Guest blog by Andrew Lindsey
Congregational singing: “I Love to Tell the Story”
The speaker from each of the five points was on the panel. Dr. Patterson had to leave so that his alternate, Dr. Malcolm Yarnell took his place for Total depravity.
Dr. Vines announced that he would like to have at least one Calvinist and one non-Calvinist address each one of the five points.
Panelist #1:
Dr. John Voight (sp?) pastor from Rome, GA and author of The False God of Calvinism: Did I understand Dr. Patterson correctly to say that he affirmed Total depravity to the point that this depravity will not be removed until we are in heaven?
Yarnell: Dr. Patterson’s view, as I understand it, is that we are all effaced by sin.
Dr. Voight: Depravity is that we are moving away from God, are we still moving away from God after we are redeemed?
Yarnell: Our sin nature is dead, but there is a struggle. It’s like a chicken running around with its head cut off. This means that there is a battle, which is sanctification.
Michael Smith from Rome, GA: Dr. Patterson referenced Ephesians 2, which talks about spiritual death, but then he transitioned to physical examples; can we differentiate between spiritual and physical death?
Yarnell: We should be shooting for a Monist position- I find it difficult to separate our spirit from our body, and to talk about the spirit being dead within a live spiritual body. Adam and Eve did immediately die spiritually, and their bodies died later. I don’t think that in Ephesians 2 when Paul talked about people being spiritually dead and yet doing things, he was trying to explain a distinction between the spirit and the body… If we believe that a human being is inactive in his sinful state, then we do not have to talk about his will, the will does not exist. Dr. Patterson and I do not believe that Scripture talks about people in this way.
Panelist #2:
[Did not catch name]: If a person believes that they’re saved by Jesus, but believes that there might be other paths to heaven, could that person be saved?
Land: I don’t know what that has to do with election, but I’ll try to answer it. We have in our minds, even as saved people, departmentalized attitude structures. The idea that there may be salvation apart from Christ is a very serious departure from Scripture, but my default position is Romans 10:9, and if someone has confessed Jesus as Lord and believes in their heart concerning the resurrection- and we do need to talk about what these things mean- I believe that they are saved even if wrong on other important issues.
Jason Sturkey (sp?) pastor from South Carolina: Romans 9 speaks of vessels of wrath and nations are comprised of individuals, how can you say that no-one is
Land: Eternal salvation is not in play in Romans 9-11. Objections of the Jews are anticipated, and nations are in view. What has helped me is the distinction between Abrahamic election, which is a corporate election to covenant people status, rather than salvific election.
David Hagan, a non-Calvinist from Rehobath Baptist Church: Are we saved by faith?
Land: We are not saved by our faith, [I hate to admit that I missed the rest of this response- Andrew].
Panelist #3:
[Did not catch name] from Oakwood Baptist Church: Can we say that Christ did not die for Hitler?
Allen: Christ died for all, including Adolf Hitler. Christ’s death is extrensically (sp?) sufficient for the sins of the whole world. The Limited atonement position is that there is nothing salvific in Christ’s death for the non-elect.
Brian Jolly, layman from Baptist church in Gainesville, GA: Could you give a brief response to the double payment argument?
Allen: Neither Calvin nor Scripture uses the double payment argument. The double payment argument fails to differentiate between commercial payment and penal debt (Dabney, A.A. Hodge, Charles Hodge and others note this). In a commercial debt, such is a payment at a restaurant, accepting double-payment is unjust. In a legal debt a moral element is involved. Say there were six men in prison and a king says, ‘My son will pay your debt, and you will be released on the condition that you join the army.’ The son pays the penal debt, but there may be some unwilling to join the army, and the king is not unjust for not releasing those prisoners. Many other Calvinists
[Keathley added that this objection is legal and not Scriptural and that the objection has been answered by the Supreme Court in a case where President Andrew Jackson pardoned a man sentenced for death, but this man refused the pardon, and the Court ruled that a pardon refused is no pardon at all.]
Thomas Dickerson from Atlanta, a former PCA memeber and former Reformed Baptist who feels that there was no power in his experience in Reformed circles, and that he was not saved when he was Reformed: What will the Southern Baptist Convention do about Calvinism?
