Today at SBCtoday.com, which is maintained by Truett-McConnell College (the new “Traditionalist” intellectual Zion in the SBC), Dr Jerry Vines gives a written interview in an effort to promote his upcoming John 3:16 Conference, part deux. As everybody knows who has been following the soteriological debate in the SBC over the last decade, Dr Vines is no fan of the doctrines of grace and what has been styled “New Calvinism,” which is nothing more than a resurgence of evangelical Calvinism.
In his interview, Dr Vines makes clear that his motive in planning the John 3:16 Conference is “to offer a response to the 5 points of Calvinism” and to promote an “ongoing conversation relative to New Calvinism” (Questions 1 & 2). He feels there must be a response because he sees it as a threat to the life and orthodoxy of the SBC. Dr Vines has repeatedly gotten wind “of our churches being adversely impacted by New Calvinism,” (Question 5). I bet there’s another opinion on the impact New Calvinism has had on those churches!
Furthermore, Dr Vines is wary of New Calvinism because he believes that “if [New Calvinism is] left unchecked, the result will be what Baptist churches experienced in the 1830s. Those that were 5-point Calvinists in their theology became what we call today Primitive Baptists. The lack of evangelism and the decline in membership of Primitive Baptist Churches is evident,” (Question 5). That’s where Dr Vines goes fundamentally wrong. He tries to connect New Calvinism to HyperCalvinism, which poses that evangelism and believing on Christ are unnecessary for salvation. That’s a false connection and has been corrected innumerable times. I think I understand why Dr Vines tries to make that connection and am afraid that this mischaracterization doesn’t reflect very highly on him.
New Calvinism is intensely evangelistic and doggedly missions-focused. In fact, a 2006 LifeWay study found that in the SBC, Calvinist pastors baptized people at a higher rate than nonCalvinist pastors (there’s a growing trend in the SBC for nonCalvinists to call themselves “Traditionalist”). The study shows that Calvinist pastors averaged a baptism rate of 7.59 per 100 attendees while nonCalvinist pastors averaged a baptism rate of only 6.71 per 100 attendees. If baptism rates are an indicator of how evangelistic a pastor is, then the Calvinists are more evangelistic than the nonCalvinists in the SBC.
Whatever the case may be, one can say with great certainty that the Calvinism that is resurging in the SBC is NOT HyperCalvinism. In fact, SBC Calvinists hate HyperCalvinism. At least this one does. We love to preach the gospel far and wide, calling on every person to repent and believe on Jesus and then giving God every ounce of the glory when they do!
I’m thankful that Dr Vines desires to have a conversation about soteriology in the SBC because it’s a conversation worth having, but I pray that in an effort to “win” the conversation, he doesn’t resort to mischaracterization.
Now it’s your turn to respond. Am I correct in concluding that “New Calvinism” is not HyperCalvinism? How is mischaracterization like Dr Vines has shown in the interview detrimental to SBC cooperation? Do you believe that the John 3:16 Conference is going to further cooperation or division?
February 6, 2013 at 1:13 pm
I noticed that SBC Today deleted your comment earlier. I believe you are on point that New Calvinism is not HyperCalvinism. Once again, this conference is another attempt to scare the masses about Calvinism. Glad you found a place to state you opinion.
February 6, 2013 at 1:26 pm
James,
Thanks for the encouragement! A slightly edited version of my original comment is now on SBCtoday.
February 6, 2013 at 1:56 pm
*your
February 6, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Very good post brother. New Calvinism is not hyper-Calvinism. That’s just a distortion, whether intentional or not.
I think the conference is just desperation, but may be successful in the long run. i.e. the continual attempts to distort and misrepresent Calvinism may win the day eventually as there are many very smart people in the pews, smart and very capable theologically, who may not look into the issues deeply enough.
It reminds me of how the Obama administration continues to misrepresent conservatives( cannot know if it’s intentional or not) and their views/plans and the public buys it. Hopefully I’m wrong.
February 6, 2013 at 3:31 pm
I’ve been a bit baffled at why many nonCalvinist theologians, especially in the SBC, mischaracterize Calvinism.
On the other hand, given the time period of the baptisms, there may be an explanation as to why Calvinist pastors baptized more. One of the Presbyterian denominations has had a bit of an exodus over severe theological liberalism (homosexuality in particular). Many simply went to other Presby denominations. However, some discovered Reformed pastors in nearby SBC churches and became convinced that credobaptism was a better doctrine than paedobaptism. This has also been the case in recent years with Lutherans, who would be more inclined to tip toward Calvinism than not. …just an observation.
However, I can testify that me and my fellow Calvinists have been hot on missions. My church is a mix of Calvinists and nonCalvinists. While we have plenty of nonCalvinists who are doing great things in missions, we are more likely to see our teams dominated by Calvinists.
