I have never considered myself a genius, and I have never considered myself particularly stupid. Yet, I must say I will have to carry the label of naïve for a few days while I sort out just how much reformed doctrine is despised especially among Southern Baptist. I wanted to assume the the Caner’s and Dr. Falwell were in the fringe on this issue. While I always considered debates about Calvinism as intramural, I am beginning to wonder if those opposed to these doctrines believe the same.
This past Sunday, Oct 8, at FBC Woodstock, Dr. Jerry Vines preached the second sermon in a series requested by Johnny Hunt called “Baptist Battles”. I am assuming from the title of the series that these are things Baptist need to fight against. Sermon one is titled “Liberalism – A Baptist and the his Bible”, number two is “Calvinism – A Baptist and his election”, three “Pentecostalism – A Baptist and his gifts” and “Libertinism – A Baptist and his booze”. I have listened to Dr. Vines preach in numerous conferences and on recordings most of my life, and it grieves me to see him lump Calvinism in with Liberalism and Pentecostalism, but I do not want to remain naïve any longer, so I spent the time to listen to the sermon that can be found at www.fbcw.com.
Dr. Vines begins his sermon by listing examples of Calvinism causing problems for the church, and then begins a brief history lesson of Calvinism in which Jacob Ariminius is a Calvinist confronting high-Calvinism and determinism and the view that some Calvinist alleged such as God being the author of sin and some men being predestined to hell. He then equates modern Arminianism with losing ones salvation although he actually agrees with a lot of Ariminian theology throughout the rest of the sermon
He goes on to list the 1689 London Baptist Confession, the Philadelphia Baptist Confession, New Hampshire Confession and says while they bear very close resemblance to the Westminster Confession taken from the Synod of Dort, there is no historical evidence that Baptist actually held to the 5 points of the Synod of Dort. At this point in the sermon he has tried as far as I can tell to be fair. However, at this point his SBC “preach” kicks in.
He does give credit for Spurgeon being a Calvinist, but not Calvin.
He lists the Charleston and Sandy Creek streams of Southern Baptist and defines them as the Charleston stream was more Calvinist and Sandy Creek stream more evangelistic and missions minded.
He then relays a story of a wayward man brought up in his church in Jacksonville that got so far away from what he was taught in his upbringing that he got his PHD from a reformed school and had totally embrace reformed covenant theology. He then relates a second story of the son of a rural Georgia preacher, whose went to a school and became so influenced by the students that he embraced reformed theology. You can almost hear “to the shame of the family” in the last sentence.
It is here at about minute 67 that he begins to deal with the TULIP.
Dr. Vines begins this section by denying total depravity or what he calls total inability. (which I actually like that term better) He then poorly proof texts his way around the belief that regeneration precedes faith, and somehow redefines spiritually dead as not really dead.
In a brief definition of unconditional election he almost agrees with the Calvinistic view, but he then immediately runs to the double predestination debate and brings up predestinating babies to hell, and gives the foresight view of foreknowledge by arguing that knowledge is based on fact, therefore God looked into the future and saw who would be saved. He ends this section with this quote which I found really interesting “God’s knowledge of the future doesn’t determine the future anymore then mans knowledge of the past determines the past”
His predestination arguments were interesting in a couple of ways. For one he didn’t really give a doctrine of predestination. He says if you take the doctrine too far you end up saying that God predestined some to hell and that the scripture does not teach that. While I agree, remember that he is preaching against Calvinism. He leaves it vague enough that if you didn’t know better you would assume that all Calvinist believe in double predestination and babies going to hell. At minute 80 he begins an interesting statement about election and predestination. He basically says that while men are predestined by foresight they don’t become part of the elect until salvation. However, there is more to what he says than this and I would recommend listening to it.
His limited atonement thesis was so bad you can listen to it yourself, because at the end he apparently unknowingly agrees and teaches one Calvinist view of unconditional election.
His closing remarks and personal application begins with the premise that “if a Calvinist is a soul winner it is in spite of Calvinism not because of it.” “Calvinism eats the life out of our churches.” “cliché, cliché, conjecture”
Dr. Vines argues mostly against hyper-Calvinism, but never relays to the people that the view he is teaching is not the norm of Calvinistic theology. Make no bones about it. This sermon is placed in a series called Baptist Battles for a reason. There are powerful men who believe Calvinism is as dangerous as liberalism and we are seeing the beginnings of a battle to see it stamped out especially among Southern Baptist.
