On June 3, I sent Dr. Allen, dean of the School of Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, links to my articles on this site critiquing his arguments against Limited atonement [the last one can be found HERE].

Along with these links, I sent the following message:

As I believe that Limited atonement (better termed Particular redemption) is a doctrine taught in Scripture, it would be my hope to persuade you to abandon such arguments as those you offered in the lecture mentioned above. Barring this eventuality, I hope that the articles linked above will at least advance the conversation so that in your presentation at the John 3:16 Conference, the clear historical errors of your presentation last February will be corrected and the Reformed response to your exegesis and theology will be taken into account.

By His grace and for His glory,
-Andrew Lindsey

Re-reading this message, I think that I could have been more respectful and courteous, positive traits that I think were lost in my attempt to be brief.

As a dean of a major institution, I did not expect that Dr. Allen would actually respond to such an email, or, if he did, I expected his response to be (somewhat understandably) dismissive.

Instead, Dr. Allen emailed the following, just two days later:

Andrew,

Thanks for your email and concern. Rest assured I will do everything I can to be biblically, historically and theologically accurate in my presentation at the John 3:16 conference. While I appreciate your taking the time to listen and respond in the articles below, I must say that I don’t think it is my historiography that is in question. At any rate, I do hope you can attend the conference, and I would be delighted to meet you there and perhaps set aside some time to chat.

Blessings!

David L. Allen

Dean, School of Theology

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

I think that, on the whole, the above response was very gracious. I do hope, however, that Dr. Allen will reconsider the historical aspect of what I wrote, as I believe my response to his presentation was well-documented.

I don’t often check the blog of Dr. Ergun Caner, mainly due to the fact that he posts so rarely. So I was interested to see the news, posted December 18, 2007, that Dr. Caner is leading Liberty Theological Seminary to change its name back to Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. (Read the entire article HERE.) Now, as a student of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, I’m all for the word “Baptist” appearing in the name of a seminary in which Baptist distinctives are promoted- in my opinion this is a simple matter of ‘truth in advertising.’ But the more interesting part is the specific reasons Dr. Caner gives for revising the name of Liberty Theological Seminary. Caner states:

…much as changed, both here at Liberty University and in the Southern Baptist Convention. Too many schools have Baptist in their name but not in their doctrine. Some have drifted into liberalism and cultural relativism; still others remain orthodox, but have drifted toward non-Baptist reformed doctrine and cultural isolationism. For us, this was our line in the sand. We want to build bridges to a lost world without burning the bridges of our doctrinal heritage. We are putting Baptist back in our name, and taking back a term that has been misused.

Notice first that Dr. Caner links “reformed doctrine” with “liberalism” and “relativism,” creating a list that seeks to established guilt by [entirely undefined] association in the same manner Dr. Jerry Vines attempted with his “Baptist Battles” sermon series back in 2006.

Also note that Dr. Caner does not define what he means by “non-baptist reformed doctrine.” Does he mean the reformed doctrine defended by P.H. Mell, one of the original delegates  who helped found the Southern Baptist Convention and went on to be President of the Convention for a total of seventeen years? Does he mean the reformed theology explained by J.L. Dagg, the first writing Southern Baptist Theologian, who wrote, “All who will finally be saved, were chosen to salvation by God the Father, before the foundation of the world, and given to Jesus Christ in the Covenant of Grace” [J. L. Dagg, Manual of Theology (1857; reprint, Harrisonburg, VA: Gano Books, 1982), 305]? Does he mean the reformed theology taught by J.P. Boyce, the first president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who wrote, “Election is an act of God, and not a result of the choice of the Elect… This choice is one of individuals and not classes… election is made through the mere good pleasure of God” [J.P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology (1887; reprint, Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2006), 348-350]? Does he mean the reformed theology celebrated by many of the pastors and teachers at the recent Building Bridges conference, to which his article alludes? A consideration of Mell, Dagg, and Boyce show that a reformed understanding of God’s sovereignty in salvation is far from “non-baptist.” Perhaps Dr. Caner means to indicate some other kind of “non-baptist reformed doctrine,” but if he really means to assert that there are Southern Baptist churches holding to a reformed doctrine of infant baptism, then he needs to give specific examples.

In my last post, I talked about the clash between doctrinal certainty as held by Calvinists versus the postmodern embrace of ‘mystery’. Groups like the Emerging Church would often rather place matters of controversy beyond human reach, and I fear - treat revealed truth as though it were not revealed. I think another example of this postmodern tendency can be seen in this post by Chris Lyons, who is a vocal critic of Calvinism as well as pretty much any kind of Systematic Theology.

