J.B. Nicholson, Jr.: 'Confessions of a Zero-Point Calvinist'

Undoubtedly, one of the most well-known Brethren believers remains the late Dave Hunt (1926-2013) who founded  The Berean Call. Hunt's specialty was in the area of sectarian Christianity (i.e. "cults"), broadly establishing himself as an expert in the field and often debating "cult" leaders of almost every theological stripe.¹

Sometime in the early 2000s, Hunt entered the theological battleground outside his studied specialty of Christian "cults" and began to critique a movement making waves across the evangelical landscape, including causing quite a stir among Brethren believers.² The theological movement was a resurgence of strict Calvinism, a theological resurgence which had already rooted itself deeply into the infrastructure of the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, The Southern Baptist Convention.³

Early on in Hunt's critique of Calvinism, he tangled with perhaps strict Calvinism's fiercest apologist, James White.⁴ The theological fencing through which Hunt and White slung blades culminated in two rather large volumes: a best-selling book by Hunt entitled What Love is This? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God; and Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views, a literary debate between Hunt and White.

I recently stumbled across an editorial in UPLOOK magazine, a magazine dedicated to Brethren believers' distinctives. The article was written by J.B. Nicholson, Jr. entitled "Born by the Railroad Tracks: Confessions of a Zero-Point Calvinist."⁵ While Brethren Christians like Nicholson may embrace what Baptists would insist is an unbiblical ecclesiology, I'm convinced grassroots Southern Baptists would both now, and in the past, wholeheartedly accept Nicholson's simple biblicism in expressing a well-balanced soteriology based upon the New Testament.

Below is the introduction from Nicholson's editorial (use the link below to download the entire piece):

I grew up in a passionately evangelistic assembly where we were taught the railroad track view of divine sovereignty and human freedom. I deeply admired the brethren who taught me the Word and consider it one of the best Bible schools I could have attended. These men took every word of the Bible seriously. They did not harp on particular doctrines and did not press exotic views. It was not Calvinism we heard, for man could freely accept or reject the gospel. Christ died for all, and the gospel was offered to everyone. However, having accepted Christ, we were told, a new believer discovered that he was destined for heaven before time began. Was it a real choice? Yes, they insisted. He must repent and believe the gospel in order to be saved. But could this elect person actually choose to perish? Theoretically, yes, but actually, no. God had elected him. These are parallel truths, they told us. Like railway tracks, they appear to meet at the horizon but they would only actually “meet” in the mind of God. I could not help wondering what would happen to that train of thought when the lines actually met. In these discussions I felt more like an engine spinning in the round-house. I saw the words “elect” and “chosen” in the Bible, but what did they actually mean?

In those days I rarely heard the words Calvinist or Arminian. But a caricature developed of the two views: Calvinists believed God saved you and you couldn’t lose it; Arminians believed you chose to be saved, so you could also choose to “unsave” yourself. And everyone was in one camp or the other, it was said. If that definition held, I would be with the Calvinists. But it doesn’t.

Don’t get me wrong. Some of my friends are unabashed Calvinists. Others reject the tag but believe the teaching, or most of it. And I’m surrounded by fine, hard-working Calvinists in Grand Rapids. (In this area of the country I regularly tiptoe through the TULIP.) As well, many of the representatives of evangelicalism— R. C. Sproul, D. J. Kennedy, John Stott, J. I. Packer, and now John MacArthur—promote Calvinistic soteriology.

John Calvin (1509-1564) systematized the teachings of the Reformation, largely based on Augustinian theology. Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), a scholar in the Reformed Church (who admired Calvin), questioned certain of his teachings. His followers called on the Dutch theologians to consider whether Calvin’s teachings were biblical at five points. At the Synod of Dort (1619), Arminianism was rejected, and the answer stated five points as the Church’s position. But after careful study, I find myself a 0-point Calvinist. Here’s why:

Read the entire editorial "Born By the Railroad Tracks: Confessions of a Zero-Point Calvinist by J.B. Nicholson, Jr."        

 

¹I personally recall Hunt's many appearances on The John Ankerberg Show in the 80s and 90s.

