Baptists
and Calvinism: An Open Debate
By
John
Orlando
On October 16, 2006, Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, and Pastor
Dr. Tom Ascol, will be debating Dr. Emir Caner of Southwestern Seminary, and his
brother, Dr. Ergun Caner of Liberty University, at Thomas Road Baptist Church in
Lynchburg, VA, on the topic of Baptists and Calvinism.
For those that don’t know any better, that would seem to be a fairly simple thing: people (or in this case, teams) get together to debate in scholarly fashion an important theological difference between them that has a direct bearing on the very nature of God, man, and the Gospel itself. We would especially believe that since all of the participants are Christians, that there would be a great deal more cooperation, and certainly no mean-spiritedness. But alas, we now do in fact know better in light of the interaction between the participants leading up to the debate.
Before elaborating a bit on that, and in an effort to provide a little bit of background, I would like to spend time providing some commentary on the various interactions that have occurred on this issue (Calvinism), particularly as it is related to Dr. White.
I do not know any of the men personally that are associated with
the October 16th debate, though I have interacted with Dr. White in
his IRC (chat) channel, and I met him once at a debate he had with Bob Wilkin
back in May, 2005. I have read some of his books (the Potters Freedom most
notably), and I confess that I am a frequent flyer on his blog. I also
listen to his Dividing Line program.
All
in all, I have been acquainted with Dr. White's ministry for about 7 years.
I have seen him deal with just about every kind of personality type, and I
cannot recall a time, either in what I heard, saw, or read, where Dr. White did
not conduct himself in a scholarly, and what we might call "Christian"
manner (I will speak more about "scholarly" in a minute). I have
found Dr. White's approach to be firm, yet tempered with grace.
Straightforward, but not abrasive. Engaging, but not hostile.
Intellectually rich and challenging, yet not arrogant. The biggest point
of frustration for Dr. White, in my opinion, is that there are few--very
few--people that are willing to engage him in a fair, balanced, and what we
might say "scholarly" manner.
Now, when I say scholarly, I do not necessarily mean "academic" in
terms of one that has numerous advanced degrees and resides in the so-called
"ivory tower." By scholarly I mean any person (advanced degree or no
degree) that has thoroughly researched the topic he is discussing, and who
interacts with arguments in a mature, respectful, and well-reasoned manner.
He knows precisely what his opponent believes and why he believes it, and he
never purposely misrepresents the beliefs of his opponent. Though he
thoroughly disagrees with his opponent’s views, he nevertheless shows respect
to his opponent, if for no other reason than that his opponent is one that is
created in the image of God, and as such he does not malign his opponent’s
character. Since he has this respect, the "scholar" is
open to correction on any point, particularly when it is clearly shown that he
just did not have the correct information, or that his understanding of
something wasn't quite as clear as it needed to be. The scholar does not just
keep repeating the same false views and misrepresentations of his opponent’s
views; he does not want to simply build straw men out of his opponent’s views
and then knock them down. He wants to interact with the best
that his opponent has to offer. He truly wants to interact with the
issues. This describes Dr. White. He has proven himself to be
a scholar, not just because he has the piece of paper that says "Dr.
White", but because he conducts himself as a scholar,
and as a scholar, he wishes that his opponent would simply return the courtesy.
I must confess that I have rarely seen the courtesy returned, even by those that
have "Dr." in front of their name or those that profess to be
Bible-believing Evangelicals. Dr. White's interaction with Dr. Norman
Geisler, a popular Evangelical apologist and author, is a classic example.
Prior to Dr. Geisler's interaction with Dr. White, I respected his (Geisler's)
body of work, and thought that he was indeed a great scholar. After his
interaction with Dr. White though, Giesler’s credibility in my eyes was
greatly diminished, and now I question, rightly or wrongly, his entire body of work, because if he
was so willing to purposely misrepresent so many facts of what his brothers
in Christ (Calvinists) believed, and then still persisted with the
misrepresentations after being told that he did not have his facts correct, then
how would Dr. Geisler deal with those that are outside of the body of Christ?
If one could so easily distort what a brother in Christ believes and refuse
correction, it seems quite reasonable to believe that he would also distort and
misrepresent the facts of non-Christian belief systems that he critiques.
And then, of course, we have Dr. White's interaction with Mr. Dave Hunt,
the ever-popular Evangelical “end times” enthusiast and apologist.
Dave Hunt has done of lot of work in critiquing false religions and cults, and
many Evangelicals have held him in somewhat of a favorable light. But then
Mr. Hunt decided to embark on a full-scale crusade against Calvinism. The
result? The more Mr. Hunt talked, the more credibility he lost. It became
immediately apparent that Mr. Hunt had no earthly clue of the position he was
critiquing as he advanced one misrepresentation, distortion, and outright lie
after another. Mr. Hunt misunderstood every key point of the position he
was critiquing. In the advancing of his misunderstandings and
misrepresentations of Calvinism, he in effect constructed an entirely new
theological system, and then argued against it. The problem, of
course, is that he called the abomination that he created "Calvinism,"
and well-meaning people that may not know any better have been completely misled
concerning the real issues. What's the big deal? The big deal is
that like it or not, these are extremely important issues. And, like it or not,
if someone is going to engage the public and set themselves up as an
authoritative voice on these matters, he had better have his facts right...he
had better proceed in a "scholarly" fashion... the truth demands it,
the people deserve nothing less, and basic Christian ethics require it.
