Ron Vietti and Jim Crews' critics on Exposing Calvinism

Ron Vietti and Jim Crews (Vegas Campus) are co-pastors at Valley Bible Fellowship in Bakersfield, CA. Being the largest church in town, their recent exposé on Calvinism caused some Calvinists to experience complete meltdown. Vietti predicted with amazing accuracy the chatter splatter he would personally receive because of the stance he would take.

But rather than focus on what some of the more hackneyed critics had to say, I'd like to turn our attention to an open letter written by Chad Vegas,¹ Lead and Founding Pastor of Sovereign Grace Church also located in Bakersfield. I encourage the reader to follow the links to get the entire letter's content.

Vegas opened the letter by self-identifying as 'one of the local Calvinist pastors who was essentially called a "wolf," who was said to be teaching a "doctrine of demons," and who was called a "heretic on steroids."' If I recall correctly, while all of those monikers were employed within the course of the video, neither Vietti nor Crews personally identified Vegas in their talk. In fact, Veitti repeatedly affirmed he had no intentions if identifying any church or any person since he did not want to make his point into something personally destructive toward either an individual or a particular church.

That's why I find it incredible when Vegas later on in the letter writes:

I have certainly taken issue with some doctrines you have taught. I have found some of them to be not only erroneous, but heterodox. It saddens me to think that the largest church in town is teaching doctrine which is heterodox. I don't glory in these concerns (all emphasis mine)

See what I mean? On the one hand, even when, out of courtesy, Vietti refuses to name names and target specific churches, Vegas presumptuously claims Vietti named him. On the other, Vegas explicitly and personally takes exception to some doctrines Vietti teaches, and identifies those doctrines to be heresy (heterodox remains nothing more than a synonym for heretical). So, when non-Calvinists like Vietti and Crews dub doctrine they understand to be unbiblical, anti-benevolent, and downright dangerous as heresy, there's a problem. But when Vegas and other Calvinists dub some doctrines Vietti teaches heterodox, there's no perceivable problem at all.

Next, Vietti offered to his listeners a question they could ask if they were not sure what a particular church believed pertaining to the Calvinistic doctrine of double predestination. "Do you believe in divine election the way John Calvin believed in it?" In response, Vegas wrote: 

Yes. I absolutely believe Calvin properly understood the Bible with regard to the doctrines of predestination and election. Further, I think Calvin properly understood the biblical teachings of the guilt and corruption of man, the effectual nature of God's grace, the particular nature of redemption, and the perseverance of the saints. I have read much of Calvin's work and rarely find much in his commentaries or theology with which I take issue. Have you read his work? I commend it to you.

According to Vegas, he closely follows Calvin on election and predestination and apparently remains fairly proud to do so. Presumably, Vegas feels he's on the right side of the issue. Why he therefore would suggest what Vietti "represented to be Calvinist doctrine is unrecognizable to me" becomes puzzling. 'I don't recognize what you called "Calvinism"' Vegas retorts. Here is another habit far too many Calvinists practice. The old you-just-don't-understand-Calvinism line. If I had a nickel for every time either a Calvinist said that to me or I read where a Calvinist was saying that to someone else, I would have retired to Panama City Beach a long, long time ago. It's almost become expected now. What's more, Calvinists--even very inexperienced Calvinists--will make no distinction at all toward whom they feed that line. It makes no difference if the person to whom the Calvinist is addressing a biblical scholar of repute, a automotive mechanic, a secretary, a Sunday School teacher, or a seasoned seminary professor, the line will inevitably be cast, you-just-don't-understand-Calvinism.

Here's the deal.

If Calvinism is as hard to comprehend and understand as so many Calvinists imply, then we can be darn sure Calvinism is not biblical. The Bible is God's revelation of Himself. Scripture reveals God. God wants us to know Him and His will. But Calvinism conceals Him. God remains hidden behind special distinctions, uncommon definitions, endless speculations, logical obsessions, and, when all else fails, and you're backed in a corner, unfathomable mysteries which defy the obsessive logic Calvinists so often adore. God remains unknowable even when He authors a Book to reveal Himself to the world.

What is more, while Calvinists seem to make knowing God into knowing the right set of theological Propositions--Propositions apparently only Calvinists themselves can understand--God chose to reveal Himself in His Magnum Opus, the Person of Jesus Christ. It's not too much to say that in Calvinism's historic understanding of election and predestination, Jesus Christ is more an after thought, an addendum to a set of speculative intellectual Propositions than He is the Centerpiece of Divine Revelation.      

In the end, if people in general cannot understand Calvinism as so often Calvinists themselves imply, I think we can safely, without any spiritual harm whatsoever, bury Calvinism in the ash heap of useless theological speculation and go about our lives seeking God in the Scriptures and not in the theo-philosophical system historically known as Calvinism.