Allen: The Southern Baptist Convention by virtue of our ecclesiology cannot dictate from the top down what to do about Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention. What we can do is what we’re doing here and what Building Bridges did, which was a good thing. It would be a mistake for the SBC to tell all Calvinists to “get out of dodge,” it would also be wrong to have Calvinism as a Convention cause. The last thing that we need is for the Convention to become a Calvinist Convention, or to get rid of all Calvinists. This issue is not going away
Panelist #4
Al Andrews, layman from Macon, GA: What are your thoughts about a church staff with both Calvinists and non-Calvinists where there is tension?
Lemke: We probably need to do a lot better job in viewing potential staff members to make sure they are a good fit for our congregation. One thing that some have experienced is where someone is dishonest in direct questions about there beliefs. We need to be more careful
Panelist #5:
Todd Burroughs, a “Calvinist”: A comment and a question: a) I do not think that it has been clearly stated that Calvinists do not believe in determinism. b) How do we know that we believe?
Keathley: a) Read Jonathan Edwards, Bruce Ware, Frame and others- Calvinists do teach determinism. b) I know when I put my faith in this chair. Faith is something very basic and simple. I do believe that faith is a gift.
Burroughs: Why don’t you have confidence in a person who joins a church and then does not live like a Christian for 40 years before he dies?
Keathley: There is a volitional aspect to trust, that’s why I said “trust” and not simply believe. James does warn us about faith as a mere mental assent, but works in James are not the basis of assurance, they are from an assured faith.
Final question:
Mike Chambers, pastor from North Carolina: At what point are we not iron sharpening iron, but caught in the mire that keeps us from evangelism?
Yarnell: I want you to notice how Dr. Vines structures this Conference. We had five of the finest Southern Baptist theologians; we started and ended with gospel preachers. We need to focus on preaching the Word.
Dr. Emir Caner was announced.
Comments (21) »
1. Thomas Twitchell
November 7, 2008
6:35 PM
So, Yarnell and Keathley are advocating the heresy of Molinism, still. And no one, not one, is wondering why we should return to Rome?
‘My son will pay your debt, and you will be released on the condition that you join the army.’ So, Allen does believe in instrumental salvation. Hmm, so he is a Romanist, after all. The semi-Pelagians just cannot cut the cord. Rome is still the sustenance of their life. Jesus’ statement in Jn 17 about his consecration of himself for the preservation, santification and salvation of his bride means to Allen, that the Father didn’t give her to him? That Rebekah was not known to the Holy Spirit before, that the Servant could get a bride for His Son from the nations all around? Allen blasphemes the Father and the Son by calling them liars. Jesus prayed only for those given him and not the Judas’, and it was for them and them alone that he said he consecrates himself. Hebrews, and Dr Allen being the expert should know, says that it is the High Priest who sanctifies Himself for the congregation. The congregation is not divided, is it? What blood has been wasted? Why does Allen insist on making the blood of Christ a common thing that must have the efforts of man added to it to make it efficacious?
2. Gene M. Bridges
November 7, 2008
9:16 PM
Allen: Neither Calvin nor Scripture uses the double payment argument. The double payment argument fails to differentiate between commercial payment and penal debt (Dabney, A.A. Hodge, Charles Hodge and others note this). In a commercial debt, such is a payment at a restaurant, accepting double-payment is unjust. In a legal debt a moral element is involved. Say there were six men in prison and a king says, ‘My son will pay your debt, and you will be released on the condition that you join the army.’ The son pays the penal debt, but there may be some unwilling to join the army, and the king is not unjust for not releasing those prisoners. Many other Calvinists
—-Some people don’t understand what they read, or they pass on information selectively. Here’s what Charles Hodges actually does:
In his ST, Vol.2 , he speaks of the difference between a commercial payment view (pecuniary) and a penal view. He isn’t denying “double payment.” In fact, he actually employs the DP concept within a few paragraphs. The difference lies not in the “double payment” (eg. double jeopardy) argument, but in the idea that under the former view, Christ’s sufferings are “so much for so much,” - a “micromanagement” view of the atonement, such that, the latter view replies that would mean that Christ would suffer “more” if one more person was added to the number of the elect. That, says, Hodge, is where the differences end. The similarity begins where , under BOTH views once justice is satisfied, it cannot then be exacted a second time. He bases this on the nature of a satisfaction - once made, it is satisfied, and the people for whom satisfaction is made must be given to Christ as a reward - His life for His people.
