Ben. But, of course, you haven’t consulted either.

E) Yes, you are a parrot, Ben. You come on here speaking only what you find elsewhere based on others' commentaries (Allen's blog post is irrelevant since it was subsequent to the original sources and a defense of Allen's use of a source in those sources). You consulted nothing from the source documents. Nothing. You only quoted from an authoritative blog post that was irrelevant to the point here—namely, what David Allen claimed in his book and at the J316C. The blog post was an after-the-fact defense of his use of a particular source. Polly want a cracker?

F) Yes, Ben, but you only show by digging up blog posts your primary concern is not in securing what Allen actually said and wrote which is what James White was all lathered up about. You’re still stuck on what others said. Why don’t you actually check the original sources?  Stop being guided around with a bit in your mouth. Think for yourself. Stop parroting other people’s criticisms. At least have the tenacity to make them your own by investing in the actual sources.

 

[Max]

Lydia writes "The biggest problem is we are sending out little boys to do grown up jobs. They are not seasoned, have little wisdom ..."

Whew! Dear Lydia, you now have me concerned that the SBC will soon become one large youth group with the kids running it! Church plants/splits with "elders" in their 20s-30s should concern us all. Before you know it, one of these rascals might even belittle altar calls and the sinner's prayer!

When one of the kids locks himself in the bathroom with the water running and the dog barking, call 911! Seriously, folks, we need to pray.

[peter lumpkins]

Lydia,

Uh oh! You wrote, "And that is because they have not been trained in critical thinking skills. They have been indoctrinated." And I wrote, "I don’t know what could more represent what rightly is called indoctrination than what you've just done."

Our cover is blown. JD Hall now has positive proof we are the same person! :^)

[Mark]

Ben,

You may not condone abusive and aggressive tactics that occur in all denominations including those that are practice by Calvinist.

For me, the only abuse I endured was by a preacher that wouldn't fully disclose his doctrine and the methodology he use to "Reform" an unknowing church.
(in the end he only revealed the book of "TULIP")

The garbage I endured when I attempted to understand his Methodology which he only proclaimed as "Truth" was rebuke for questioning his methods.

He went through seminary or was mentored by somebody teaching this Methodology of preaching a reckless interpretation of scriptures that lacked love, to many preachers.

Go on line and type in Covert Calvinist or Stealth Calvinist and your screen will fill up. Our Church is still trying heal after nearly 2 years after our former Pastor's departure.

[Lydia]

"Whew! Dear Lydia, you now have me concerned that the SBC will soon become one large youth group with the kids running it! "

Max, In my neck of the woods, that is exactly what it looks like.

"Our cover is blown. JD Hall now has positive proof we are the same person! :^)"

Peter, Absolutely no offense here but you would make a very unattractive woman. :o)

Thing is, even when I vehemently disagree with you, your arguments still require me to actually think.

I cannot say the same for the YRR positions which pretty much boil down to: "You too!", "Well, Johnny does it, too!", "sinners sin so what do you expect", "you just don't understand it", "you obviously do not believe God is Sovereign", "Don't you believe your heart is wicked?", "You don't understand the bible"...and so on, ad nauseum.

Not a lot of thinking is required in that movement. They must rely on insults and finger pointing. It is like mass narcissism or perpetually stuck in the emotional world of a 13 yr old.

[Byron Smith]

Wow, Dr. Matthew McKellar was my preaching professor at BMA Seminary in Jacksonville, TX, around 2006. I was not his best student, but he was an excellent teacher. He is passionate about living the faith and worshiping. He decided to leave the seminary after I dropped out and pursue a teaching career I heard, but I had no idea what had happened to him since I had no way to contact him. I greatly respect him, and I also respect Dr. Yarnell on the opposing side of this issue, though I do not know him well. Thank you for making this video available. I do not keep up with religion or doctrine much any more, but I imagine this exchange would be both enlightening and helpful for those who are interested.

[Max]

"Our Church is still trying to heal after nearly 2 years after our former Pastor's departure" (Mark)

"I do not keep up with religion or doctrine much any more" (Byron)

Men, you both struck a nerve in my soul. I am praying for you tonight.