God says, seek me and you'll find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. Calvinism says you've got to understand the right set of Propositions to understand God. Jesus says come to Me and I'll give you rest. Calvinism says study these distinctions and learn these definitions and deduce these doctrines, and you'll be knowledgeable and orthodox. Jesus says if you know Me you'll know the Father. Calvinism says if you know theology you'll know about God. Jesus says I am the way and the truth and the life, and he or she who comes to Me, I will not cast out. Calvinism says it's impossible for everyone to come to Me since I chose before the foundation of the world everyone's eternal fate. Those I chose cannot not be saved and those I rejected cannot not burn in hell. Jesus says whosoever will let him or her come. Calvinism says whosoever God chose before they were born will come and whosoever God rejected before they were born cannot come. Jesus said God so loved the world He gave His Son. Calvinism says God so loved the elect He gave His Son. Jesus said you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. Calvinism says you cannot know the truth until you understand Calvinism.   

There are some other issues I could raise which cause me pause toward Vegas' open letter. Neither Jesus nor Paul, for example, taught Vegas' doctrine of regeneration precedes faith contrary to Vegas' claims. Only recently did a Calvinist comment on a thread here attempting to argue for the Calvinist understanding. I queried him several times to offer just one single verse which exegetically substantiates the claim that regeneration precedes faith. He continued to speak about theology while I continued to ignore his musings only to repeatedly ask for a single verse which seems to demonstrate the Calvinist doctrine that regeneration must precede faith. He could not. Not a single line. Why? Because there is no verse which demonstrates such a doctrine exists. Instead the doctrine of regeneration precedes faith is a deduction from other Calvinist teachings like total depravity and unconditional election. In other words, regeneration precedes faith is a necessary part of Calvinism even if the Bible never mentions it!

Another claim Vegas made which caught my attention was the way Vegas described Calvin's Geneva and the circumstances surrounding Servetus. Vegas claims Vietti's version was just false. He then went on to suggest what he claims is a corrective:

The city council of Geneva put Servetus to death for the heresy of denying the Trinity. Calvin was not on the city council of Geneva. Calvin was a pastor in Geneva. Servetus was on the run from the Roman Catholic Church for this heresy. He wanted to flee to Geneva, largely because far less people were put to death there than in the rest of Europe. Calvin wrote him a letter warning him not to come because the city council would try him. Servetus did not take Calvin's counsel and came anyway. He was put to death. Calvin actually asked that the city council do so mercifully. Should Calvin have spoken out more strongly against the State church and the use of capital punishment for heresy? Sure. Does his lack of doing so make him guilty of putting Servetus to death? No.

I've not read such a squeaky-clean scenario of Calvin and Servetus since James White's historical hooey he tried to pass off as scholarly correction (here, here, and here). Perhaps Vegas depended upon White's version. Perhaps further Vegas might like to engage my understanding of Calvin and Servetus, an engagement James White apparently felt he just needed leave alone.

Finally, contrary to Vegas' claim, historic mainstream Calvinism embraced what Vietti and Crews described as the ugliest doctrine they'd ever seen--babies burning in hell. A few years ago, I made this very claim on my site to the unsettling of many Calvinsts who logged on to challenge my insidious slander toward their most precious heritage. My response was to demonstrate historically what they apparently did not know. Namely, historic Calvinism has a long, rich history of teaching non-elect infants who die in infancy burn in hell.

Indeed I wrote so much about the subject, I created three categories (overlay exists) on it for my site, arguing that Southern Baptists, unlike Reformed churches, have always held a specific fondness toward concluding infants dying in infancy--elect or not--were safe (or saved): infant damnation; infant salvation; infants dying infancy. Besides these, I wrote a two part piece entitled "Calvinism and Infant Salvation: A Brief Proposal" (part 1, part 2). Those pieces should assist the reader in determining whether or not Vegas raises a legitimate point against Vietti and Crews' contention that Calvinism teaches--or at least many, many mainstream Calvinists have historically taught--babies really do burn in hell.

 

¹the pic I chose of Chad Vegas is not the best I realize. A better shot is on the church website. However, that shot is a family pic and was not appropriate for this venue.

Comments

[Andrew Barker]

Carl Petersen: "So God regenerates man so that he can freely choos eto have faith. It is a mystery how free choice and predestination come together but the bible seems to teach both."

This is just typical of the Reformed Calvinist approach to any theology which doesn't agree with their own.

