What remains so stunning to me as I read the thread on the Founders’ Blog regarding Johnny Hunt’s SBC Presidential Candidacy and the Calvinist Gadfly’s thread induction of Johnny Hunt into the Arminian Hall of Fame (along with every other example of of the “debate”) is the similarity of methodology by both parties in the Calvinism “debate” .
However, as much as both agree regarding tactics they are equally blind to the similarities.
For example:
Unhelpful Labeling
Calvinist: Armininan
Non-Calvinist: Semi-Presbyterian
Vitrolic Hyperbole
Calvinist: “Remember Calvinism is just a nickname for the true gospel.”
Non-Calvinist: “Five Point Calvinism is a VIRUS.”
Faulty Evangelism
Calvinist: You don’t care about legitimate conversions, only numbers.
Non-Calvinist: You don’t care about evangelism, period.
Faulty Icon(s) (the names are taken from the thread but others could be substituted)
Calvinist: Johnny Hunt is anti-calvinist. Watch out. Look to a godly man like John Piper, can’t imagine any one having a problem with him.
Non-Calvinist: John Piper is a hyper Calvinist. Watch out. Look to a Godly man like Johnny Hunt, can’t imagine anyone having a problem with him.
Misrepresentation
Calvinist: Dang it, we are not fatalistic, deterministic, or unevangelistic. However, if you aren’t a Calvinist you are an Arminian.
Non-Calvinist: Dang it, we are not Arminians. However, Calvinists are fatalistic, deterministic, and unevangelistic.
Cheap Potshots in Public Places
Calvinist: I’m going to put Johnny Hunt in the Arminian Hall of Fame
Non-Calvinist: Well, I just hope no one gets saved that’s not supposed to.
And you know what? Both sides justify their methods with
(A) They did it first.
(B) They did it worse.
All the while they are pulling from the same bag of tricks and launching the same weapons from opposite corners of the ring at fellow believers.
It isn’t a solution but a lot of this could change if we saw the issue from this perspective. Add to it that the debate over Calvinism isn’t simple, easily reducible, or without room for disagreement between truly Orthodox (and well thought out, for that matter) positions.
Hey Jeff, looks like you’ve gotten yourself in pretty deep . Good luck. I agree with you that the rhetoric in this debate seems to be more about attacking than discussing. Honestly, the things I see coming out of the Calvinists in this debate are disturbing to me (and remember, I tend to lean that way.) I’m bothered by a phrase like “we calvinistic brothers ” that I saw in one post. Does a Christian brother have to be a Calvinist? When did Calvinism become the one and only legit view?
The attitude on this issue seems to be that if someone isn’t a Calvinist, then they should get out of the SBC and leave the demonination for the true brethen. This trend isn’t just about soteriology either. Baptists are being told what to think about baptism, alcohol, spiritual gifts, etc. When did “assimilate or die” become the Baptist motto? There is an attitude of fundamentalism creeping into the SBC, and I don’t think it’s healthy.
As Mike commented on my blog a few weeks back, “This is hyperbole, (but it may not be far from true if we don’t do something now) – but in the future, the SBC might be characterized by women in ankle length dresses and men with beards forming isolated communities away from the world. “
Great post! Very needed words of caution to those on both sides of the “debate”.
Ya know? I have been a staunch Southern Baptist for 47 years. It was not until about 10 years ago that I was formally introduced to the debate between Calvanists and non-Calvanists.
Somehow I managed to put the person of Christ and my relationship with Him ahead of it all.
I do not mean that to sound overly pious or sactimonious (I just can’t help myself), but why in the world do we manage to “get into fights” over these things?
Both groups cannot be right. But (have you ever thought of this one?) both groups could very well be wrong.
Let’s set about getting our focus on Him.
(Everytime I say that in the presence of either a hyper-Calvanist or a hyper non-Calvanist, I get put down…but that’s OK. I’m getting used to it.)
“Non-Calvinist: Well, I just hope no one gets saved that’s not supposed to.”–
I laughed out loud at this point.
Good post.
JRush
You do realize that that is a direct quote from Johnny Hunt, right?
Jeff,
Good post. I agree that the rhetoric is overdone by both sides.
I am a Calvinist that attended a Wesleyan church for eight years. You were either a Calvinist or an Arminian. No one had a problem being called an Arminian there. Thus I have made the mistake of assuming that when someone denies Calvinism, they are basically an Arminian. Only recently have I learned that many think that the term “Arminian” is negative term that people find insulting. After learning this, I have no problem calling someone a “non-Calvinist” if that is what they prefer. Though my Arminian friends see that label as insulting. Why? They think it is silly to define your view of salvation “only” by means of what you are not. When asked how you view salvation, the response is only what you are not.
This may show my ignorance, but I do not really know what the difference between an Arminian and non-Calvinist is. There are different strands of Arminians, but I am not sure how non-Calvinists differ from them. Some think it is over the issue of the security of the believer, that is, can someone lose their salvation or not. Arminians affirming you can, whereas non-Calvinists believe you cannot. The problem with this is that historically Arminians have left this question open. In other words, you can be an Arminian and believe in eternal security.
In the end, it does not really matter if there is a clear difference between the two. If non-Calvinists do not like the term Arminian, then the term should probably be avoided.
I must confess a lack of credibility in my ability to answer so please take what you read (a) as my opinion and (b) with a grain of salt. The cheif difference, to my mind, you have already addressed. The term Arminian, when I use it, refers to James Arminius’ position to which the Synod of Dort was a response. While I can’t speak to the historical flexibility that Arminians have give to the issue of security I can say I only feel safe in sticking to the clearest definition and the one with the broadest acceptance. I might fail here but I’ve always understood Arminianism as I’ve just mentioned. I hope that is an adequate answer.
Jeff,
You wrote, “The term Arminian, when I use it, refers to James Arminius’ position to which the Synod of Dort was a response.”
I agree that this is a pretty good standard to determine the Arminian position. However, on the issue of the security of the believer, this doctrine was left open to inquiry by Arminius. He did not give a definite answer to this question. This is why I said that historically this is an open question.
On the other hand, it is probably the majority position of Arminians “today” to believe that you can lose your salvation. I just know that in my Arminian background, I knew just as many people who took the label Arminian and believe in eternal security as I do those who do not. And those who believe you can lose your salvation do not look at Arminians who believe in eternal security as no longer being Arminian. The problem is that this is just my limited experience.
In the end, I think love demands that we be careful in our use of labels. Even if someone is historically in line with a particular label, it does not mean that it is appropriate to use. This is especially true if the label carries a lot of contemporary baggage (sometimes to the point of redefining the term) to it, in that it has many negative connatations. If someone does not want to be called by a particular label, and we decide to use it anyway, then I do believe it erects unecessary barriers.
I recommend the following:
Theopedia: Calvinism
Theopedia:Universal prevenient grace