As for Hunt's crusade, there are a number of ironies. For example,
Calvinists would find themselves as equally critical of this "new" theological
aberration that Hunt created and was critiquing, though we would, of course,
have argued against it from a different basis. As a matter of fact, Dr.
White had to spend precious space in the book that he coauthored with Mr. Hunt
called Debating Calvinism to correct the misrepresentations advanced by
Mr. Hunt; misrepresentations, by the way, that Mr. Hunt was repeatedly told
about prior to the writing of the book. Dr. White had to, in essence,
"argue" against Mr. Hunt's fabricated theology that he was labeling as
Calvinism, then he had to argue against Mr. Hunt's stated position, which often
times seems to find more agreement in many ways with the condemned heresy known as Pelagianism
(http://www.carm.org/heresy/pelagianism.htm,
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism)
than it does Arminianism, and then Dr. White had to present what Calvinists actually
believe by providing clear and thorough exegetical proof, because anything less
than that is not acceptable to any serious minded Christian "scholar."
When one who understands the issues reads Debating Calvinism, it becomes
immediately apparent which person is the true scholar...which person is truly
trying to engage the issues and present a well defined and exegetically based
defense.
I have spoken to some people that try to defend Mr. Hunt's position in the book,
and they claim that he provided an exegetical response as well. The fact
that some (many) Evangelicals consider what Mr. Hunt offered as “exegesis”
speaks to the biblical, doctrinal, and historical illiteracy that is currently
plaguing the Evangelical world today. I
think it is safe to say that Mr. Hunt never engaged a single text in an
exegetically thorough and meaningful fashion. The most he would do
is give us a little cliché-ridden blurbs that would tell us what he thought the
text could not be saying, and then he would continue his tirade
against the new theology he had created, appealing primarily to human philosophy
and logic, and as Dr. White pointed out, his own tradition.
So, Mr. Hunt
never dealt with any of the primary texts under discussion where he could tell
us what the text was actually saying, and where he could both reconcile his
understanding of a text with other texts that might contradict his
interpretation, and where he could offer a counter argument to his
interpretation that dealt sufficiently with all of the data. Please know
that I am not trying to be cruel at all, but as I read through the book, I am
sad to say that I was dumbfounded by the sheer enormity of ignorance of the
topic displayed by Mr. Hunt, and the incredible volume of errors and distortions
in what he was saying. In some places I have almost every sentence circled
as an example of a distortion that he made (I plan on documenting as many of
those as I can in the near future). One could literally write a volume of
books just on the historical and factual errors made by Mr. Hunt (the classic
example being his incorrect citing of Spurgeon as one that denied Limited
Atonement), and that isn't even taking into consideration the magnitude of the
exegetical fallacies that he produced.
This
also demonstrates the weakness, if not utter futility, in debating this issue in
this kind of a format (book or any other written form). Of course, this
particular format (the book) was not Dr. White's first choice. He very
much wanted to have an open, public, officially moderated live debate, where
there could be meaningful exchange between the two sides, and where
cross-examination would serve to force the individual to deal head on with the
issues, and would demonstrate either the cogency, or the utter bankruptcy, of a
particular view.
Now, anyone familiar
with Mr. Hunt knows that brother Dave has never seen a good "fight"
that he didn't like or that he ran from, and he is to be applauded for at least
having the courage of his convictions, and he is well known for his debates with
Roman Catholics, etc. But when approached numerous times over the span of
at least a couple of years with the prospect of engaging in a public, moderated
live debate on the issue of Calvinism, Mr. Hunt chose instead to hide behind his
keyboard. The reason for the book
Debating Calvinism is because he refused invitation after invitation to
an open, public, moderated debate on these issues with Dr. White. Why?
Because, you see, it is much easier to just sit behind a keyboard and
fire away, with no one there to stop your bloviating and ask the tough
questions.
Another irony is that here you have a man in Mr. Hunt that spent a great
deal of time over the years critiquing Roman Catholicism, providing what he and
others thought was the position of the Reformation, yet Mr. Hunt, in his
critique of Calvinism, actually has been attacking the core doctrines that all
of the Reformers found to be central in their differences with Rome. To
add to the irony, the more Mr. Hunt talked and wrote, the more it became
apparent just how much more his views have in common with Rome than with the
Reformers on the key issues that separated the Reformers from Rome; Mr. Hunt's
view on divine sovereignty, the will of man, the nature of grace, etc., are not
only compatible with Roman Catholicism, but are actually essential and
foundational to the Roman system, and are antithetical, and in truth, poisonous
to any kind of Reformational//Evangelical outlook. Mr. Hunt might as well
be Erasmus, Eck, or Cajetan debating Luther, or Sadoleto debating Calvin (and
given Hunt’s slander against Calvin, something tells me he would consider this
to be an honorable thing).
Possibly the saddest part in the whole debacle was Mr. Hunt's refusal to
accept correction. Dr. White had reported that a number of people contacted
brother Dave and informed him of his misrepresentations and errors (theological
and historical), and encouraged him to make the necessary corrections. All
of it was ignored. No matter how many times the facts were put before our
brother, he simply refused to acknowledge the facts. Instead, he persisted
in advancing his false views of Calvinism, and now not only is Mr. Hunt's
credibility as a "scholar" completely obliterated, but his integrity
is also called into question. We (i.e., Calvinists) do not care if people
disagree with us, and we certainly do not mind a healthy discussion on the
issues. What bothers us is the outright distortion made by those that
disagree with us. As for Mr. Hunt's body of work in the past, and
currently, how can anyone ever take any of it as being sound? Short of Mr.