February 6, 2013 at 4:29 pm
I don’t accuse neo-Calvinists of hyper-Calvinism but do have serious problems with the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election. Stating that God’s decision is unconditional directly contradicts Romans 8:29 which says that predestination is conditioned on God’s foreknowledge. Foreknowledge of what? It can only be how a man will ultimately respond by his God-given free will to God’s offer of grace. Such an understanding is based on the complete fairness and mercy of God and not on election without regard to man’s response.
February 6, 2013 at 5:13 pm
Not to take things off track, but I would like to mention that there are many in the SBC who consider themselves non-Calvinists but who agree with unconditional election, whether by compatibilism or by antinomy. The percentages are unfairly cast in the neotraditionalists favor when unconditional election/divine determinism are presumed to only be found in Calvinists (and all who are “non-Calvinists” are assumed to be libertarian/”traditionalists”).
February 6, 2013 at 5:16 pm
Good point Ken.
February 7, 2013 at 12:38 am
Walt,
Thanks for reading and commenting! You state that “unconditional [election] directly contradicts Romans 8:29 which says that predestination is conditioned on God’s foreknowledge” and then go on to define “foreknowledge” as God’s prescience, or His ability to see the future. That is not what “foreknew” means in that passage.
First, the text clearly says that God “foreknew” people–”those whom He foreknew”–and says nothing about their decisions or faith.
Second, look at Romans 11:2. It talks of national Israel as “His people whom He foreknew.” These are nearly identical phrases in Romans 8:29 and 11:2 and should be understood in the same way. So, let’s try it out. Your understanding of Romans 8:29 would be “for those whom He FORESAW WOULD RESPOND BY HIS GOD-GIVEN FREE WILL TO GOD’S OFFER OF GRACE, He predestined.” Romans 11:2 would be, “God has not rejected His people [Israel] whom He FORESAW WOULD RESPOND BY HIS GOD-GIVEN FREE WILL TO GOD’S OFFER OF GRACE.” How does that work with Romans 11:2? Not too good, huh?
But what if “foreknew” means “to fix God’s love on beforehand,” or more simply, “to choose beforehand,”? Let’s try that out. Romans 8:29 would read, “for those whom He FIXED HIS LOVE ON BEFOREHAND, He predestined.” Romans 11:2 would read, “God has not rejected His people [Israel] whom He FIXED HIS LOVE ON BEFOREHAND.” How does that work out? It correlates really well and indeed is the correct exegetical understanding. We should reject the understanding that “foreknew” is pointing to God’s prescience and accept that it’s pointing to God’s election, which is the fixing of His love on a people beforehand.
As for whether or not it is fair for God to fix his love on a people beforehand, you are right. It’s not fair. It’s gracious. Brother, fair equals getting what we deserve, and we don’t want what we deserve!
February 7, 2013 at 11:22 am
Ben: Thanks for that analysis. Could it not be that God “fixed His love beforehand” on those whom He knew would accept His offer of salvation? Paul is not explicit on this but I believe that it is logically entailed.
February 6, 2013 at 4:36 pm
Hi Walt brother,
Do you then believe in conditional election? Not trying to be provocative here. Just trying to understand.
if you do, is election “conditioned” on man’s willful choice of God? Or, how would you beter state it?
Thanks,
Les
February 6, 2013 at 5:27 pm
Les: Thanks for the question. To believe that man through his God-given free will is incapable of accepting God’s grace is to deny that genuine free will exists. If this is the case, in a court of man the accused would be found not guilty by reason of incapacity and submitted for treatment, not punishment. Do Calvinists believe that God is less merciful or understanding? Paul teaches that before God made His decision on predestination that He foreknew the individual. Using the plain meaning of words I can only conclude that predestination is conditional on God’s foreknowledge as taught in Romans 8:29.
February 6, 2013 at 7:03 pm
Walt, Romans 8 “foreknowledge” is a verb, not a noun. If we take your arugment, then justification and glorification must also be nouns, and not actions God does on our behalf.
He is an interlinear to show what I mean. http://interlinearbible.org/romans/8-29.htm
February 6, 2013 at 7:10 pm
James: I am having trouble understanding your grammatical point. If God “foreknew” then He had “foreknowledge,” which to my undersatanding has no meaningful distinction.
February 6, 2013 at 7:22 pm
Walt the verb form of “foreknowledge” does not mean “to know beforehand as in an outcome”, rather it means “to know intimately”. It carries a similar understanding of a husband and wife in marriage.
So God, justifies us and glorifies us, not based on works, but by His grace. He predestines us by His grace. Glorification, justification, and predestination in what is commonly called “the golden chain of redemption” are all verbs. Foreknowledge is the first part of these verbs within the sequence.
The foreknowledge you are thinking of is found in 1 Peter 1:2. The doctrines of grace affirms both God knowing intimately and knowing the future. We don’t deny this, however to be exegetically honest one must affirm the verb construct on 8:29 and deny it as the noun.
February 6, 2013 at 7:45 pm
James: Are you saying that God does not know beforehand man’s response? I believe that the verb “foreknew” of necessity entails both concepts. To say otherwise appears to put a limitation on God’s omniscience.