Tweet
36 year old husband, father, pastor, singer, musician, reader, eater, rider, watcher,
Wow! What a shame that so many have to put a one-sided politician type spin on their crusade against Calvinism. He never mentioned any of the great missionaries that were Calvinists I suppose. Wasn’t it Augustus Toplady who had challenged anyone to provide proof of any non-Calvinist martyrs up until his day?
You are right, there is hatred for the Doctrines of Grace.
He mentioned William Carey and James Kennedy as evangelistic Calvinist.
Scott,
This type of “sermon” or “truth” is what is driving me from the SBC.
I should be surprised that a mega church pastor has such a poor grasp of theology, the bible and man. But I am not.
As Dr Vines tells us “3 wills in the world. God’s will, Devils will and Man’s will.” Listening to him explain that I was shocked to find God in 3rd place. Wonder if God knows this. I heard many hints of open theism in his sermon.
I took about 4 pages of notes. I will review and may post a fuller review. Maybe after some pain medication.
My theological response to him is
“ttttthhhhhrrruuuuupppppttt!”
Calvinism leads to dead churches? What Vines and others have done has destroyed the gospel of Jesus Christ. Read Dr. Ascol blog.
Mark
“There are powerful men who believe Calvinism is as dangerous as liberalism and we are seeing the beginnings of a battle to see it stamped out especially among Southern Baptist.”
Ain’t that the truth. I appears as if many in Southern Baptist leadership are starting to see Calvinism as a serious threat to the way they do business in addition to being harmful to believers, and they are not happy about its resurgence. Just look at this Caner\White debate situation. As a newly reformed Baptist and still a member of the SBC, this is a cause of much concern for me. I can already see some friend’s and families’ attitudes souring regarding the accuracy of my theology. Sometimes I think, what have I gotten myself into? This is nasty business, and it’s sure to get worse.
Fuuny, because Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (arguably one of the best in the nation) is a reformed seminary! http://www.sbts.edu/Home.aspx
Weird.
~Brian
@Brain
We have Dr. Mohler to thank for that. I’ve read that 96% of the faculty left when he took over and re-enforced the school’s Calvinistic confession of faith. Also, I’ve heard that he’s not a popular figure amongst the Falwell types. I love the guy though.
Christopher, you would be close to correct. Dr. Mohler fired a bunch of staff and then a lot more resigned. He basically cleaned house, but make no mistake while there are many who are furious that he led Southern in the reformed direction.
I heard a few weeks in advance that Vines, the ‘resident theologian’ according to Hunt, would be preaching this sermon. The Dome is just a few miles from my house, but I didn’t think I would be able to sit through it. Now, even through webcast, I’m squirming in my chair. Thanks for the overview.
SDG
So that was expositional preaching. Explains a lot.
Bill
I’m sure you guys have read this already but I’d thought I’d send the link anyway. Helpful interview on the topic over at GTY. http://www.gty.org/resources.php?section=articles&aid=231301
I wonder – should I start calling myself a Reformed Bivo SBC pastor? I’m just a toothless babe chewing on a big hunk o’ meat but I cannot deny that the doctrine is there.
I wouldn’t say Southern is Reformed. I’d say Southern is very staunchly “conservative.” Mohler brought people on board who generally hold to the solas and to the Abstract of Principles, which seems to have been his only real criteria in hiring. A good portion of the profs certainly are Calvinist or Calvinistic (meaning not “full” Calvinists). But I wouldn’t say Southern is Reformed.
Now, I would say the student body is largely Reformed, which would be much more accurate an assessment. But to call Southern a Reformed school is a misnomer. We’re a Southern Baptist institution through and through.
You said:
” He says if you take the doctrine too far you end up saying that God predestined some to hell and that the scripture does not teach that. While I agree, remember that he is preaching against Calvinism.”
I am just curious how you avoid double predestination in your Calvinism.
