Until now (to my knowledge), Strange BaptistFire has posted no direct response to the influential anti-Calvinist work What Love Is This? by Dave Hunt. This is, in part, due to the fact that teachers like Phil Johnson and James White have so done such an excellent job in exposing and dismantling Hunt’s factual and exegetical errors. 

But a few weeks ago my friend Evan Stewart sent me the following response to some excerpts from What Love Is This? and due to the nature of Strange BaptistFire, I thought it may be beneficial to our readers to have this resource posted here.

The remainder of what follows was written by Evan Stewart: (more…)

Those that hold to biblical inerrancy- believing that God used humans as passive instruments to record the Bible or that God whispered revelation into the prophets’ ears and they simply wrote down what God said verbatim- discount human agency in the recording of Scripture. Thus, biblical inerrantists elevate the Bible to the point of idolatry and displace Jesus as the unique Word of God. (more…)

Putting aside perhaps, some of the extreme KJV only folks that I’ve encountered,  I have yet to find a group or mindset that is as "anti-Calvinism" as the Emerging Church Movement.  Sure, there are some like Mark Driscoll who have a background in this movement while simultaneously espousing Calvinism, but they are far from the majority of those who identify themselves with this postmodern re-thinking of church and Christianity.

From all of the reading that I’ve done so far of Emerging blogs, the best explanation that I can come up with for this clash has to do with something about Calvinists and also something about postmodernists.  Calvinists tend to value doctrinal precision, whereas Emerging Church postmodernists embrace mystery (some would say that they tend to shroud the revealed will of God in mystery) and prefer living with doctrinal gray areas.

When he wrote his 19th century "Warnings to the churches" J.C. Ryle could not have known about today’s Emerging movement, however - this statement of his - I think summarizes the conflict that we often see between Calvinists and Postmodernists:

"He who dares to say of one doctrine that ‘it is true,’ and of another that ‘it is false,’ must expect to be called narrow-minded and uncharitable…"

For the past several months I’ve been noticing an ordained Baptist pastor by the name of Henry (Rick) Frueh showing up on quite a number of blogs, expressing his anti-Calvinistic views.  Pastor Frueh, while vigorously rejecting the Emerging Church movement as recent as a few months ago, has lately been collaborating with, and doing podcasts on, an Emerging-friendly website. Many of his anti-Calvinism comments from around the blogosphere are themed around Limited Atonement being blasphemy (or as he calls it on a recent post on his blog "a great heresy"). My view of this mirrors that of Tom Ascol when he answered the same claim by the late Jerry Falwell.  I intend no disrespect to the memory of Jerry Falwell, however I wanted to provide this excellent quote written by Tom Ascol prior to Jerry Falwell’s departure to be with the Lord. From the Founders blog:

"…he added a statement that I find tragic. Here it is (about 10 minutes or so into the video): ‘We are not into particular love or limited atonement. As a matter of fact we consider it heresy‘. Don’t misunderstand me, I do not regard it as unfortunate that he articulated his and Liberty University’s honest beliefs, no matter how offensive they may be to me or to others. In fact, I applaud his willingness to state clearly not only what they believe but also what they do not believe. We need more such plain speaking in our day.

What I regret is that he finds particular atonement to be "heresy." This must mean that he and Liberty believe that those who hold to particular atonement to be heretics. Among the countless numbers of people whom he would brand with the H-word are many who would make any evangelical Who’s who list (including Bunyan, Owen, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Carey, Boyce, Mell, Dagg and Lloyd-Jones, to name but a few of the dead ones). I find this sad.

Does Jerry Falwell and Liberty University really judge John Piper to be a heretic? If we take his words seriously, as surely we ought if we are to honor him, then he believes that Al Mohler, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, D. James Kennedy, Ligon Duncan, Mark Dever, Tom Nettles, Wayne Grudem, Sinclair Ferguson, James White and Fred Malone teach heresy."

You might be surprised to find out that some of the Emerging commenters on the site that Pastor Frueh is a contributor on, have actually objected to his Calvinism/heresy claim, after Pastor Frueh put a repost of it on that site. The reason that should surprise you is that so many of the Emerging Church participants there maintain an almost perpetual commentary against Calvinism on that site.  Take for example this post by the site’s owner - Chris Lyons, entitled "Why
Systematic Theology Leads to Divisive Failure". The comments on that post demonstrated the clash between Calvinism and the postmodern mindset, and there are other similar posts there as well. 