February 6, 2013 at 7:57 pm
James: I would add that even with your limited definition Romans 8:29 teaches that it happened as a condition precedent to predestination.
February 6, 2013 at 11:38 pm
Walt, it looks like James is already covering the meaning of προέγνω with you, so I’ll stay out of that. But on another front you said this:
“To believe that man through his God-given free will is incapable of accepting God’s grace is to deny that genuine free will exists. If this is the case, in a court of man the accused would be found not guilty by reason of incapacity and submitted for treatment, not punishment.”
As evidence that Paul has been making the case for the nature of God’s sovereignty all along, he directly addresses your concern in Rom 9:19ff:
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”
None can offer any better answer than what Paul provides in the verses that follow it.
February 7, 2013 at 11:10 am
Jim: I believe that Paul is addressing those who think that predestination is unfair. However, it is not unfair to those whom God foreknew because they exercised their genuine free will to accept or reject Him.
February 7, 2013 at 2:27 pm
Except that your explanation doesn’t fit Paul’s intended audience who are all believers in Rome. If what you say is true, he wouldn’t have to explain this to them.
Also, Paul’s answer doesn’t match your explanation. His explanation matches the intended purpose of the letter, which was to unify the Jews and Gentiles. It fits perfectly with chapter 11 having explained God’s sovereign work in the hearts of sinners through a universal message of salvation – universal because it was to come to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. So God hardened the Jews so the message would be taken to the Gentiles. That’s the purpose for Paul’s discourse here. Paul’s letter to the Romans doesn’t make sense as a cohesive message if God didn’t plan all this from the beginning.
You keep dragging it back to the meaning of προέγνω (“proegno”, a conjugation of prognosis). However, you don’t refer to the Greek word, but only the English translation. So I’ll step in here and offer what I know about this word:
In A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Third edition) proegno is defined thus: “to choose beforehand”. But it’s also aorist indicative. This means that the context must be employed to indicate its precise meaning. It can’t add to the meaning of the passage without drawing its meaning from the passage. As it is, this is not simply something God did in the past, but either what he did prior to creation or as an ongoing act. But part of the reason proegno is given this definition is because Paul is using it with a Hebrew connotation. Why? Because he’s writing to convince the Jewish believers in this section that they need to include the Gentiles. So in order to understand what the word means, we need to take the writer and the original audience into consideration.
February 7, 2013 at 2:40 pm
Jim: Agreed that the primary meaning of προέγνω is “to choose beforehand” and is thus properly translated. It is referring to God’s foreknowledge prior to creation which This is totally consistent with Paul’s purpose to unite the factions of believers.
February 6, 2013 at 5:17 pm
I was not logged in properly Ken.
February 6, 2013 at 9:10 pm
Walt I stated I affirmed both, however your position is not the argument Paul is making in this text. He is showing the union one has in Christ.
February 7, 2013 at 11:14 am
James: I believe that Paul is making a much stronger argument than you propose, as he uses God’s foreknowledge of man’s response as a condition precedent to His decision regarding predestination.
February 7, 2013 at 11:38 am
Walt,
Given the thoroughness with which James has answered, including the definition of foreknowledge of the verse in question, how do you arrive at the conclusion that God is using His “foreknowledge of man’s response”?
IOW, what in that verse expresses where Paul is merely speaking of “God’s foreknowledge of man’s response”?
February 7, 2013 at 12:03 pm
Mark: “Foreknowledge” while it may have the primary meaning of intimate knowledge, also entails the concept of prior knowledge, or the “fore” has no meaning. Since Calvinists agree that God knows all beforehand I don’t understand the attempt to limit this word’s meaning. Paul is explaining that God’s actions are completely fair and merciful as He knows beforehand the results of those actions.
February 7, 2013 at 12:32 pm
Walt,
I believe you’re reading into the verse what you want to get out of it. I don’t see where Paul is answering for the fairness of God in the context of Romans 8:28. Rather, Paul is giving believers assurance that all of the work of salvation and sustaining believers is solely God’s work; even in our weakness.
The verse says that God knows (knowledge) us before (fore) hand, not our actions. The verse does not say anything about God foreknowing actions. Do you think the verse is mistranslated?
February 7, 2013 at 1:08 pm
Mark: Do you deny that God knows all of our actions beforehand? If not I see no purpose to your claimed distinction, as God’s prior (“fore”)knowledge of everything precedes his decision to predestine.
February 7, 2013 at 3:10 pm
Walt, I’m not sure why you don’t see it. Of course, God knows our actions before hand, but the text in question does not mention God knowing our actions before hand. Nor does it mention God is acting based on knowing our actions before hand.
February 7, 2013 at 3:26 pm
Mark:
The primary meaning of προέγνω is “to choose beforehand” and this encompasses each and every thing of which God has foreknowledge. Romans 8:29 makes clear that this knowledge precedes and is causal to election. We must read particular passages in light of the clear general teaching of Scripture.