Allen: Christ died for all, including Adolf Hitler. Christ’s death is extrensically (sp?) sufficient for the sins of the whole world..
Notice the difference…we affirm Christ’s death is INTRINSICALLY sufficient for the sins of the whole world with respect to the perfection of the sacrifice. Sufficiency is qualitative, not quantitative. It is related not to some sort of extrinsic value, but the perfection of the victim.
If this sort of “theology” is the best the Conference could muster, Calvinism will have a long life ahead of it in the SBC.
3. Thomas Twitchell
November 7, 2008
9:35 PM
“but the perfection of the victim.” Thankyou, gene.. That is what the book of John and Hebrews is getting to when speaking of Christ’s consecration/sanctification on our behalf. He is clear that what he is doing and going to do will sanctify forever those given him by the Father, which he distinguishes from those for who his consecration is not intended. John I think also addresses this when considering the satisfaction of Christ’s blood for the sin of the whole world. Because of the perfection of it in the sacrifice of the Son, it does all that it was intended to do, justification, sanctification, thoroughly salvific and therefore we need not worry that we will not be perfected. For that perfection is “in” Christ and is not dependent upon us coming out of the jail cell.
4. Thomas Twitchell
November 7, 2008
9:46 PM
A question. Was Caner announced as being there? Did he address anything for the crowd?
5. donsands
November 7, 2008
10:17 PM
“Eternal salvation is not in play in Romans 9-11.”
I think you need to back up to chapter 8:33 which flows into 9-11. Then 9:1 reads, “I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, … who are Israelites, “
Paul says he wishes he could give up his eternal salvation for Israel.
Then in 10:1 “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.”
Salvation is not in play here?
God will have mercy on whom He decides to. Why He ever had mercy on me, I’ll never know, probably not even when I reach glory.
6. grigs
November 8, 2008
12:24 AM
Hodge and Edwards are determinists? I am sure Edwards would have loved to know that given he wrote an entire book defending the both the freedom of man and the sovereignty of God.
7. Gene M. Bridges
November 8, 2008
2:22 AM
All determinism means is that:
God has decreed all things. This speaks to certainty.
The decrees are enacted by various means, which are also decreed. This speaks to modality.
Men act according to their natures, which act according to their greatest desires. This speaks to causality.
That’s it. 2 agents, God and man: Of God: 1 decree, various modes of execution. Of man, various desires, the dominant mode of which man chooses. In that sense, men’s choices are “determined,” eg. determined by their natures. In that sense, yes, Hodge and Edwards are/were determinists.
There 2 sorts of determinism, in general: Hard and Soft.
The WCF/LBCF2/Savoy are implicitly softly determinist. Most opponents of Calvinism get hung up on determinism w/respect to God and forget about determinism with respect to man and they forget modality, as if the decrees are enacted in the same mode. They therefore wind up confusing certainty (the decree) with causality (the execution of the decree).
The alternative is libertarian freedom, which the Bible expressly denies. LFW is not exegetically derived from the BIble.
8. Bernard
November 8, 2008
3:53 AM
On Determinism
The argument is not Determinism versus Free Will.
The argument is Determinism versus Fatalism.
Determinism says that God’s will will happen because of what people do.
Fatalism says that God’s will will happen whatever people do.
A determinist would be car driver, believing it is God’s will to protect him when he drives, will act responsibly. He will learn to drive, take his test and drive carefully. Where fatalism rules, as in India, a people just get in the car and go. If it is God’s will that they live that day that is what will happen. If it is God’s will that they die that day, that is what will happen. Driving skill and care are irrelivent.
