Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit—The "Unpardonable Sin" Can It Be Committed Today?

Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit—The "Unpardonable Sin"

by Kyle Butt, M.A.

Through the years, numerous writers have taken on the task of explaining the comment spoken by Jesus concerning the “unpardonable sin”—blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. From these writings have come countless false doctrines, insinuations, and suggested explanations. It is the purpose of this article to explain what “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” is not, what it actually is, and to offer comment concerning whether it still can be committed today.

Three of the four gospel accounts contain a reference to the statement made by Jesus concerning blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. These three passages read as follows.

Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come (Matthew 12:31-32).

Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation—because they said, “He has an unclean spirit” (Mark 3:28-30).

And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven (Luke 12:10).

Each of these references to the statement made by Jesus verifies that Jesus did clearly state that there is a specific sin that “will not be forgiven.” The American Standard Version describes the sin as an “eternal sin” (Mark 3:29). Jesus defined that sin as “the blasphemy against the Spirit.” What, then, is blasphemy against the Spirit?

In order to explain this sin fully, a look at the general context of the statement is critical. Matthew’s account offers the most detail concerning the setting in which Jesus’ statement was made. In Matthew 12:22, the text indicates that a certain man who was demon-possessed was brought to Jesus to be healed. As was His common practice, Jesus cast out the unclean spirit, and healed the man of his blindness and inability to speak. After seeing this display of power, the multitudes that followed Jesus asked, “Could this be the Son of David?” (12:23). Upon hearing this remark, the Pharisees, wanting to discredit the source from which Jesus received His power, declared that Jesus was casting out demons by “Beelzebub, the ruler of demons.” Jesus proceeded to explain that a kingdom divided against itself could not stand, and if He were casting out demons by the power of demons, then He would be defeating Himself. It was after this accusation by the Pharisees, and Jesus’ defense of His actions, that Christ commented concerning the blasphemy against the Spirit. In fact, the text of Mark clearly states that Jesus made the comment about the blasphemy against the Spirit “because they said, ‘He has an unclean spirit.’ ”

Another critical piece of information needed to clarify Jesus’ statement is the definition of blasphemy. Wayne Jackson wrote: “Blasphemy is an anglicized form of the Greek term blasphemia, which scholars believe probably derives from two roots, blapto, to injure, and pheme, to speak. The word would thus suggest injurious speech” (2000). Bernard Franklin, in his article concerning blasphemy against the Spirit, suggested:

The word “blasphemy” in its various forms (as verb, noun, adjective, etc.) appears some fifty-nine times in the New Testament. It has a variety of renderings, such as, “blasphemy,” “reviled,” “railed,” “evil spoken of,” “to speak evil of,” etc. Examples of these various renderings are: “They that passed by reviled him” (Matthew 27:39). “He that shall blaspheme” (Mark 3:29). “They that passed by railed on him” (Mark 15:29). “The way of truth shall be evil spoken of ” (2 Peter 2:2). “These speak evil of those things” (Jude 10). It is evident from these that blasphemy is a sin of the mouth, a “tongue-sin.” All New Testament writers except the author of Hebrews use the word (1936, pp. 224-225).

Furthermore, Jesus defined the term when, after referring to blasphemy, He used the phrase “speaks a word against” in Matthew 12:32.

WHAT THE UNPARDONABLE SIN IS NOT

With the working definition of blasphemy meaning, “to speak against,” or “speak evil of,” it is easy to rule out several sins that would not qualify as the unpardonable sin. Occasionally, murder is suggested as the “unpardonable sin.” Such cannot be the case, however. First, since blasphemy is a “tongue sin,” murder would not fall into this category. Second, several biblical passages show the sin of murder can be forgiven. When King David committed adultery and had Uriah the Hittite murdered, the prophet Nathan came to him, informing him that God had seen that David “killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword” (2 Samuel 12:9). When David confessed to Nathan and repented, the prophet told David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die” (12:13). And, although David was punished for his iniquity, it was forgiven. The Bible plainly demonstrates that murder is not the unpardonable sin.

Adultery surfaces as another sin put forward as unpardonable. Yet the same reasoning used to discount murder as the unpardonable sin can be used to disqualify adultery. First, it does not fit the category of blasphemy. Second, David was forgiven of adultery, just as surely as he was forgiven of murder. The apostle Paul gave a list of no less than ten sins (including adultery) of which the Corinthian brethren had been forgiven (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Adultery cannot be the unpardonable sin.

Another sin set forth as the unpardonable sin is blasphemy of any kind, not specifically against the Holy Spirit. We know, however, that blasphemy in general cannot be unforgivable for two reasons. First, in the context of the unpardonable sin, Jesus clearly stated that “whatever blasphemies” men may utter (besides against the Holy Spirit) could be forgiven. Second, Paul confessed that before his conversion, he had formerly been “a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief ” (1 Timothy 1:13). These two biblical passages rule out the possibility of general blasphemy as the unpardonable sin.