Hunt publicly repenting of his errors, and retracting all of his writings that
are clearly in error, it seems to me that he has done irreparable damage to his
reputation and his ministry, all because he refused to simply be a
Christian in his critique of the theology of another Christian. By the way, brother Dave went beyond critiquing theology to
actually passing judgment on the moral character and even salvation of
Calvinists.
Maybe
one day Mr. Hunt will decide to come out from behind his keyboard and agree to
discuss the issues in a moderated debate that has cross-examination, etc., but;
it hardly seems likely. In a certain way though, Mr. Hunt is
coming out from behind the keyboard, because it is clear that the Caner brothers
(at least Ergun) was deeply influenced by Mr. Hunt's position, and he has, and
will be, more or less just repeating all of the fallacious argumentation
advanced by Mr. Hunt in their publicly moderated debate on October 16th.
Unfortunately,
the debate format on October 16th leaves much to be desired again
because the Caner brothers sought to basically employ what I will call the
"pontificating debate format" (they call it the "parliamentary
debate format"), this at the recommendation of the Liberty University
debate team director, where one person basically gives his sound bite for a
certain amount of minutes, then the opponent gives his, and there is very little
if any meaningful exchange and cross-examination.
Liberty University’s involvement was due tot the fact that Ergun Caner is the
dean of the theological school at Liberty University. I personally have greatly benefited from Liberty University.
I have been a student through the Liberty University Distance Learning
program for a number of years, and I will be graduating in the next few months
with a B.S. in Religion from Liberty University.
I am extremely grateful for the fact that Liberty University has such a
program for people like me, and the sacrifice and vision of Jerry Falwell in
establishing a top-flight Christian university.
I was in the U.S. Air Force (I retired in 2005), and the program allowed
me to pursue the degree that I really wanted in a manner conducive to my work
schedule and location. Because of
my overall wonderful experience at Liberty, I found the way that Ergun Caner,
and others on the Liberty University staff, most notably the debate team
director, Dr. Brett O'Donnell, the moderator of the debate, to be tremendously disappointing. Here
was a school (Liberty) that had grown in stature and reputation over the years,
and now all of that was about to be destroyed in light of the playground
posturing by Ergun in particular, and Liberty University by extension, primarily
through Dr. O'Donnell's rather odd behavior and telling Dr. White that he would
employ the rule book of "fairness" when Dr. White simply asked the
evidently unreasonable question of where he could find the rules for a
parliamentary debate format. For a moderator to reply that he would simply use the rulebook of
fairness goes beyond ridiculous. My fear is that no one will ever really take Liberty
seriously now as a top-tier academic and “scholarly” institution in light of
the unscholarly display of Ergun Caner and others at Liberty University who were
less than helpful (to put it mildly) in ensuring that a true scholarly debate
would in fact take place.
There
are (or at least were) a number of Calvinists at Liberty, both on the staff and
I am sure in the student body as well; though I suspect much less on staff than
in the student body, especially these days since Liberty, at the leadership of
Ergun Caner, has decided to basically weed out and banish the Calvinistic
professors from their midst. Up
till now anyway, Liberty University’s position on the issue of Calvinism has
always been one of acceptance in terms of recognizing it as a legitimate and
acceptable view that is held by many Evangelicals. In one class I took, they even presented Calvinism and
Arminianism as two acceptable options within Evangelical theology that the
students had to wrestle with. There
were even representative articles by such Reformed scholars as Loraine Boettner.
But
that’s not all! In a sermon
preached by Jerry Falwell at Thomas Road Baptist Church in July 2001, Dr.
Falwell made the following glowing statements about Reformed theology, John
Calvin, and one of the most famous Calvinists in all of church history, Charles
Spurgeon (full text is found at this link:
http://sermons.trbc.org/20010701.html):
THE
GENEVA CHURCH WAS A TEACHING CHURCH.
The
church in Geneva: John Calvin. In the sixteenth century, John Calvin attempted
to create a model Christian city in Geneva and a model Christian church in
contrast to the corrupt church and city of Rome at that period in history. While
I am not a five-point Calvinist, I salute the great impact that Calvin
made on the world. With Calvin’s high view of the sovereignty of God,
his great commitment to word-for-word inerrancy of Scripture, his understanding
of the total depravity of man, and his unashamed support for the blood atonement
of Jesus Christ; Calvin’s anointed scholarship produced men who went
around the world teaching the Reformed view of theology that has become the
foundation of Presbyterianism and traditional evangelical
Christianity. Truly, the Geneva church was a church that influenced the
world theologically. I want Thomas Road Baptist Church to influence the world,
both theologically and experientially through education. This is the rationale
for the existence of all our schools and Liberty University.
THE
METROPOLITAN CHURCH WAS A TEACHING CHURCH.
Metropolitan Baptist Tabernacle. Under pastor Charles Spurgeon, this 19th
century London church was, amazingly, a prototype of Thomas Road Baptist Church.