So why the rejection of anti-Calvinistic ‘heresy’ terminology by some who have no love for Calvinism?  I think it’s because, to say that something of Calvinism is a heresy invokes that same J.C. Ryle sentiment that I quoted earlier.  Even if the heresy statement might have some merit to it in their way of thinking, saying something as dogmatic and certain as this is simply wrong and divisive to them. One of Pastor Rick Frueh’s fellow contributors recoiled at this terminology in the first comment on the post:

"With all due respect, calling this doctrine a heresy makes us no better than the other guys. I understand you have issues with this doctrine and you probably make some compelling arguments but once I got to the word, “heresy” I stopped reading. This post would have been better served (with that term in there) being put up on your blog."

And so it is that Pastor Frueh ended up taking the word heresy out of his repost on that blog, while leaving it in the copy on his own blog.  His fellow contributor, who is an Emerging Church writer on multiple websites, went on to further explain his problem with the wording choice:

"Here’s what I’m trying to say. [Calvinists] believe in Limited Atonement so they say all that don’t are heretics. You don’t believe in it so you say that all that do are heretics. Explain to me the difference?"

If you think like I do, and perhaps like J.C. Ryle did, you are wondering now, what if something actually is a heresy?  Can we speak out about it? Can we call it a heresy, or does postmodernism dictate to us that this is simply rude and out of bounds?  More than for this particular group alone, those are the questions that come to mind for the Emerging Church movement in general.  Are we now living in a time which parallels the title of David Wells’ book "No Place For Truth"?

Incidentally, Tom Ascol went on to say something that the Emerging Church blogger above would probably be very surprised to hear from a Calvinist:

"That certainly is his and Liberty’s right to believe [that Limited Atonement is a heresy]. I simply regret that they believe it. I do not regard my universal redemptionist brothers to be heretics because of their views of general atonement. I think they are wrong and they think the same of me. But that does not mean that we have to accuse each other of being heretics."

I’m hoping that this post will give those of you who have had little or no exposure to the Emerging Church an idea of what to expect from many who are friendly to this new way of thinking. It is a movement which does not appreciate doctrinal certainty beyond the very basics, in fact - they often see it as something divisive and unattainable.

The best sources I’ve found for understanding the worldview clash between Postmodernists and those who put a high value on doctrinal precision are, Phil Johnson’s Team Pyro blog, and Bob DeWaay’s Critical Issues Commentatry.  While my post was not intended to be a defense of Limited Atonement, I can recommend James White’s post entitled "Was Anyone Saved At The Cross?" (which I believe is available as a tract pamphlet as well), and also John Owen’s classic book: Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

In his August 2, 2007 article for the Alabama Baptist titled, “How prominent Baptists stack up: Have leading Baptist theologians affirmed teachings of Dortian Calvinism?” Dr. James Leo Garrett, Jr. concludes, “…some [Baptist theologians] have clearly rejected all five doctrines of Dort; that others have embraced all five doctrines of Dort; that still others have accepted some, but not all, of the doctrines of Dort; and yet others have bypassed, ignored or declined to address the doctrines of Dort. Such variety is clearly characteristic of Baptists past and present.”

I would actually agree with this conclusion, though I believe that prior to the rise of a kind of anti-intellectual revivalism- beginning in the late 1800s- Baptist (and Christians in general) tended to be more precise and consistent in articulating their theological positions. Certainly, however, no one can deny that from the beginning of the modern Baptist movement- arising out of English separatism in the early 1600s- there have been Baptists holding to Arminianism (historically called “General Baptists”) and Baptists holding to Calvinism (historically called “Particular Baptists”). My real problem is with the specific examples that Dr. Garrett gives- examples in which he either denies or calls into question the adherence of some “prominent Baptists” to what Dr. Garrett labels the “five doctrines of Dort,” which adherents themselves call the “doctrines of Grace.”

In responding to Dr. Garrett’s article, I have neither the time nor resources to address every name he mentions, so I will focus on three- C.H. Spurgeon, John Piper, and D.A. Carson- with passing mention of J.P. Boyce. Readers are also encouraged to view Dr. Michael A.G. Haykin’s article responding to Dr. Garrett’s claims concerning Andrew Fuller. (more…)

In the article “Does Dortian Calvinism have weight of Scripture in its favor?” found in the August 2, 2007 edition of The Alabama Baptist state paper, Dr. James Leo Garrett, Jr. of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas states that his goal is “to inquire whether the tenets of Dortian Calvinism are indeed supported by Scripture.” Ostensibly, Dr. Garrett seeks to examine the traditional “five points” of Calvinism, as expressed in the acronym “TULIP,” which stands for “Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and the Perseverance of the saints.” In Part 1 and Part 2 of this post, I have responded to Dr. Garrett’s presentation of Limited atonement and his argument for General atonement. (Limited atonement is mentioned first in Dr. Garrett’s treatment, and is given more space, and understandably so, because this is the most obviously controversial doctrine of the traditional “five points”.) In this post, I will address the remainder of Dr. Garrett’s article. (more…)