In his post, Chris Lyons gives his take on Arminianism, Open Theism, and Calvinism (though he mistakenly makes comparisons with fatalism).  Afterwards he concludes:

"In all of these views, systems are built upon one key aspect, or set of related aspects: foreknowledge, free will, relationship. I would posit, though, that each is but one view of the whole, which is impossible for us to see in its entirety. I would posit that each view, in and of itself, builds a system based on its own limited eisegesis of scripture. I would posit that the most accurate view possible for us to attain is in accepting that the basis of each of these views […] are all correct and not in contradiction to one another. I would posit that any apparent contradiction exists because of the previously mentioned shortcoming in our blindness - we try to place God inside of time in order to understand Him, when He clearly exists apart from it." (emphasis mine).

The fact that it has always been understood throughout church history that there are obvious contradictions and incompatibilities between each of these views is something that Chris expects us to overlook.  Supposedly, they are all different angles on the holistic truth which can’t be known; there are no contradictions, and we are asked to simply take his word for it that this is a mystery that we should not try to explain.  On the surface, this thinking (which is common in postmodernism) seems very tolerant, but it’s actually very intolerant towards anyone who dares to declare that any one of these views are the truth while the other views are contradictory and false. That’s the one thing that is unacceptable and presumably can’t be true. Later on the page Chris Lyons explains that to accept any one of these views as being the true teaching that is revealed in the Word of God is equivalent to putting God in a box.

That brings to mind a post I read some time ago on Stand To Reason’s blog, about this overused phrase "Putting God in a Box":

"[The line is] actually kind of rude because it implies that we’re doing something illegitimate with God. But you know what? We all put God in a box - the box being how we best understand God’s revelation of Himself in Scripture. The box is one of God’s own nature we’re all just trying to figure out what the box looks like.

God should be in a box. What’s the alternative? God has no limitations on what He can be like or act like? That is frightening. God Himself is limited by His own nature. He can’t lie. He can’t sin. He can’t go out of existence. God’s box - the definition of what He is like - is what makes Him God and a Person we can love and trust and glorify. If God isn’t in some kind of a box, He would be arbitrary.

God’s box is the biggest and greatest box there is. He’s omniscient - He knows and believes all true things; but He cannot believe false things. He’s omnipotent - God can do whatever power can do. His potentialities are at the greatest limit of the attributes He possesses. But those very attributes define Him, they describe His box. Our goal is to get the best idea of what that box looks like."

While I think the Emerging Church and Postmodernists such as Chris Lyons are too often ready to shroud revealed truth in a cloud of mystery, I also think we must be careful to allow for mystery where it is legitimately encountered.  As John Calvin warns:

"The discussion of Predestination—a subject of itself rather intricate—is made very perplexed, and therefore dangerous, by human curiosity, which no barriers can restrain from wandering into forbidden labyrinths, and from soaring beyond its sphere, as if determined to leave none of the Divine secrets unscrutinized or unexplored . . . First, then, let them remember that when they inquire into Predestination, they penetrate into the inmost recesses of divine wisdom, where the careless and confident intruder will obtain no satisfaction to his curiosity . . . For we know that when we have exceeded the limits of the word, we shall get into a devious and irksome course, in which errors, slips, and falls will be inevitable. Let us then, in the first place bear in mind, that to desire any more knowledge of Predestination than that which is unfolded in the Word of God, indicates as great folly as to wish to walk through impassible roads, or to see in the dark. Nor let us be ashamed to be ignorant of some things relative to a subject in which there is a kind of learned ignorance." –Institutes, Ch. XXI, sect. I, II.

The key is, as Calvin said - to stay inside the limits of word, but at the same time being a Workman (2 Tim 2:15) with that which is revealed in scripture. On all sorts of topics, including election and predestination, we may not always like the conclusions that we come to in taking an honest and realistic approach to scripture. But really, it’s no different than another systematized concept that was once the subject of much debate, and yet is embraced by many postmodernists such as Chris Lyons, and that is the Trinity. There’s mystery in it - to be sure, but we are still able to systematically define it within the bounds of scripture, and we believe it is true - because that’s what the bible teaches about our triune and sovereign God.