This church had a Bible college, home missions outreach and a foreign missions
outreach. And, because it was strategically located in London, capital city of
the British Empire, this church had a mighty impact on the English government;
and thus influenced the world. Spurgeon’s books, sermons and writings became
the basis for the great ministry he has provided for the 20th century church
worldwide.
(Emphasis mine)
Why
the sudden change of heart? It would seem that the contributions of Calvin and
many other’s that embraced Reformed theology could be admired from afar…but
now in recent years there has been a noticeable upswing of those that are
embracing the doctrinal position that Dr. Falwell noted had “become the
foundation of… traditional evangelical Christianity…” It can no longer be
admired from afar because it is now up close and personal.
Why there would be such hostility is a bit odd as well, given Dr.
Falwell’s comments. If Reformed
theology is indeed the foundation of traditional evangelical Christianity, then
to move away from Reformed theology is to move away from Evangelical
Christianity. One would think that
an individual that claims to be the “intellectual pit bull of the Evangelical
Church” (as Ergun Caner self-promotes himself) would welcome with open arms a
return to foundational Evangelical theology.
So,
many today within the Southern Baptist Church (SBC) and others are indeed
embracing the Doctrines of Grace, and I suppose the primary reason may have to
with the issue of biblical inerrancy and a rediscovery of biblical exposition
among Southern Baptists and many other Evangelicals. In the SBC in particular,
the battle of the Bible is over; now it’s time to deal with what the text says.
The SBC had been embroiled in the controversy over the inerrancy of
Scripture for a number of years, until finally the conservatives (those that
hold to the inerrancy of Scripture) won the battle.
Without question the Calvinists within the SBC were an integral part of
the victory. As a matter of fact,
it could be argued rather easily that where a commitment to Calvinism flourishes
(or maybe more precisely, an essentially Reformed understanding of the nature
God in His sovereignty and human free will; one does not necessarily have to be
a 5-point Calvinist to hold “Calvinistic” views on divine sovereignty and
the human will and other doctrines), there will also be a commitment to the
inerrancy of Scripture, and where that commitment is not found, so is the
likelihood increased that inerrancy will eventually be denied.
Historically this has very often been the case. It wasn’t long after the Synod of Dordt (see http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html; and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Dort), that the Arminians began to question and deny the inerrancy of Scripture, and for good reason; they were just being consistent with their view of Divine sovereignty and human libertarian free will.
Today’s “Arminians” are far less consistent in their theology though, and many that are essentially Arminian nevertheless still cling simultaneously to such notions as the absolute sovereignty of God and the inerrancy of Scripture, and human libertarian free will (http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/freewill.html), which is simply contradictory.
J.K. Grider, an Arminian
theologian, has noted several “spillovers” into Arminian theology.
Among the “spillovers” he mentions are Calvinistic views on the
atonement and Biblical inerrancy. It
is worth presenting his quote on the issue of the atonement as well,
particularly in light of the fact that non-Calvinist Southern Baptists and other
Evangelicals boldly proclaim a substitutionary atonement whereby Christ actually
paid the penalty for sins; a view that is thoroughly Calvinistic and can only
consistently be held if one embraces Limited Atonement (http://www.geocities.com/johnandursula/limitedatonement).
Grider states the case plainly:
“A
spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades. Thus
many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the
penalty for our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism, which
teaches instead that Christ suffered for us. Arminians teach that what
Christ did he did for every person; therefore what he did could not have been to
pay the penalty, since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition.
Arminianism teaches that Christ suffered for everyone so that the Father could
forgive the ones who repent and believe; his death is such that all will see
that forgiveness is costly and will strive to cease from anarchy in the world
God governs. This view is called the governmental theory of the atonement...Arminians
who know their theology have problems in such cooperative ministries with
Calvinists as the Billy Graham campaigns because the workers are often taught to
counsel people that Christ paid the penalty for their sins.” (emphasis
mine)
Please
note, Billy Graham is not a Calvinist, and with that we see the inconsistency of
denying Calvinism, yet still wanting to hold to a substitutionary atonement.
One other interesting side note that I hope you did not miss, and that I
might add the Arminian theologian himself brought to light, is that Calvinists are
actually involved in evangelistic ministries!
Yes! That’s right!
Even the Arminian theologian recognizes that Calvinists do have a heart
for, and participate in, evangelistic outreaches. There are numerous examples of
Calvinists, both in the past and the present, that were and are actually at the
forefront of evangelism and missions.
As
for Inerrancy, J.K. Grider states,
“The
Arminian tradition has been a part of the long Protestant tradition which Fuller
Seminary's Jack Rogers discusses in his Confessions of a Conservative
Evangelical. It is interested in the Bible's authority and infallibility, and
expresses confidence that Scripture is inerrant on matters of faith and
practice, while remaining open on possible mathematical, historical, or
geographical errors. Its scholars in general do not believe that Harold
Lindsell correctly interprets the long Christian tradition on Scripture in such
works as The Battle for the Bible, when he says that until about 150 years ago
Christians in general believed in the total inerrancy of Scripture.” (emphasis
mine) http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/arminian.htm
Grider
refers to Harold Lindsell and the book The Battle for the Bible.
Lindsell was a Southern Baptist and his book was instrumental in bringing
the SBC back to a right view on the inerrancy of Scripture.
I do not know whether Lindsell was a Calvinist.