9. Mark@DR
November 8, 2008
6:28 AM
Keathley: “I put my faith in this chair”
?????????? I feel a Neil Diamond song coming on…
What a strange panel discussion.
10. Jim Swindle
November 8, 2008
7:19 AM
Thomas Twitchell speaks of “the heresy of Molinism.” I’d never heard of Molinism, but looked it up. I don’t see that it’s a heresy any more than Arminianism or Calvinism. We need to be careful before we call people heretics…especially if we give no evidence for our claims. Too many people think everyone who disagrees with them theologically is a heretic. According to Wikipedia, William Lane Craig holds to Molinism. I see no reason whatever to call him (or anyone else) a heretic because of holding to Molinism. There are plenty of real heresies and real heretics. We don’t need to invent them where they don’t exist.
11. Andrew Lindsey
November 8, 2008
9:23 AM
Thomas:
Dr. Emir Caner was simply announced at the very end as the new president, I believe, of Truett-McConnell (sp?).
Dr. Vines simply said, “I wanted y’all to meet him.”
Dr. Caner was not on stage and did not address the Conference.
12. Drew
November 8, 2008
10:49 AM
There are two things I found interesting here.
1. Did you notice that no one answered Al Andrews question about what a church staff should do made up of both Calvinists and Non-Calvinists. They just said that churches should be more thorough and careful in hiring staff. But what about a staff with both?
And I think I am going to start asking for examples about all these supposed Calvinists who are infiltrating churches and openly lying about their calvinism so as to get in a secretly reform a church. I have lots of Calvinistic friends and none of them are out to deceive churches! That is called slander and I think these men need to start being more careful about it. I know just as many stories about churches mistreating their pastors who were open about their theological postions.
2. Did you also notice how Yarnell said, “we have 5 of the finest Baptist theologians here” only they all come from the same theological bent. That is what is seriously flawed about this conference, you have these preachers telling a bunch of pastors what Calvinists believe without a single Calvinist to respond! There are some things they have said in this conference that I am like, “yep, that is what I believe” and others that I think are a gross misrepresentation of Calvinism and wouldn’t last a second if the brought some other great Baptist theologians in for some balance.
For instance—Keathley’s claim that Dr. Schriener’s view of assurance is akin to Trent is ridiculous and a gross misrepresentation of an excellent baptist theologian.
It could be said that Keathley’s view is leaves open the possibility of Christians who don’t bear fruit!
Anyway I have said enough—I need to go repent from the bitterness that has built up in my heart over this conference!
13. donsands
November 8, 2008
11:39 AM
“you have these preachers telling a bunch of pastors what Calvinists believe without a single Calvinist to respond!”
It would always be nice to have both sides, wouldn’t it?
I have many non-reformed friends in Christ. Actually, I’m amazed that they accept me as they do, for their mindset of the Tulip, especially the L is one that hates saying Jesus died for the elect, those whom He set His love upon. They hate it. But they love me. And we serve and worship Christ together.
I pray the same would happen within this portion of the Body of Christ. It would be a great light to a dark world, and glory to our Father. Amen.
14. Gene M. Bridges
November 8, 2008
6:54 PM
According to Wikipedia, William Lane Craig holds to Molinism. I see no reason whatever to call him (or anyone else) a heretic because of holding to Molinism.
To a certain extent I agree…but the Bible expressly forbids us from walking according to the philosophy of this world…and WLC in his own writing on this subject has clearly stated that the evidence for Molinism is not exegetical, it is philosophical - which is one of the weird things I see here, namely the objections that Keathley in particular offers are typically philosophical arguments:
1. Libertarian Free Will is a philosophical, not an exegetical argument.
2. Molinism is a philosophical, not an exegetical, argument. All a Molinist can show from the Bible is that God knows counterfactuals. Well, “Duh,” Calvinists don’t deny that - the issue why God knows them. In Calvinism, this knowledge is a part of His self-knowledge. He knows them because He knows His decree. He knows His decree because He knows Himself, and therefore He knows what He did not decree.