We begin to see, then, that we cannot arbitrarily decide which sins we think are heinous, and then simply attribute to them the property of being unpardonable, especially considering the fact that even those who were guilty of crucifying the Son of God had the opportunity to be forgiven (Acts 2:36-38). Therefore, since the unpardonable sin falls into a category of its own, and cannot be murder, adultery, general blasphemy, etc., some scholars have set forth the idea that the unpardonable sin is not a single sin at all, but is instead the stubborn condition of a person who persists in unbelief. This understanding, however, fails to take into account the immediate context of the “unpardonable sin.” Gus Nichols, commenting on this idea of “persistent unbelief,” stated: “It is true, great multitudes are going into eternity in rebellion against God to be finally and eternally lost; but it is for rejecting and neglecting pardon graciously extended in the gospel while they live, not because they have committed the unpardonable sin” (1967, p. 236). Wendell Winkler, under a section titled, “What the Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit is Not,” wrote that it is not

postponement of obedience until death. The text implies that those who commit the eternal sin continue to live while having lost all opportunity of salvation; whereas those who postpone obedience to Christ (except those who commit the eternal sin) could have obeyed at any time previous to their death (1980, p. 20).

IN THIS AGE OR IN THE AGE TO COME

Jesus said that blasphemy against the Spirit would not be forgiven “in this age or in the age to come” (Matthew 12:32). Certain religious organizations have seized upon this statement to suggest that Jesus has in mind a situation in which certain sins will be remitted after death—but not this sin. This idea of a purgatory-like state, where the souls of the dead are given a “second chance” to do penance for the sins they committed in their earthly life, finds no justification in this statement made by Christ (nor in any other biblical passage, for that matter). R.C.H. Lenski stated that Jesus’ use of the phrase under discussion meant simply “absolutely never” (1961, p. 484). Hendriksen concurred with Lenski when he wrote:

In passing, it should be pointed out that these words by no stretch of the imagination imply that for certain sins there will be forgiveness in the life hereafter. They do not in any sense whatever support the doctrine of purgatory. The expression simply means that the indicated sin will never be forgiven (1973, p. 528).

As the writer of Hebrews succinctly wrote, “it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).

It also has been suggested by several writers that the “age to come” discussed by Jesus refers to the Christian Age. According to this idea, Jesus made the statement in the Jewish Age, when the Law of Moses was in effect, and the “age to come” denoted the Christian Age immediately following, when the Law of Christ would prevail. Putting this meaning to the phrase often leads the advocates of this theory to conclude that the unpardonable sin could be committed in the Christian Age, after the resurrection of Christ. As Winkler surmised, “Thus, since our Lord was speaking while the Jewish age was in existence, he was affirming that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost would not be forgiven in (a) the Jewish age, nor in (b) the Christian age, the age that followed” (1980, p. 21). Nichols, after affirming the same proposition, concluded:

It follows that this sin, therefore, could be committed during the personal ministry of Christ, and was then committed, as we have seen, and could also be committed under the gospel age or dispensation. They could have attributed the works of the Spirit to Satan after Pentecost, the same as before (1967, p. 234).

Two primary pieces of evidence, however, militate against the idea that Jesus’ reference to the “age to come” meant the Christian Age. First, in Mark 10:30, the gospel writer has Jesus on record using the same phrase (“in the age to come”) to refer to the time when the followers of Christ would inherit “eternal life” (see Luke 18:30 for the parallel passage). This is a clear reference to life after death, since Paul said “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 15:50). Second, Mark’s account of the unpardonable sin describes the sin as an “eternal sin.” The translators of the New King James Version recorded that the person who commits the sin “never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation” (Mark 3:29). Mark’s account, with its emphasis on eternity, shows that the phrase simply is meant to underscore the fact that this sin will “absolutely never” be forgiven (Lenski, p. 484). It is incorrect, then, to use the phrase “in the age to come” to refer to purgatory. It also is tenuous to use the phrase to refer to the Christian Age. The best explanation, to quote Hendrickson again, is that “the expression simply means that the indicated sin will never be forgiven” (p. 528).

WHAT THE UNPARDONABLE SIN IS

As was noted earlier, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only sin in the Bible that is given the status of unpardonable or eternal. In fact, Jesus prefaced His discussion of this sin by stating that, “every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men,” except for blasphemy against the Spirit. Using the working definition of blasphemy as “speaking evil of,” it becomes clear that the sin described by Jesus was a “tongue sin” that the Pharisees had committed, or at least were dangerously close to committing.