[Scott Shaver]

Byron:

When it comes to keeping up with a lot of doctrine and religion these days (SBC versions especially), some of us have forgotten just how much bliss there really is in ignorance.

Consequently, I would say that makes you a very smart man and highly more pleasant to interact with than some of us gadflys.

[Paul Owen]

Titus 1:5 allows for either an Episcopal or Anabaptist interpretation. It refers either to the appointment of various elders in Crete to serve as the "bishop" (1:7) of each city in the region, or it refers to the appointment of various elders in Crete according to the number of congregations in each city (with at least one bishop for every congregation in each city). Neither of these models rules out assistant pastors who may share the bishop's burden if the needs of the congregation (or diocese) make it necessary.

[Ben Simpson]

Peter,

I was busy with more important things on Saturday and Sunday than replying to your comment, as I’m sure you were as well.

Here’s the problem with trying to have a conversation with you. I asked a simple, straightforward question that was born out of a heart of nothing other than simply wanting to know. I had no desire to search through your 1,300+ posts. Why would I when we were in an ongoing thread together, and all you had to say was “yes” or “no” to my question?

As for my question, "Do you agree with Dr Allen that Dr White is a Hyper-Calvinist?", there was no ulterior motive, no desire to capture you in a gotcha moment. I simply was curious, and that’s that. Yet, you go on the defensive and circled way, way around the question before you finally answered it. But, you don’t just answer the question, you had to also deliver a tirade of ad hominem at me with an extra dose of sarcasm and mockery that is meant to belittle and tear down. Sadly, you or one of you cohearts here will probably mock what I’ve written here as well.

It must be tough living in your world where you believe that everybody is plotting and positioning to get you. Frankly, I believe you have a huge tell-tale heart. Certainly, the mouth speaks (or in this case, the hands speaking for the mouth) out of the overflow of the heart (Matthew 12:34).

I know you say you don’t care what people think about you, but I’d encourage you to consider afresh Proverbs 22:1, “A good name is to be more desired than great wealth, Favor is better than silver and gold.”

At any rate, thank you for answering my question, Peter.

[peter lumpkins]

Why, thank you, Ben. I've not been complimented so thoroughly by a YRR in quite a while.

And, I'm afraid if "parrot" is your idea of a "tirade of ad hominem at [you] with an extra dose of sarcasm and mockery that is meant to belittle and tear down" I have no real defense.

But yes, I will continue to use monikers like this when I feel they are both appropriate and accurate. James White's slice-n-dice methods of dealing with any number of Southern Baptists routinely dubbing them "liars" "deceivers" "heretics" only to name a few is passed over--all the while you defend him--and you tag me because I analogously refer to you as a parrot.

But this is the bottom-side-up world of Baptist blogging now isn't it, Ben?

[Ben Simpson]

Peter,

I wasn't addressing White's ad hominem. I was addressing yours, which was aimed at me and was so much more than calling me a "parrot." You are right that you have no real defense.

Furthermore, I never defended White one bit. In fact, I never said one way or the other about whether or not he's a Hyper-Calvinist. I did simply ask you if you think he's one and then mentioned that I think it's funny the primary man that Allen used to claim White is a Hyper-Calvinist disagrees with Allen. But, let's not let the facts get in the way of a chance for you to be condescending.

[Lydia]

"I asked a simple, straightforward question that was born out of a heart of nothing other than simply wanting to know. I had no desire to search through your 1,300+ posts. Why would I when we were in an ongoing thread together, and all you had to say was “yes” or “no” to my question?"

Ben, Here is your "yes" in Peter's response to you upthread:

"I’ve personally identified only two contemporary men as Hyper-Calvinists—Robert Reymond and James White"

Perhaps you did not recognize it as a "yes"?

He even goes as far to point you in the direction of "proof" you guys constantly demand.

[Lydia]

"It must be tough living in your world where you believe that everybody is plotting and positioning to get you. Frankly, I believe you have a huge tell-tale heart. Certainly, the mouth speaks (or in this case, the hands speaking for the mouth) out of the overflow of the heart (Matthew 12:34).