In the wake of the “Building Bridges” conference last week at Ridgecrest, Norman Jameson, editor of the Biblical Recorder (the North Carolina Baptist state newspaper), writes,

…if the general attitude of presenters is typical of the players in this debate [i.e., the debate over “Calvinism”] nationwide, there is hope for civil, informed dialog among people who hold different views. That bears celebrating.

This, I believe, is the reaction that the organizers of this conference hoped for, and I pray that more across the nation have the same reaction.

However, there are severe problems with the rest of Jameson’s article. [Norman Jameson, “Bridge building conference lowers alarm level,” Biblical Recorder, 11/30/07; HT:: Founders Ministries blog.] (more…)

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…)

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.

Some of you may remember last year in Greensboro a motion was made to Bobby Welch requesting that “Calvinism’s current impact on SBC churches as well as its implications for the future of the great Convention.”  The man who made this notion is Dr. John Connell, pastor of Calvary Baptist Temple in Savannah located in Savannah, Georgia.  Dr. Connell is also superintendent of Calvary Day School, the k-12 private school of Calvary in Savannah.  Statewide, Dr. Connell is also an influential Georgian Baptist as he has written Sunday School lessons for The Christian Index (GA’s Baptist state paper) and will also be one of two “tellers” for the state of Georgia at the 2007 Annual Meeting in San Antonio. 

Like other influential Georgian Baptists, including the likes of Nelson Price (Evangelical Calvinism Is an Oxymoron) and Johnny Hunt, Connell has developed a strong anti-Reformed agenda.  Last year (copyright 2006), Connell wrote a 73 page book essay which he entitled “The TULIP in the Garden: Pruning the Petals of Calvinism” which he gives to his students who attend either Presbyterian or Reformed Baptist churches.  In summary, Connell blasts Calvinism at every point while offering an alternative view of God which he calls “Connellism.”  So what exactly does “Connellism” teach?  Let me first share with you some quotes from his book against Calvinism:

“Calvinists see man as totally depraved. I see man as mostly depraved.” - page 8

“I vehemently decry the thought that God, in any way, chooses some to be saved and some to be lost.” - page 9

“[T]he Bible is clear that Jesus died for everybody in the world, for all ages, for all time…” - page 10

“That is, Christ’s death on the cross paid the price for all human sin in all human ages.” - page 18

“I reject irresistible grace […] Choice is what God wants. If you’ve got a problem with that, then talk to God, not me.” - page 12

From these quotes, Connell appears to reject Calvinism at every point.  In fact, Connell’s alternative acrostic to TULIP, which he calls “Connellism” goes like this:

A - All encompassing love
C - Creative purpose
C - Choosing autonomy
E - Evangelistic initiative
S - Security of the believer
S - Separation of the unbeliever

Now, if that is not bad enough, let me provide a smattering of his ad-hominems: 

“Calvinism can lead to arrogance and elitism.” - page 37

“Calvinism naturally leads to depression and despair.” - page 38

“[Calvinism leads to] a life void of evangelistic fervor.” - page 38

“My experience with many five-point Calvinists is that they are militant, that they are more concerned about you becoming a Calvinist than they are about their neighbors coming to Jesus. […] Large numbers of five-point Calvinists aren’t interested in discussion but only in doing battle with the hopes of making another convert to the TULIP.” - page 64

After having read these quotes, let me remind you who is “pruning the petals” if you want to call it that.  The same man who wrote these words is not only the superintendent of the Calvary Day School, one of two ”tellers” for the state of Georgia this year at SBC’s Annual Meeting, a writer for GBC Sunday School material, and the one behind the motion to examine the impact of Calvinism in the SBC.  If it doesn’t make sense and clear things up, allow me to have Connell speak for himself.  He writes,

“Twenty-five years ago we had some courageous men to stand up and lead the way in preventing the Southern Baptist Convention from being swept away at the hands of moderates/liberals. […] I predict that in the next 10-20 years a group of men will have to do it all over again - not with moderates/liberals, but with Calvinists. I detest convention politics, but the greatest mission program in the world is at stake. Calvinism will ultimately destroy that mission program.”

There you have it.  Calvinism destroys the mission program, therefore the Great Commission is at stake unless we eradicate Calvinism from the SBC.  I suppose the dozens of Calvinists I know on the mission field didn’t get that memo, neither did the NAMB church planters.  So this leads me to turn his alarming statement into a question.  “Who in the next 10-20 years will fight to keep the Convention from being swept way at the hands of Calvinists?”  Who are the leading Arminians of this younger generation of Southern Baptists?