²See Mark Stevenson's "Early Brethren Believers and the Question of Calvinism." Indeed it was Stevenson's bibliography from which I pulled the present article by J.B. Nicholson, Jr.  

³Since 2006, this site has existed to inform, critique, and resist the Calvinization of the Southern Baptist Convention. Note: I'm neither personally nor theologically hostile to either Calvinists or Calvinism. I've never once on this site referred to Calvinists or Calvinism respectively as either heretics or heresy. Moreover, I think it would be a colossal mistake to expunge either strict Calvinism or strict Calvinists from contemporary SBC life since such a notion blatantly contradicts free church ecclesiology. Rather I have consistently objected to Calvinists imposing Calvinism from the top-down upon Southern Baptist people. In short, making Reformed theology the default theology of Southern Baptists. While Calvinism has historically had a rich theological heritage among and undeniable influence upon the Southern Baptist Convention since 1845, Southern Baptists are not and cannot be identified exclusively as Calvinists. To do so is both historically reductionistic and theologically misguided. Hence, I will, until my last breath, principally object to a theological takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention by overly jealous Calvinistic Baptists.  

⁴White is founder of Alpha & Omega Ministries. I used to follow White's ministry several years ago when he, as did Hunt, focused on "cult" theologies. However, when White began defending strict Calvinism from critics like Dave Hunt, his entire demeanor and ministry morphed, at least in my observation, into a kill-or-be-killed animism. He began to ruthlessly attack people rather than analyse ideas (Dave Hunt being one of those people) and has, to my knowledge, never recovered what he once had--a viable theological contribution to the discipline of comparative religion(s). I've offered several critiques of White on this site, notably critiques concerning White's scorched earth approach in responding to his critics, especially critics among Southern Baptists.

⁵The article is free and may be downloaded from the UPLOOK archives. Indeed the entire magazine may be downloaded.

Comments

[Lydia]

Interesting. Thanks for the resource. I was talking to someone the other day who graduated from Oral Roberts 20 or so years ago and had a German Calvinist for Systematic Theology. This person was not raised Calvinist at all. He explained his journey out of that thinking. It was grueling.

I was a bit taken aback that Oral Roberts was teaching Calvinism.

[eric]

The least of Oral Roberts strange teaching is Calvinism.....

[peter lumpkins]

You're welcome Lydia!

Like Regent University, ORU probably has a diverse faculty. I don't keep up with them much. I do have a good scholar friend who received his PhD from Regents. He is an excellent scholar presently teaching in a state university...

Peter

[Max]

I was literally "born by the railroad tracks" in cotton-country America; the passing trains shook our little old frame house. My family walked down a dusty road to a Southern Baptist church where I was introduced to Christ, not Calvin.

[Lydia]

Oh, I agree Eric. The point is that it was the last place I would have expected that sort of Calvinism- that long ago.

Frankly, I have met several teachers who graduated from ORU who were excellent academicians. And they did not fit my perception of ORU, if you get my drift. Taught me a good lesson, I think.

I do like the idea of a diverse faculty if everyone, including students, are aware upfront of their belief system and it is not covert. It should be a place of thinking not indoctrination.

[Lydia]

Max,

Do remember the song, "Blessed memories, how they linger..."
That came into my head reading your comment. Gotta go, that song makes me cry. :o)

[Lydia]

This is for you Max,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMd_eFVxoco

[Max]

Thanks Lydia. I do, indeed, have many precious memories of my childhood and Southern Baptist roots. For over 60 years, SBC belief and practice has seemed so right, until now ...

[eric]

Is this true Baptist history?

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/calvinism-is-not-new-to-baptists

[Scott Shaver]

Eric:

It's Kidd's take on "true Baptist history".

He miserably fails to separate in his historical overview the nuance of "Southern Baptist" history in particular from baptist history in general.

As far as baptist history in general, I would disagree that high calvinism and all its trapping were ever popular with those who saw their origins more closely linked to an anabaptist tradition.

Degrees from Baylor or anywhere else do not automatically remove the theological/historical biases of their recipients.