My point though is that in order for him, or anyone else to consistently
hold to inerrancy, they must have, at the very least, a more or less Reformed
understanding of divine sovereignty and the human will.
One simply cannot deny those things and still hold to Biblical inerrancy.
Of course, those Evangelicals
today who inconsistently hold to the absolute sovereignty of God while at the
same time teaching libertarian free will and the inerrancy of Scripture, would
not and do not accept being labeled as an Arminian. With that in mind, we need to note that there are nuances on
the theological landscape, such as in Amyraldianism (http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/amyraldi.htm),
and Lutheranism (see this excellent article: http://whitefield.freeservers.com/ritchie1.html),
where it would seem (to me anyway) that they would take more of a Reformed
understanding in the matters of divine sovereignty and the deadness of man in
sin and the nature of “free” will, etc.
This is a bit ironic as well, since Ergun Caner, according to some blog
spots I have read (e.g., http://www.fide-o.blogspot.com/2006/02/bridges-vs-caner-brothers.html),
has evidently claimed that he is Amyraldian in his theology.
What one claims, and what one really believes though can be two entirely
different things! When one reads
and/or listens to Ergun Caner, I get the sense that his views are at times even
left of Arminianism.
Basically then, these modern-day Evangelicals are at best just confused Arminians, who sometimes sound to
me to be very Pelagian in some of their theological statements (this is
especially true, unfortunately, of our brother Dave Hunt). Their theology is
really just a confused and convoluted hodge-podge of ideas that are thrown into
the pot and mixed together. They
want to maintain the classical view of God and His attributes (such as
sovereignty, omniscience, etc.), but they also want to hold to a Finneyistic/Pelagian
view of the nature of man’s will (I
use the term Finneyistic to refer to the theology of Charles Finney.
For more info on him, see: (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil//articles/finney.htm.
Sadly, Finney and his ideas have greatly influenced modern
Evangelicalism, and have really become the order of the day.
Rather ironic, is it not? Here
we have a full-blown heretic that is admired and embraced by Evangelicals, while
one of the most orthodox men in all of church history, John Calvin, is demonized
and even has his salvation called into question by various modern-day
theological illiterates and sloganeers).
The problem of course is that
these views are completely incompatible. If
their view of man and his will is correct, then God cannot be sovereign in any
meaningful sense, and if He is not sovereign in any meaningful sense, then it
would be impossible for Him to superintend the Scripture through human authors
(lest their “free” will be circumvented and violated; see this article for
more info: http://www.dtl.org/calvinism/article/wright/inerrancy-1.htm).
These “confused” Arminians
though want to have their cake and eat it too.
They want to hold to the Biblical view of God in terms of His absolutely
sovereignty (and other attributes, such as His omniscience) and the inerrancy of
Scripture, while at the same time they also want to hold to the anti-biblical,
philosophically driven concept of libertarian free will.
As stated, the two concepts are completely at odds, and those that wish
to teach both as being true at the same time and in the same relationship
basically come off as speaking out of both sides of their mouth.
On the one hand they want to say that God is “in control,” but on the
other hand, they put a limitation on that control (or, as one otherwise
completely rational person argued with me, God has chosen to “relinquish”
His control so as not to “force” anyone to do His will).
Much can be, and indeed has been
said in response by Calvinists to such things, and there’s no doubt that the
October 16th debate will provide yet another opportunity to respond
to such spurious argumentation that otherwise gifted intellectuals and godly men
would never even dream of offering but for their strident commitment to what
they have more or less blindly believed since before they even became
Christians. I say this because the
view that they hold to is pretty much what every “man on the street”
believes with regard to these issues; and by “man” I mean specifically an
“unbeliever.” In other words,
the average unbelieving person on the street believes more or less what the
confused (and not confused) Arminian say about these things. The
run of the mill unbeliever would find absolutely nothing objectionable to the
view of our brothers (the Caners, Hunt, et al), with regard to divine
sovereignty and human free will. Ask
most unbelievers, and they will tell you that God is “in control” but
man has “free will.” When the
“man on the street” becomes a Christian, all he does is import that view
into his new found faith.
The bottom line though that these
“new” believers, and our confused Arminian friends, do not seem to
understand is that if God is in any sense “in control” over the affairs of
history, and thus the decisions of men, no matter how small or trivial that
control may be, then we have gone as far as we need to go to dismantle the
confused Arminian’s concept of God’s sovereignty and man’s will.
Open Theists have long since recognized the futility, and really just
dishonesty, of trying to reconcile their view of human freedom with the
classical/biblical view of divine sovereignty, and so they just deny the
classical understanding of God’s nature and attributes (for info on Open
Theism see: http://www.carm.org/open.htm).
Open Theists, in my estimation, are the most consistent of all Arminians.
As for the confused Arminians (the
Caners and the like), they must bite the bullet and either choose the
Reformed understanding of divine sovereignty and the human will, or choose the
Open Theist understanding of those things.
If they do the latter, they will be preachers of heresy; if they do the
former, they will have to basically retract all of the statements that they have
made concerning these matters up to now. Or,
they can just keep teaching what they’re teaching, seeming to embrace the
notion of those that irrationally claim that contradiction is the hallmark of
truth, and in the process lose all credibility as “scholars,” not to mention
having to answer to the Lord for why they have handled His Word in so reckless a
fashion (the sermons and writings of these confused Arminians speak for
themselves, as does the downright malicious and slanderous behavior they have
often exhibited toward Calvinists). It
saddens me, but I have the feeling that our brothers will be satisfied with just
remaining blissfully contradictory, and I might add, unbiblical.