Well, I guess I have to go and update my chronological compilation now.  While 2007 has been a relatively quiet year for wild and crazy rants against Calvinism, I suppose we will just have to wait and see what San Antonio will “tell” us.  Till then, let us Calvinists be about serving God’s people and reaching our world with the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

Recently, SBF blogger Nathan White has begun a much-anticipated series [at least by me!] on the Regulative Principle of Worship, demonstrating a Reformed understanding of what the Bible teaches concerning how we praise the Lord, give for His kingdom, learn from His Word, and serve on another to the glory of God in a corporate setting. Previous to this post, Nathan had written an article on the practical ramifications of limited atonement– how what a Reformed understanding of what the Bible teaches concerning the perfect work of Christ on our behalf affects our daily Christian walk. Thinking on what the Bible says about the death of Christ on our behalf, I was driven once again to think about Dr. Jerry Vines’ sermon from last year at First Baptist Church Woodstock in which he, among other things, tried to refute the doctrine of limited atonement. Having dealt briefly with how Dr. Vines’ handled the Scripture in an earlier post, I wanted to take this opportunity to address one of his statements, one which I didn’t sufficiently address before, and the like of which I hear over and over again from the anti-Reformed faction of the Southern Baptist Convention: (more…)

A good hyperCalvinist will immediately go to Romans chapter 9. And if you have that text, you can look it up yourself later, but you know that Romans 9 teaches, ‘Just as I have said, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say, then, is there no justice with God?’ (Verse 14): ‘Is there? May there never be.’ So, here the proof is, they say: God loves some, God hates others, and that’s the proof. Ladies and gentlemen, please hear me, ask yourself this simple question: Did God hate Esau from the foundation of the world? Did God hate Esau just ’cause he was Esau? Or did God hate Esau because of what Esau did? [Ergun Caner, “Why I Am Predestined Not to be a Hypercalvinist” (sermon, Thomas Road Baptist Church, 9 April 2006), download.]

2006 was a rough year for Reformed-minded folks within the Southern Baptist Convention. With Dr. Malcolm Yarnell of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary making comments to the effect of accusing Calvinists of being anti-evangelistic in March, with Dr. Ergun Caner of Liberty University equating historic Calvinist belief with the anti-evangelistic hyperCalvinist position in April, with former SBC president Dr. Jerry Vines equating the Southern Baptist battle against Calvinism with battles against liberalism and drunkeness in October, and with Dr. Nelson Price directly asserting that evangelistic Calvinism is an oxymoron in November, the year began and ended with slanderous attacks against Reformed theology. A temptation is simply to put the past behind us, ignoring those things that were said which have never been retracted. And if all that was at issue was personal reputations or the name “Calvinism,” I would certainly not be writing this post today. But what genuinely concerns me is not so much the gross historical inaccuracies of last years anti-Calvinist barrage, but rather the way in which the controversy exposed how some leaders within the Southern Baptist Convention are willing to twist Scripture in order to make a point. This is dangerous not only to them personally, but also to the people for whom they are supposed to act as shepherds. In other words, many Baptists look to these men in order to find a model of how to read and understand the Word of God. Instead, they are all-too-often finding examples of how to deny certain passages of Scripture. The quote given at the head of this post which, as cited, was preached by Dr. Ergun Caner at Thomas Road Baptist Church on April 9, 2006, is indicative of how a passage of Scripture can be read and then the meaning of that passage contradicted through inattention to the context. (more…)

In my first and second posts in this series which examines the anti-Calvinism website known as Examining Calvinism, we took a look at Richard Coords’ method of getting around the Father’s drawing in John 6:44. He does this by essentially putting yellow police tape around this passage, declaring it as “off limits for today’s humans”. More specifically he tells us that the drawing in John 6:44 related only to the Jews of that time, but now there is a universal drawing in John 12:32, which he believes to be a non-effectual drawing of every human being who lives after Christ’s resurrection.

When the context (the first 31 verses of the chapter) are considered, it becomes clear in John 12:32 that Jesus is talking about “not just Jews” when He speaks of drawing all men. Up until the Cross, Jesus had not revealed himself to the gentiles, but now He is saying that those drawn will not include only Jews, but gentiles too.