3. His Supreme Court example is a philosophical argument - but if He’d bother to read Hodge and others, they don’t merely offer this as a “legal,” philosophical argument, rather they make an exegetical case for it as well. In C.Hodge’s case, He argues it on the basis of the Covenant of Redemption.
15. Thomas Twitchell
November 8, 2008
8:34 PM
Well Jim, what can I say…
The men at this conference in one way or another, either expicitly or implicitly have called Calvinism heresy. And you’re right that we should be careful. So I am trying to be. All Arminianisms contain this category of heresy, i.e. that God’s knowledge is at some point contingent.
C.M. McMahon: …Turretin states the heresy and objections well, “The question is not whether God knows future contingencies…Rather the question is whether they belong to a kind of middle knowledge distinct from the natural and free [knowledge He already possesses of all things]. The latter we deny…therefore the question is whether besides the natural knowledge (which is only things possible) and the knowledge of vision (which is only of things future), there may be granted in God a certain third or middle knowledge concerning conditional future things by which God knows what men or angels will freely do without a special decree preceding (if placed with these or those circumstance in such an order of things). The Jesuits, Socinians, and Remonstrants affirm this; the orthodox deny this.” (Institutio, v1, Page 214)
Middle Knowledge is a non-entity. The reasons for this are many: First, both natural and free knowledge embrace the knowing of all things for God. There is nothing left to know after these. There is nothing in the nature of any thing whatsoever which is not possible or future. God’s knowledge cannot be said to move out of these bounds. He knows all things possible or future before the foundations of the world. Middle knowledge, then, is a non-entity. Second, no future conditional thing can be knowable before the divine decree. Thus, things not true cannot be foreknown as true. Third, all things are under the power of God’s providence, and thus, no thing can be independent of that providence. Fourth, the Bible does not ascribe to God any type of knowledge this is uncertain (the author is aware of the resurgence of “Open Theism” which is adequately dealt with by Bruce Ware in his book, “God’s Lesser Glory”). Molina would have God confused about all things since God’s knowledge is dependent upon the free acts of men. Thus, any knowledge about any thing in the created order would necessitate that all knowledge God has about the universe would be contingent upon the free acts of men in that universe - which is nonsense. God, then, would simply be a resurrected kind of “Zeus” figure from ancient mythology. Fifth, middle knowledge destroys the dominion of God over creation since all acts are not preformed by God’s decree, but the acts itself. Man, then, becomes “God.”
Molina did not place truth in is proper context. God’s knowledge of reality is not based upon that which is contingent, but His own nature.”
You can find this here:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/McMahonHeresyMiddleKnowledge.htm
This is a first eschelon error and in all Arminianisms, the contingency heresy appears. The L in tulip is central because is above the others speaks to the decress of God. As one of my former Deacons at a SBC church told me, “God did not know my name until I chose him” and this was after he admitted that God knew the choice he would make. In other words, God could know somethings, but other things, were just not his to know until man acted, if man was to have free-will. God knew his choice as future, but he knew it in reality only at the time it was made. Whereever contingency arises it denies the essential nature of God. It is heresy. All Arminianisms contain it in some sense which is why those at this conference are comfortable with the suggestion of going back to the Jesuit doctrine of middle knowledge and are willing to accept, even embrace Molinism.
Just like our Arminian brothers consider us heretics, so I also return upon their heads: “What is truth.” They have stated and intend to not to let the false teaching of Calvinism stand. Do not be deceived, there is no neutrality and they know it. The two systems are incompatible. And as Dr. Allen said, what really matters is what Scripture says. For the doctrine of inerrency to stand, the authority of Scripture also must. The Scripture cannot state two mutually exculsive truth claims at once, and be inerrent. While we may tolerate one another in error, we cannot receive as acceptable truth that which denies the Scripture. Call it what it is, and when Keathley or Yarnell, or any others expressly suggest that we formalize it, they are not just in error, they are advocating the embrace of heresy. As scholars, pastors, teachers, they are without excuse.
I invite you to read McMahon. You might also want to check out the entries at Triablogue concerning contingency. Past that I am concerned with the approach that we must take. Those building pyres are all to ready to throw Calvinists who want to build bridges upon them. What I cannot understand is our reluctance to speak out like the reformers of old. They, it seems, had far more backbone and actually used the words their definitions demand.
