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…)

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…)

Dr. James Leo Garrett indicates three kinds of biblical texts that he believes support “general atonement.”

First are the “all” or “all men” texts: 2 Cor. 5:14b; Rom. 5:18b; 1 Tim. 2:6a; 1 Tim. 4:10; Titus 2:11, Heb. 2:9b.

As Tom Ascol has pointed out, it is disappointing that neither in his presentation of “limited atonement” nor of “general atonement” does Dr. Garrett actually deal with the context of the Scripture in which the lists of verses he offers occur. His teaching on this matter would be considerably strengthened if he would carefully exegete at least one passage from each side of the issue before offering bare citations. By teaching people to depend on several out-of-context verses in making doctrinal judgments, Dr. Garrett leaves his readers susceptible to heretical groups such as the Mormons, who can rattle off dozens of verses that (outside their proper context) seem to teach works-salvation.

In regards to the “all” passages above, it has been pointed out on this website before that “all” is always defined by its context. In other words, we can see the words “all” or “all men” and read into them, “every man, woman, and child ever to exist,” or we can look to the verses around the word to see what people the author had in view. To his credit, Dr. Garrett does mention that, “Augustine of Hippo interpreted the ‘all’ and ‘all men’ to mean all classes and types of human beings, and thus he could retain limited atonement.” What Dr. Garrett does not mention, however, is that this understanding of “all” and “all men” is in regards to a certain passage, 1 Tim 2:4, and that “all” is defined in this passage- in 1 Tim. 2:2. (more…)

In his article “Does Dortian Calvinism have weight of Scripture in its favor?” for The Alabama Baptist state paper, Dr. James Leo Garrett, Jr. employs the term “Dortian Calvinism” to refer to the system of belief that affirms the doctrines commonly summarized as “TULIP” as key components of its soteriology (that is, teachings concerning salvation). “Dortian Calvinism” is a helpful term in a climate where everyone from Dr. Bruce Ware to Dr. Norman Geisler is claiming to be some sort of Calvinist.

In critiquing the scriptural understanding of “Dortian Calvinism,” Dr. Garrett begins with the “L” of the “TULIP”- the doctrine of Limited atonement. This is an understandable starting point, for in most Baptist circles this doctrine is considered the most controversial of the five.

Dr. Garrett starts his critique of Limited atonement with the statement, “Those who teach limited atonement are prone to cite five New Testament passages in support of their position.” My first response to this sentence is, “Only five?” This immediately gives the impression that there are only a handful of New Testament passages that are cited for this doctrine, and thus the stage is set for a ‘proof-text war’ in which the party that can provide more passages that seem to support its position will be victorious. But, as will be detailed below, this is not how ‘Dortian Calvinists’ typically have taught our position. (more…)

Today, building upon Timmy’s previous post on SBF, I am starting a category to provide some direct responses to the group of articles by Dr. James Leo Garrett, Jr. that appeared in the August 2, 2007 edition of The Alabama Baptist state paper.

The other two “direct responses” categories on SBF, those directed at BaptistFire.com and NelsonPrice.com, have been concerned with vitriolic attacks against “Calvinism”- attacks displaying no concern for accurately presenting the Calvinist position. This is not true of Dr. Garrett’s articles, which are much more scholarly in tone and which make a much better attempt to interact with “Calvinism”. However, I do believe that there are some basic, demonstrable factual errors in Dr. Garrett’s presentation that drive false conclusions and that merit some additional responses here at SBF.

The most basic factual errors made by Dr. Garrett come at the definitional level. How have such concepts as “Calvinism” and “Hyper-Calvinism” been historically defined? (more…)