[Lydia]

You know what so many historians conveniently leave out? There were STILL "state churches" in American at the beginning of the 19th century. And yes, they were in the Reformed vein. Of course, there was much more freedom but the point is things were still evolving.

It is not like the individual Puritans who came here could "choose" what they believed. Well, they could and be bannished like Williams and Ann Hutchinson. Or burned like the Quakers.

Do these brilliant historians ever take into consideration how long it takes for such authoritarian and ingrained thinking about God to evolve into thinking as a free people? People were just waking up to the idea of being allowed to discern it on their own. That can take a while. They had generations behind them of obeying the state church and the choices were Reformed variations or Catholicism.

The Puritan descendents pretty much took their freedom to eschew the determinist god to Unitarianism.

History is so much more messy than what Kidd tries to present. Just read this blog for example. If you can find examples of one person/theologian questioning in writing, left for prosterity, the long held ideas of Arminian/Calvinism and presenting interpretations that are neither slated as Arminian or Calvinist, then that negates his premise.

The bigger problem before the 19th Century is most of such "heretical" writings were destroyed. NOt only here but across Europe. The victors always write the official history which is why we must read around the subject matter.

And I am convinced that without Westward Expansion, a lot of this would have fallen out very differently. That changed thinking more than anything.

[Scott Shaver]

Lydia:

Kidd obviously has networks and alliances with TGC, Acts 29 and the rest of the line-up. Why would certain historians these days not reveal their biases? Especially when it comes to the denominational history of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Additionally, I've noticed that young academics in general these days always seem to want to be the first to pen or analyse something in their respective fields of study .....different and more accurate than their peers and predecessors.

Even if it means intentional bias bleed through in the final product.

[Max]

Lydia writes "The bigger problem before the 19th Century is most of such 'heretical' writings were destroyed."

Well, of course, Lydia! The magisterial reformers have tried everything they can think of over the ages to snuff out the Anabaptists and free-church.

Scott - you are a "Seer". The things you know are down deep in your knower. What you know, you can't un-know. What you see, you can't un-see. The problem is that the young rebels who are ransacking the SBC neither know or see through a spiritual lens ... only through their intellect and that will fail them in the end.

[Lydia]

Scott, DesiringGod is not known for its scholarship but its indoctrination. The lads don't question what comes from Piperville.

Max, I can't call it intellectual because it is meant to 'stop" individual thinking and reasoning. It is ST religion and everything is laid out for you. No Holy Spirit needed.

[Max]

"... I can't call it intellectual ..."

Lydia, I'm not referring to these folks as intellectuals ... just that they have an intellect (we all have intellects - some better than others). In this case, education/indoctrination doesn't produce one ounce of revelation.

"The lads don't question what comes from Piperville."

Boy, ain't that the truth! The Pied Piper has been taking them (and us) on a ride! These young folks wait for the next one-line tweet from their icons to re-tweet as they twitter their lives away. They feed on Piper Points, Mohler Moments, and Driscoll Drivel. Yes, Pastor Mark is back ... he is making the rounds at churches which have bought into his victim message and new & improved "forgiven" ministry. I swear, American Christians are some of the most gullible people on the planet!

[Lydia]

Max, If you have been reading some of Piper's tweets over the last year or so you might be aware that the man has seriously lost it. So many of them have a very creepy sexual edge to them.

[Max]

Lydia - Thanks for the warning about the Porno Piper Points. Aberrant theology will cause you to lose your marbles after a while. Sounds like the Pied Piper is done, but he just hasn't quit yet.

[Scott Shaver]

You know, I can honestly say I don't know and have never read this Piper fellow.

From your descriptions however, sounds about par for the pop theology environment we've become huh?

[Max]

Scott, you are missing out by not reading Piper. Here's an example of one of his recent tweets:

"Don’t put a pretty collar on your sin and call the baby tiger Fluffy. It will grow up and eat you alive."

New Calvinists shout "Wow, daddy, wow!" when he writes deep stuff like that!

[Scott Shaver]

Sounds par for the age of "Tweakers"... I mean "Twitters" to me.