16. John Meche
November 8, 2008
10:45 PM
“Yarnell: I want you to notice how Dr. Vines structures this Conference. We had five of the finest Southern Baptist theologians; we started and ended with gospel preachers. We need to focus on preaching the Word.”
i.e. “We’re still gospel centered as long as we’re not Calvinists”
17. Bernard
November 9, 2008
5:03 AM
Regarding Molinism
Original Molinism was a way of reconciling the full sovereignty of God with Human Free Will.
It can be explained in 2 ways.
A
1. Decided what every action in history would be.
2. God forsaw every possible unfolding of history according to freewill acts.
3. God put into effect one possible unfolding of human history by freewill acts that exactly agreed with his predetermined decision as in (1).
B
God creates the conditions around every Free Will act so that the Free Will act will be that which he has predetermined it to be.
Original Molinism naturally went in the direction of Unconditional Election. Using Example A above. God first chooses who to Elect to eternal life with him, and then puts into effect a Free Will world in which he know those exact people will be saved. Most of the first two generations of Molinists in the Roman Catholic Church believed in uncondictional election, as well as many others since.
The real question for modern day Molinists in Protestant churches is - Seeing as Molinism reconciles Complete Divine sovereignty with libertarian Free Will, why can’t you accept Unconditional Election? Modern Arminian ‘Molinists’ are generally simply using Molinism as a mopping up operation. They are using it to bolt God’s providence onto Conditional Election.
18. Alex Freeman
November 10, 2008
9:38 AM
A couple of quick question.
1) Can you hold to middle knowledge with out holding to Molinism?
2) How do you interpret Matthew 11:20-24, does that not show middle knowledge?
PS: I hope I have understood everything correctly
Grace and Peace,
Alex
19. YnottonY
November 10, 2008
10:33 PM
Hi Alex,
I think one can maintain that there are logically possible worlds and not be a Molinist. For example, Paul himself says:
In other words, there is a logically possible world in which the rulers of this age, on some presupposed condition, would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.
Whether or not that alternative logical possibiliy can properly be called “middle knowledge” in a non-Molinist system is something I will have to further study. At the moment, I am inclined to think that it can be.
20. Todd Burus
November 11, 2008
3:50 AM
I was the one who made the comment about actual Calvinists (as opposed to hyper-Calvinists) not believing in determinism, and by this I did mean to imply hard determinism, because a resounding theme throughout the conference was the idea that Calvinists believe that there is no such thing as free will, and thus things like exercising faith are impossible for a Calvinist to require. In fact, I at no point recall any speaker saying something to the extent that Calvinists believe God uses the modality of human choice in order to accomplish his plan, which I think is most accurately what Edwards treatise says and what most all of us believe.
This was my greatest disappointment with the conference, though I knew it would be, that these speakers would be wholly unable to distinguish between hard-deterministic/fatalistic hyper-Calvinism and soft-deterministic/compatabilistic 5-point Calvinism, and thus just lump all of us into one pot, even though the numbers on one side dwarf those on the other.
21. Gene M. Bridges
November 11, 2008
7:49 PM
Whether or not that alternative logical possibiliy can properly be called “middle knowledge” in a non-Molinist system is something I will have to further study. At the moment, I am inclined to think that it can be.
I think you mean a non-Libertarian system, since Molinism is one of three “systems” opposed to the Calvinistic “system,” and of those three, ours is the one that denies LFW.
According to Molinism, there are 3 sorts of knowledge that God has: Natural, Free, Middle. How would one not collapse his “middle knowledge” into one of the other two. The issue arises not over whether or not there are counterfactuals of knowledge that God knows, rather the issue is why He knows them. Amyraldians, Infras, and Supras are all united in this regard: God knows what He knows because He knows what He decreed and therefore what He did not decree, like an author knows his book and what book he chose not to write. God wrote a book (His decree) and therefore the view He did not write.
See the comment stream here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/09/middle-knowledge-truth-makers-and.html#comments