1. Quote Westminister as though it carried any real weight or worse, treat it as scripture!
2. Make a statement which has no scriptural basis. ie regeneration proceeds faith
3. Set up a 'mystery' or paradox which doesn't exist except in the pages of Reformed theology eg free will/choice vs predestination
4. Assume that Calvinism/Reformed theology is 'biblical'
5. Blame the rest of us for not seeing it their way

PS you still haven't answered my question regarding how an unregenerate man can make a choice. I maintain that if you want to go with God choosing according to his good pleasure, then man does not have a choice other than to go along with what God has already predetermined. Hobson's choice I think they call it!

[Mary]

Julie, your continued condescension and elitism is disappointing. And again you demonstrate you have no clue what the majority of the people who reject Calvinism in the SBC actually believe. Here's a hint: rejecting Calvinism doesn't necessarily = synergism or Arminianism.

[Andrew Barker]

Julie: Perhaps your disappointment at Mary's ad hominem statements could be assuaged somewhat by offering us your "grammatical hermenuetic" on Eph 2:8-9?

[Andrew Barker]

I just hate it when I see sloppy grammar and words spelled incorrectly or used wrongly and even more so ..... when I'm guilty of it myself! I wish this system had an edit button ;-)

[Paul Neil]

I read regularly but rarely comment. This comment section is quite interesting.

My comment is this, can you choose without the ability to choose otherwise? I dare say no, because choice by definition denotes more than one possibility. In order to make a choice I must be be able to go in a different direction. Meanings of words cannot, or should not change because we are dealing with salvation. How can we communicate the gospel or teach the Gods Word effectively if words cease to mean what they mean?

I don't meant to offend, but if choice means choice as we all know it, the quote from the Westminster confession is found wanting, I think. Can the man who has been regenerated (prior to faith) choose not to believe? Does the man have any choice as far as being regenerated or not, in this reformed belief system?

The word that comes to mind is manipulation, with its Sunday Best on.

[Julie]

Andrew,

“I'm glad you see this as clearly, because faith is never seen as a gift in the Bible, except in the list of spiritual gifts in 1 Cor. So what is apparently 'clear' to one person is anything but clear to another!”

Clarity of sight does seem to be distributed less than universally, but I see what John Stott sees (BST series, The Message of Ephesians, p 83), along with Calvin, Hodge, Sproul, et al. These authors are doubtless familiar to you. Perhaps this kind of clarity of sight is why they are predestinarians. I read in John 3 that unless a man is first born again, he cannot see the kingdom of heaven. Thus, without regeneration no one can see, perceive, understand, act towards, believe, exercise faith, concerning those essential matters of the kingdom of heaven, most centrally Jesus as the King. By the way, this is a passage where regeneration is placed prior to faith. When Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:14 (NASB95) 14 “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” that regeneration is the very thing he needs to understand the message of the gospel, which seems clear to me to be of the essence of the things of the Spirit.

[Julie]

“You mentioned grammar, but gave no example. If you look at the grammar you will find that both grace and faith are written in the feminine form. Saved is in the masculine. This is your first problem in that the pronoun is neuter. . . . I could say more, but sometimes I think less is more than enough. I don't think the majority of scholars will support the inference that faith is grammatically the gift in these verses. Neither can you offer any other verse in support of this 'major' doctrine. It is I'm afraid just another example of the way Reformed theology runs into problems and has to manipulate verses so that they fit in line with the theology. It is essentially eisegesis at its best.”

I have no problem with your Greek analysis. It is natural to take the neuter pronoun as referring to the whole clause, “for by grace are you saved through faith,” as the antecedent. But two comments. 1) You may be right about the majority of scholars – Stott will not grant it grammatically even as he asserts it theologically – but there are some who historically have argued on the basis of the Greek that faith is the proper antecedent, and not by citing some obscure example from extra-biblical sources. See Charles Hodge for his analysis in his commentary on Ephesians. 2) What seems clear to me concerning the clause in question is that if “for by grace you have been saved through faith,” is not of myself, but a gift from God, then I am entitled to infer that the parts are also a gift. The parts make up the whole. All that is salvation, salvation by grace through faith, is a gift. All the parts make up the whole. If the whole is a gift, also then the parts.
And finally, it also seems clear to me that Eph 2:1-10 is a clear ordo salutis passage, in which Paul moves from the state of being spiritually unregenerate, vs 1-3, then to regeneration, vs 4-5, (seated with Christ as well – vs 6-7), and then on to the instrumentality of faith, vs 8-9, while finishing and summing up his salvation theme by emphasizing the idea that God has done it all by saying we are his workmanship.

[Julie]

Dear Peter,

I thought that I sent you a post that answered the question of grammar that Andrew posed to me, but since only the 1st section got posted, perhaps I didn't. Can I send that to you again?

Obviously this query need not be posted. Thanks, I just wanted a chance to answer Andrew, regarding Eph 2:8-9.

In His grace.....Julie