I know you say you don’t care what people think about you, but I’d encourage you to consider afresh Proverbs 22:1, “A good name is to be more desired than great wealth, Favor is better than silver and gold.”
"

Ben, You sound like you are taking CJ Mahaney lessons in proof texting. :o)

A good name, of course, depends on the YRR seal of approval as they believe they are the arbiters of such things.

No thanks.

They support positions and some people I find reprehensible

[peter lumpkins]

Ben

You say “I wasn't addressing White's ad hominem” concerning which I say, Precisely! My initial comment addressed just that. What did you do? Ignore it and state how “funny” you found it concerning David Allen’s defense in quoting Phil Johnson, a “funny” assertion I was not about to let stand without setting the record straight on Allen’s use of Johnson along with three other notable Calvinists who said exactly what Allen suggested Johnson said.

Nor do the labels James White routinely plaster publicly about those whom he disagrees ad hominems—at least in any normal sense. Calling people a “liar” and “deceiver” may be virtually the same in your ethical hierarchy, Ben, but not mine. Again, you simply ignore the obvious and continue to log irrelevant responses.

Yes, I do have evidence you’re a “parrot” and logged it on this thread.  People can make up their own minds as to whether it’s enough to substantiate my claim.

Nor did I suggest you defended White’s Hyper-Calvinism. Again irrelevant to anything I’ve written.

Nor did you “simply ask” if I thought White a Hyper-Calvinist, Ben. Look at your own words, man. You teased the thing out suggesting Allen "categorically" alluded to White as a Hyper-Calvinist as if I implied Allen did no such thing. I pointed this out but you denied it, and that with the words logged right on the thread.

So, no Ben, you didn’t “simply ask” but even asked again after you admitted the question irrelevant. What is more, my response to you was a yes. But you didn't like the way I framed it so you pooh-poohed that response. Furthermore, you brought up googling about James White and Hyper-Calvinism, but when I suggested had you googled a search pertaining to my position on White’s hyper-Calvinism, you pooh-poohed that suggesting you don’t have time to google 1300 posts.  I wish you could experience on this end what I’m getting from the spastic comments you’re logging, Ben. I honestly don’t know what you want to do or say sometimes.

Finally, rather than “simply ask” you correctly noted in your last comment that you mentioned you thought “it's funny” that the “primary man” that Allen used to claim White is a Hyper-Calvinist disagrees with Allen. I’m afraid that’s not “simply asking” Ben. Instead that’s a direct challenge you offered as to what Allen actually said both at the J316C and in Whosoever Will, neither source of which you bothered to check before popping off about it. What was your first source? James White’s version above (now tell me “parrot” is not applicable). And both sources will demonstrate the opposite of what you claim--Johnson was not the primary source Allen used to tie White into Hyper-Calvinism; rather he used many sources.

In addition, the way Allen tied White into Hyper-Calvinism was not what White explicitly said, something you continue to ignore. Allen even said this in the post you linked had you read it in full:

"I never suggested that the basis of my charge regarding White’s hyper-Calvinism was that he does not engage in evangelism or that he does not proclaim the Gospel.

Again, the actual basis of my charge was that White denies that in any sense does God desire the salvation of all by God’s revealed will. White did not answer the actual grounds of my charge in his replies. Rather, he evasively changed the basis of my charge, creating a straw man argument which he then sought to refute."

Hence, White was already misstating why Allen linked him to Hyper-Calvinism within a month of the first J316C, a misstating you and others allow him to continue to do at Dr. Allen's expense. White misstated Allen's reason for linking him to Hyper-Calvinism on the present video critique I linked above, and added even another misstatement--i.e. Yarnell corrected Allen on Hyper-Calvinism. This is pure nonsense but White gets a free pass on it from guys like yourself, Ben.

You imply that my position is stated regardless of “facts.” I’m afraid it’s you, Ben, trying to argue a position when you don’t know the facts at all. How could you? You’ve not read the sources? All you know is what you’ve been spooned by another. I’m sorry if that’s offensive to you, Ben. But I hope you’ve learned a lesson. Namely, don’t come here challenging something we say without having the same sources we use. You won’t get by with it. Not here.

And, if that’s condescending, so be it.