So this passage is not really saying what Richard wants it to say; there is no implication that every last human being will receive the drawing that Jesus is talking about, Jesus is simply saying it’s not limited to just one group (the Jews). I won’t go into too much depth to demonstrate that point since there are many good resources out there that interact with this passage (John Gill’s commentary on John 12 did an especially nice job).

In my last post I demonstrated why Arminians such as Richard want to avoid the outcome of biblical exegesis on John 6; I listed off numerous quotes on this passage going back even as far as Augustine.

Richard’s system still leaves him with the burden of explaining how the drawing in John 6:44 is effectual for at least those included in his narrow view of who this passage applies to, namely the Jews prior to Christ’s resurrection. I say effectual, because the verse tells us that those drawn are raised on the last day. So in other words, regardless of what this drawing involves (teaching, learning etc.) it never fails that the person being drawn is raised on the last day.

Richard concedes this point, but he says that the reason that they (those few Jews) are drawn in the first place is that they had made God their father. Calvinists of course, recoil at this notion, since John 6 mentions nothing about anyone “making God their Father”. For scriptural support for this, Richard often jumps way over to John 8:42 (clearly out of the immediate context of our passage in John 6). Here’s an excerpt from the John 6:44 explanation page on his Examining Calvinism website:

Question: How did the Father draw them to His Son?

Answer: He presents them to His Son, just like with Nathanael, and then they recognize the Father in Him: “Nathanael answered Him, ‘Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.’” (John 1:49) How did this happen? Jesus states: “Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.’” (John 8:42) Others that the Father did give (v.37) and draw (v.44), had in fact made God their Father, and naturally loved Jesus, just as He said at John 8:42. So John 6:44 starts with being the Father’s true sheep, in contrast to the false ones whom the Father hardened, and hence, were unbelieving.

As you can see from Richard’s words and his underlining (the bold is mine) that he assumes that since some did not have God as their father, then this must imply some sort of ability for man to make Him their father. But this passage says nothing like this at all. My kids have a parakeet and cat, and if I were to say to the cat “if you were a bird you too could fly“, does this imply some free will choice that the cat has - to fly or make himself a bird? No. It’s simply stating a fact about that cat. So John 8:42 is one spot where Richard is clearly reading his presuppositions into the text. I pressed him on this point, at length, in the discussion that we had, and you can read his responses on his blog.

Numerous times Richard cites Walls and Dongell’s book for help in constructing his schematic. Interestingly, he also jumps out of his modified traditional Arminian basis to quote Lawrence Vance on these passages, even though Vance is coming from an ultra-dispensational point of view. As James White pointed out, these views of John 6 are relatively new positions in church history, not known in the first 1800 years of Christianity. So when Gene Bridges challenged Richard to come up with some noteworthy commentaries to support his position, Richard only cited modern works such as these books.

Richard’s scheme for John 6 relies upon inserting man’s free will as the cause for the Father’s drawing in verse 44. To do this he’s taken us on a complicated trip around the bible and outside of the context of the passage at hand.

He has changed the natural reading of the passage in John 6, which is:

Father Draws –> Son Raises

And has inserted a new starting point that is foreign to the context:

Man makes God his father –> Father Draws –> Son Raises

He assumes that man has such an ability to make God his father, and fails to demonstrate scripturally how this comes into play prior to the Father’s drawing in John 6. Richard’s Examining Calvinism website also dismisses the whole teaching of this the passage, which is Jesus’ explanation of why there is unbelief. Nowhere does Jesus say, “but this is only why there is Jewish unbelief”, yet Richard insists on a narrow Jews-only intention for Jesus’ words.

In summary of this series of posts on John 6 as explained by Richard Coords’ anti-Calvinism, I’ll refer back to the Dividing Line program that I mentioned in my first post, and I’ll close with Dr. James White’s description of the website known as Examining Calvinism:

“It’s an excellent example of utter eisegesis, how to turn the text on it’s head. I’m sure [that Richard] probably thinks that what’s he’s offering here is good solid biblical argumentation, but am I stating something that is really obvious when I say - the internet is filled with a tremendous amount of really lousy theology? At least several decades ago you had to convince somebody that you had something meaningful to say, that you had some skill and ability to handle the [biblical] text before your books would be published. Now, it takes nothing; all you need is a computer [online], and anybody who has one can demonstrate that they really don’t know what they are talking about - all across the whole world. It’s sad, and I feel the weight of this myself, every idle word will be judged. And that’s not only what is spoken, but also I think, it’s what you type, and what you post, and what you put out there.“