Bob,
1 Peter 2:7-8
7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone,”
8 and, “A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message — which is also what they were destined for.
NIV
The answer to your question is “you don’t!”
Bob,
Double predestination plays on the confusion between election and reprobation and the concept of equal ultimacy.
Reprobation is the flip side of election. Election is unconditional. Reprobation is also unconditional. However, election as calling is active This is where we talk about “predestination.” The elect are predestined. Predestination takes the means into account. It also leads to the fulfilment of the instrumental condition for justification (faith). Reprobation as preterition (passing over)if you are an infralapsarian is conditioned on the decree of the fall. For a supra it is unconditional, being the first decree in the chain, but it is inactive as to means. The reprobated are left in their sin. No fresh unbelief is put into their hearts, and any hardening is the result of a judicial act of God for their sins. Thus they are not “predestined,” they are left in their sins. Preterition is what we call this passing over. They are left in their sins. Thus reprobation as passing over is called preterition. Preterition is conditional as condemnation. They are passed over as sinners.
Equal ultimacy is the belief that predestination and preterition are both active principles. God actively calls the elect to faith; God actively puts fresh unbelief in the hearts of the reprobate.
Vines and his ilk trade on the ignorance of their audiences.
_________
Southern is not “Reformed.” Her faculty is composed of Amyraldians and Calvinists.
__________
“There are powerful men who believe Calvinism is as dangerous as liberalism and we are seeing the beginnings of a battle to see it stamped out especially among Southern Baptist.”
And look at what happens to those who try to do this. God is reforming His church in our time. It’s a slow process, but these sermons would not happen if that wasn’t the case, because they are responses to events that are transpiring. I, for one, would not want to be the one who opposed the Lord in that effort.
Calvinism would win against Emergent in a fight any day of the week…a fist fight….
I am still reeling from this one. Finished listening last night. I grew up at FBCJax and left several years ago, but my family still goes there. And although I am deeply upset and disappointed by the misrepresentations that I heard, I am not surprised. Gotta love all the anecdotal strawmen (mean letter, wayward youth pastor, dead churches, etc.) as the main basis to steer clear of Calvinism.
BTW, I didn’t write the letter.
I hope to post my full comments over at http://www.yarbucks.blogspot.com soon. But, I may wait until the October 22 message on Baptists vs. Booze to do so.
Chris, let me know when you post.
What I find consistently bizarre is the double-speak that comes from our leadership. They enforce the idea that 90-95% of Southern Baptists are not Calvinistic, right? They then inform us that most SBC churches are plateaued or declining. So…it’s the Calvinism that’s killing us?
Apparently Dr. Vines is preaching against primitive baptist that he ran into 40 years ago. It is obvious that he either doesn’t actually know what true Calvinist theology is or has chosen to ignore it. I am going to assume ignorance on his part. I however, would like to know where all of these stoic, angry, double predestination, non-evangelistic, Calvinist are. I know a lot of Calvinist and none of them would fit any of the sterotypes that Dr. Vines and the Caners seem to be so adamantly against.
Notice the line about not reading the literature when he mentions infant damnation. Apparently, he hasn’t bothered to read the literature himself, since:
A. Most Calvinists profess either agnosticism about the matter or
B. Affirm universal infant salvation or
C. Affirm like Calvin that those who are “predestined” to perdition as children do not die as babies but after having come to an age of discretion; e.g. they actually and willfully sin.
In fact, if Dr. Vines really believed in election by foreknowledge, he’d believe that all of us a “elected” before birth, since the very Scripture he cites says we are predestined before the foundation of the world.
Is this what passes for exegesis at FBCW? If so, then we should all write Johnny Hunt and thank him and Dr. Vines for making it so easy for us to rebut them. They only make us look better in the long run.
James Petigru Boyce is “turning in his grave,” and if memory serves me, so are the first five presidents of the SBC all of whom were five-pointers.
@ Sojourner
No, but it is a convenient scapegoat for them. It is very bizarre. Instead of dealing with the issue of why SBC churches are in decline despite their “superior” evangelism & discipleship methods, they can blame the decline on anti-evangelistic Calvinist bogeymen. Provided they were ever able to declare final victory over Calvinism in the SBC by running us all off, they would still have to face the root problems inherent in modern evangelism.