I pray that I am wrong.
So, the battle over the Bible is
over in the SBC: inerrancy has won
the day, and our confused Arminian friends are, to their credit, staunch
biblical inerrantists. But now the
question is, what does the inerrant text say?
As more and more pastors and lay people discover what the text says, more
and more of them are seeing the flaws in their previously held “confused”
Arminianism. And, as they see those
flaws, they are also encountering the overwhelming Biblical witness to the
Doctrines of Grace, as well as discovering that, low and behold, the theological
roots of the SBC were firmly Calvinistic.
There are probably a number of other factors as to why this turn took place, some of which Dr. Nettles outlines in his article. Another factor that I believe we can point to, though maybe not as obvious, is the influence of Charles Finney and his “revivalism,” as I alluded to earlier. Finney was a heretic, and his flawed methodology, such as the institution of the altar call, combined with "decisional" regeneration, has sadly been adopted throughout the Evangelicalism (see these links for more info on altar calls and decisional regeneration: http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue04/altar_call.html; http://www.the-highway.com/Decisional_Regeneration.html).
As
time went on, it would seem that the focus was more on numbers (“how many baptisms did we have this
year?”). There was also an increased interest in a distortion of
Dispensational eschatology that began to sweep through the church through the newspaper theology
of folks like Hal Lindey and Jack Van
Impe (I'm not questioning their commitment Christ, just their methodology and
some of their teaching).
These have more or less been replaced now by Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind
series, which though I disagree with some the theological underpinnings
of the books, nevertheless seems to be a
more stable representation of Dispensational eschatology.
Anyway, the point is that the church has been preoccupied with these things for years. Bumper stickers with
little slogans like, “In case of
rapture, this car will be driverless!” were (are) the rave, and “prophecy”
conferences were (and still are) big draws.
The issue of Calvinism then just wasn’t on the radar, but the SBC
couldn’t shake the Calvinistic implications of its doctrine because in the
same way that they were entrenched in their eschatology, they were also loudly
declaring, and singing, “Once Saved Always Saved.”
In any event, as I mentioned, there has been an upswing in recent years on not just the number of those in the SBC that are embracing the Doctrines of Grace, but of those that are actually asking the questions. People want to know what Jesus meant when He said such things as, “All that the Father gives me will come to me,” and when Paul said such things, “For He chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world…having predestined us to the adoption of sons…” and how that corresponds and is compatible with such statements as, “For God so love the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Many people are tired of the glib answers and worn clichés and want to deal honestly and openly with the text of Scripture in its entirety, and when they do interact with the text, and submit to the text, they come away very often embracing the Doctrines of Grace. Thus, in light of such a movement toward the historical doctrinal position of the SBC, the issue of Calvinism can no longer be swept under the rug by the SBC, especially with such organizations within the SBC as the Founders (http://www.founders.org), as mentioned before, a group of Calvinistic pastors and others that are firmly committed to the doctrines of grace and calling the denomination back to its theological roots.
While this “revival” and awakening in the SBC has taken place,
many who are seemingly ignorant both of history and of Calvinism in general are
lifting up their voices loudly in protest.
The tolerance that once marked the SBC and institutions like Liberty
University for Reformed theology has gone out of the window, particularly in
light of the fact that Reformed theology is a relentlessly exegetical theology
that is a direct affront to any competing understanding of Scripture, especially
that of the confused Arminian type. Protest
is not the problem, as we welcome healthy discussion on these matters.
The problem is that when the protest has been raised, it is more often
than not been accompanied by distortions, lies, and what amounts to outright
slander from otherwise godly men. I
say slander because those that raise their voice in protest not only attack the
doctrinal position of Calvinism, but they also have been known to attack the
character, and even salvation, of those that are Calvinists.
I can personally provide numerous examples that I have received in
e-mails where Calvinists are referred to as arrogant and cold, and are accused
of being guilty of redefining words, doubletalk, unconcerned for the lost, and
finally, not even saved. But, all
one merely need do is read the words of such men as Dave Hunt, and now the Caner
brothers, to see the slander fly.
So, we come back now to the debate that will be held on October 16th at Thomas Road Baptists Church. The reason for the debate in the first place, as I understand it anyway, is that the Caner brothers began to post comments on Dr. Ascol’s blog: http://www.founders.org/blog/. The Caners began to attack Calvinism, and I might add in rather sarcastic, arrogant, and abrasive tones. Emir even challengingly signed some of his posts as with the proud declaration, “Elected Because I Selected.” That little statement speaks volumes, and I’d say just about sums up the position of the Caner’s and others like them (a position that I just refer to as “confused Arminianism”). Listen to those words dear friend: Elected because I selected. I hope Emir doesn’t hurt his arm too much from all of the patting of his own back. Can you imagine standing before God and saying, “Hey God, I’m here in your Heaven because I had the good sense to choose you! And just think Lord, if none of us here in Heaven ever “selected” You, then Jesus may have died in vain, and Heaven would be a pretty empty place!”
In
any event, dialogue eventually ensued between all of the participants (Dr.