Hey guys, I saw the message and thought Dr. Vines was unfair in his presentation. All the way down to the comment about “dead churches” being produced by Calvinism. As if “dead churches” aren’t produced by “revivalistic” oriented churches.
I wanted to bring to attention a satircal column that was written Jim White in the Religious Herald, which is a Baptist General Association of Virginia Newsjournal. You can check it out on my blog or google the Relgious Herald. The title of the article is “Pewboy Meets Calvin.” It is the poor attempt of an editor to educate mdoerate to liberal Virginia Baptists on Calvinism.
Calvinism DOES lead to “dead churches”…
if you take “alive church” to mean manipulative, emotionalistic, pragmatic suburban Babdistism (spelling intentional) or if you take “dead church” to mean “we aren’t going to turn our pulpit into the Gong Show or Amateur Hour”. I grew up in a non-denom Baptistic church (and later moved to an SBC church) where Gaither and Crosby ruled the hymnal and being “on fire” meant showing up every service and being vocal about your “saved-ness” even in the face of your casual-Christian lifestyle. That was then, and is now, the extent of SBC Arminian “alive church”. J.P. Boyce and the other founders would not recognize today’s SBC.
The battle over Reformed Theology is the next great battle in the SBC. Mohler and Paige Patterson debated one another at last summers national SBC gathering and the current SBC president has written a book entitled something like “Trouble with the TULIP”. With the founders movement making inroads in the SBC and the success of Southern Seminary, and men like Mohler and Mark Dever gaining national attention and a following among SBC pastors, we can expect quite a stir from the non-Reformed group as they have almost a hatred of Reformed Theology, which they will always call Calvinism.
It is odd also, because they want the benefits of Reformed Theology, namely “once saved, always saved,” without really understanding its theological basis.
“Never was there a CALVINIST, who read ONLY Scripture.” – ?
Calvinism must be passed on through books, blogs, opinions, etc. You will never find a Christian who claims “Calvinism” after having only read the Bible. So where does that leave a Calvinist?
Can anyone reconcile TULIP with a God that is good?
1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God…
As for 1 Pet 2:8, the word destined is the aorist passive of τιθημι – “they were set / placed (utterly prostrate, since they “stumbled”) – I think appointed or destined is a very poor translation.
Look at the Greek of 1 Pet 2:8 – this whole verse has to do with entrapping God’s enemies, which makes sense if the world is a “proving ground” – not for God’s benefit but for the benefit of created beings to witness and understand not only why the saved are saved but also why the lost are lost (whether or not they freely accepted Jesus Christ as Lord)
When you talk of limited atonement you pervert the gospel (…not willing / wanting that any should perish…)
And as for perseverance of the saints, surely you have asked how and why the angels fell, if not by willful disobedience? So we won’t have the capacity to sin? Then why did God not create all that way in the beginning? No, “the love of Christ constraineth us” – our love for Him (see 1 John 2)
Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Jud 1:15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
I acknowledge that you are all zealous for Christ, but Calvin has seriously misrepresented God’s grace, not upheld it.
@freedfrombondage:
You wrote:
“Never was there a CALVINIST, who read ONLY Scripture.” – ?
Calvinism must be passed on through books, blogs, opinions, etc. You will never find a Christian who claims “Calvinism” after having only read the Bible. So where does that leave a Calvinist?
————-
Both sides of the debate read from sources other than Scripture. That’s irrelevant, especially when you consider that “teachers” et al were given by God for the building up of the church (Eph 4). It’s supposed to be that way!
As far as someone who became a Calvinist because of Scripture solely–I’m very close to that. I was Arminian by default but came across passages in Isaiah (ch 40-50ish) that I couldn’t make sense of within my Arminian schema. So I decided that I’d try to start reading my bible as though I didn’t know anything at all about how/why/etc God predestined, elected, foreknew and just see what Scripture said.
As a result of that 5+ year process, I’m now a 5 point Calvinist (or 7 if you prefer).
I have read much besides Scripture to help me figure out how various Scriptural teachings might harmonize but the essential teachings themselves are there for me primarily from Scripture.