White, Ascol, and the Caner brothers), and a debate was agreed upon.
But even that wasn’t as simple as it may sound.
At first Ergun Caner refused to debate James White because he was not a
Southern Baptist: http://www.aomin.org/ErgunCaner1.html.
Rather odd behavior for someone (Ergun Caner) who self-promotes himself as the
“intellectual pit-bull of the Evangelical Church.” If you’re not an Evangelical and are reading this, I can
assure you that the only ones in the Evangelical world that would view our
brother Ergun Caner in such a light is Ergun Caner himself and his supporters.
Sadly, in light of the evidence, the reality is that brother Ergun would
seem to have the pit bull part down, but as for Evangelical in the true historic
sense, and intellectual in the scholarly sense that I have elaborated on in this
article, he is far off the mark.
Ergun
finally ceded though, and the debate was agreed upon. Drs. White and Ascol began to interact with the Caners' to
try and nail down a more precise thesis for the debate, as well as panning out
the format and time of the debate. Unfortunately,
neither Drs. White and Ascol, nor anyone else that would read the ensuing
dialogue, could be prepared for the series of challenges that would present
themselves in the face of the avalanche of arrogance, shrill rhetoric, and just
unprofessional and unscholarly feedback that the Caners' would bombard both
Dr. White and Dr. Ascol with. Everything from the thesis of the debate to the format
of the debate became an excruciating mind-numbing exercise as both the
Caners', and others on the Liberty University staff (the director of the
debate team to be more precise), simply refused to dialogue in a professional
and scholarly fashion. As Dr. White
so aptly stated at one point (to paraphrase), he has had more success and
experienced more professionalism in arranging debates with Muslims, Mormons, and
Atheists that he did with the Caners' and Liberty University.
The Caners' began to dictate to
the Drs. White and Ascol both the thesis of the debate and the format of the
debate, and did so, I might add, in what came to be their usual abrasive manner.
The Caners' unilaterally decided upon the thesis and the format of the
debate without any input from Drs. White and Ascol, and I personally do not
believe I have ever read anything more confusing.
The “dictated” thesis that the Caner’s wanted to impose was: God is an Omnibenevolent God to all of humanity through salvation
and opportunity and His desire for all to be saved.
Yes, that’s right…I’m not joking.
A convoluted mess of a statement was what the Caner’s sought to impose.
As for the debate format, the
Caners' informed (not discussed with) Drs. White and Ascol that they would be
using the Parliamentary debate format (as noted earlier, I call this the
pontificating format). Not only was
nothing discussed, but Dr. White also pointed out that in his extensive
experience in theological debates, he had never seen this format employed.
The reason is because it is more of a sound bite format (each participant
basically giving their usual key points for what they believe), with very
limited interaction between the opponents, or at least certainly not the kind of
interaction that is necessary when discussing complex theological concepts that
require each individual to address key texts of Scripture and to interact with
the objections to their analysis. Add to this the fact the Caners' decided to
also limit the debate to just 2 hours, which is really unreasonable given the
nature of the subject, and the fact that there would be four men in the debate.
Needless to say, Drs. White and
Ascol were more than a little bit shocked.
When debates are arranged, both parties are supposed to have input into
the details of the debate, especially the format, time, and thesis of the
debate, yet, the Caners' decided to tyrannically dictate these matters.
To say that this was “unscholarly” behavior is to understate the
case. But, we are not finished!
It got even worse! After the
Caners' notified Drs. White and Ascol of how things were going to go, Dr.
White immediately contacted them through e-mail (in hindsight, maybe a phone
call would been better; but again, who could anticipate that the Caners' and
Brett O'Donnell, Christian's all, would be so rude as to not reply to repeated
e-mails for almost 40 days. If business was the reason for no reply, a
simple, "Hey James, I'm swamped, I'll get back with as soon as I can"
would surely have sufficed) to voice his disagreement with the format, time, and
thesis statement, and he asked repeatedly for dialogue on those matters, as well
as clarification on the theologically and grammatically errant thesis statement.
Dr. White even went so far as to take the thesis statement offered by the
Caner’s and reword it in such a way as it was both grammatically correct, and
was coherent and easily understandable. The response?
All of this was met with either silence (as noted, both the Caners' and the
moderator of the debate, Brett O'Donnell, refused to even do the courteous thing of replying to
Dr. White’s numerous emails), or by stiff-necked abrasiveness.
It became immediately apparent which side was interested in scholarly
interaction, and which side wasn’t. The
Caners' did everything in their power to either undermine the debate
altogether (presumably in the hopes that White and Ascol would throw their hands
up in disgust and just walk away from the debate), or at the very least to
severely limit the debate so as to render it nothing more than four guys
preaching mini sermonettes, which would do absolutely nothing to expose the
strengths/weaknesses, truth/falsity of the positions in question, or demonstrate
which position dealt most accurately with the Scriptural data.
One may think that I am exaggerating in all that I am saying, or that I am not reporting the facts accurately. Fortunately, Dr. White wisely saved all of his correspondence with the Caner’s, and has the entire dialogue posted on-line so that everyone can see just who it is that has acted in a scholarly fashion, and who it is that behaved in an unscholarly fashion. Here is the link: http://mp3.aomin.org/docs/Caner3.pdf . This link provides the resolution statement signed by all of the participants: http://www.aomin.org/index.php?blogid=1&archive=2006-08&catid=4
As
you can see, there finally was a breakthrough however, and the parties did
readdress the issues in question. All
of the parties involved are to be commended for that. The debate topic is Baptists and Calvinism: An
Open Debate.
That is a very broad statement to be sure, but at least we all have an
idea of what is going to be discussed. The
format is still the parliamentary format, but evidently some modifications have
been made to build in some more interaction time among the participants.
And the debate time has been increased to 3 hours.
To all of this, I say “bravo!” However,
while an agreement was struck, and repentance was articulated among the debate
participants, as the outsider looking in though, I am not quite sure why Dr.
White and Dr. Ascol had to apologize or acknowledge any wrongdoing in their
interaction with the Caners'. Of
course, they did do just that in their singing of the joint statement.
Make no mistake though, it was clearly the Caners’ behavior that was
completely off the charts and utterly shocking, as the documentation will
plainly show, and hopefully Liberty University will not endure a black-eye
because of the unscholarly rantings of its pit bull dean of the seminary, whose
jaws were so thoroughly locked on the bones of contention and
anti-intellectualism that he single-handedly tarnished both his own reputation
as a “scholar” and Liberty University’s reputation as a scholarly
institution that produces “scholars.”
Maybe
my analysis is incorrect, and maybe the Caners' will demonstrate that they are able
to interact in a scholarly fashion concerning this issue.
Forgive me if I am skeptical though, especially given the fact that
Liberty’s Chancellor, Jerry Falwell, repeated the same error that the
Caner’s did, by referring to Drs. White and Ascol as “hyper-Calvinists.”
This after Dr. White has repeatedly told this group that their use of the
term “hyper-Calvinists” in describing him and all biblical Calvinists was
incorrect on both theological and historical terms.
Maybe if the Chancellor or the Caners read this, they will take it from
one that has benefited from their institution:
brothers…Dr. White and Dr. Ascol (and myself and all biblical
Calvinists) are not, I repeat, are not
“hyper-Calvinists.” As
theologians you should know that Hyper-Calvinism is a heretical view held by a
relatively small number of those that do unfortunately claim that they are
Calvinists, and it is a view that teaches a number of things that are rejected
by Calvinists. Here is a sample of just some of the other errors of
hyper-Calvinism that are rejected by Calvinists:
(drawn from http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/hypercalvinism.html. Please note, I did not include everything from the list just for the simple fact that this article is too long already!)
Once again…the above list
provides a few examples of things that Calvinists reject.
I repeat; Calvinists do not hold to the doctrines
stated above…the doctrines stated above are what hyper-Calvinists hold to, not
what Calvinists hold to. I hope
that is clear enough for all of those that keep saying that we believe the
things mentioned above, as evidenced by the claims of Ergun and Emir Caner, Dave
Hunt, Norm Geisler, etc. We do not
hold to those doctrines, and to continue to call us “hyper-Calvinists” is
simply in error.
So, in the name of
“scholarship” and just plain Christian scruples, I humbly ask my brothers to
please, consider and yield to the facts. Don’t
continue calling us "hyper-Calvinists, especially after you have been
presented with the facts. To
continue to do so seriously undermines your credibility, and makes it seem as though you are
purposely trying to poison the well.
I am hopeful that none of these men, whether it is the Caners' or even
Dave Hunt, would be so ungracious as to completely ignore the facts, and
continue to misrepresent and in the process bring disparagement to a large
section of those within the Evangelical community that call themselves
Calvinists.
In conclusion, the debate on October 16th will be a very important debate. The matters being discussed are central to Biblical Christianity. Some people refer to this as an in house debate, but I prefer to call it an in community debate. We are in the same community, in that we are united in Christ, believing that salvation is by faith alone in the finished work of Christ. But if we’re honest, these are two completely different houses within the community that are built upon two totally different foundations.
One
house is built on the sure foundation of an
omnipotent and absolutely sovereign, Triune and perfect God who
brings about all of His perfect will without fail, and the blood of a perfect
Savior who never fails to save those given to Him by the Father, and the mighty
regenerating power and grace of the Holy Spirit of God, who never fails to bring
those chosen from before the foundation of the world to saving faith by first
removing their stony hearts and giving them hearts of flesh.
The other house is built on the sand of human autonomy and vain human
philosophy that ultimately places man as the captain of his own ship, and God as
the innocent bystander who nervously paces the halls of heaven in hopes that
someone…anyone, might “select” Him. One
house can rightly say that salvation is by grace alone, because it is a grace
that is truly amazing in that it secures, and bestows, all that is necessary for
salvation, to include the ability to savingly believe the Gospel and repent from
sin. The other house can only say that salvation is by grace, but
that grace doesn’t secure or bestow anything except an “opportunity” for
the person, in the power of his own flesh, to muster up the moral ability to
comply with the command to repent and believe the Gospel.
One house is truly, as Dr. Falwell alluded to, the foundation for
traditional Evangelical theology. The
other house then is built on that which is not the foundation for traditional
Evangelical theology, but that which is actually anti-Evangelical.
The debate is October 16th, and I pray that Evangelicals listen closely, and then see which house is truly built on the sure foundation. See which side speaks of a God that it truly sovereign, a Savior that truly and actually (not potentially) saves, and a grace that truly is amazing.
Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, and Soli Deo Gloria,
John Orlando