What had the Pharisees done that would have put them in jeopardy of committing the unpardonable sin? According to His own testimony, during Jesus’ time on this Earth He cast out demons by the “Spirit of God” (Matthew 12:28). When the Pharisees saw that Jesus had performed a verifiable miracle, they could not argue with the fact that Christ possessed certain powers that others (including themselves) did not have. Therefore, in order to cast suspicion on the ministry of Jesus, they claimed that He was casting out demons by Beelzebub, the ruler of demons. The name Beelzebub is simply another name for Satan (Franklin, 1936, p. 227), as can be seen from Jesus’ reference to Satan in Matthew 12:26. Even when faced by the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit through Jesus, the Pharisees were, in essence, attributing Jesus’ power to Satan, and claiming that Jesus was “Satan incarnate instead of God incarnate. It is this, and nothing else, that our Lord calls the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (or Spirit—KB)” (Franklin, p. 227). Maxie Boren wrote: “The context of Matthew 12:22ff. shows clearly that this was indeed the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit—attributing the miracle done by Jesus to the power of the devil. Jesus said it was done ‘by the Spirit of God’ (verse 28) but they (the Pharisees—KB) said it was done by Beelzebub” (n.d., p. 1). It is clear that blasphemy against the Spirit was a definite, singular sin, which could be committed by the Pharisees during the life of Jesus.

IS THE “UNPARDONABLE SIN” THE
SAME AS THE “SIN UNTO DEATH”?

John, in his first epistle, mentioned the fact that “there is sin leading to death” and “there is sin not leading to death” (1 John 5:16-17). His statement in these verses has been connected by more than a few people to Jesus’ remark about the “eternal sin.” It is evident, however, that this connection is based more on opinion than on textual Bible study.

First, there is no biblical evidence that connects the passage in 1 John with the Pharisees’ accusation. Furthermore, the entire context of 1 John gives the Christian readers hope of forgiveness for all sins that they might have committed. John wrote: “All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death” (1 John 5:17). Several chapters earlier, he wrote: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9, emp. added). In the scope of John’s epistle, any unrighteousness committed by his readers could be forgiven if the transgressor took the proper steps of repentance and confession. Apparently, the “sin unto death” in 1 John is not a specific sin for which it is impossible to receive forgiveness, but rather, is any sin for which a person will not take the proper steps demanded by God to receive the forgiveness available. On the other hand, blasphemy against the Spirit was a specific, eternal sin that never would be forgiven.

CAN THE UNPARDONABLE SIN BE COMMITTED TODAY?

The next question usually asked concerning this sin is whether or not it is still possible to commit it today. Opinions on this question certainly vary, and scholars seem to be divided in their positions. The evidence, however, seems to point toward the idea that this sin cannot be committed today.

First, the circumstances under which the sin is described cannot prevail today, due to the fact that the age of miracles has ceased (see Miller, 2003). No one today will have the opportunity to witness Jesus performing miracles in person (2 Corinthians 5:16).

Second, there is no other mention of the sin in any biblical passage written after the resurrection of Christ. None of the inspired New Testament writers refers to the sin in any epistle or in the book of Acts, and none offers warnings to new converts about avoiding the sin post-Pentecost. Franklin observed:

If it were possible for it to be committed, would there not have been some warning against it? Were there any danger regarding it, would the Apostle Paul, who wrote half the books of the New Testament, have failed to warn against its commission? Paul does not even mention the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The sin in question was actually committed in the days of our Lord’s ministry on earth, but it does not necessarily follow that it could be committed in His absence (p. 233).

In discussing this matter, Gus Nichols wrote: “It seems that all sins committed today are pardonable, and that all can be saved, if they will” (1967, p. 239). V.E. Howard, commented along the same lines when he stated that “there is no unpardonable sin today” (1975, p. 156).

In conclusion, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only unpardonable sin mentioned in the Bible, and it is mentioned in the context of the Pharisees accusing Jesus of being possessed by the Devil. The context indicates that it was a specific sin, and not a series of forgivable sins, or an attitude of persistent unbelief. After the resurrection, no inspired writer mentions the sin, and no warnings against it were recorded. There is no concrete evidence that it can be committed today. The fact that it is not mentioned after the resurrection, lends itself to the idea that it cannot still be committed. In fact, the indication from passages such as 1 John 1:7,9 is that “all unrighteousness” that a person could commit today can be forgiven by the blood of Jesus. As Howard said when concluding his remarks about the eternal sin: “In the same scripture our Lord gave full assurance that every sin and blasphemy against the ‘Son of man’ shall be forgiven him. Today the gospel of Christ is to be preached to every man on earth and any man on earth may be saved by obeying the gospel (Mark 16:15-16)” [p. 157].

HAPPY THANKSGIVING

Ken Ham on Compromise

“Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:28–30)

The article I link to below is an extension of what has been going on at Calvin College in Michigan. In previous blog posts and articles I have quoted professors from Calvin College who no longer believe in a literal Adam and literal Eve—or a literal Fall. Calvin professors have been teaching evolution as fact for years. Now, why would any Christian parent spend thousands of dollars to send their kids to a college that attacks and undermines the authority of God’s Word? Calvin College, by the way, is a college of the Christian Reformed Church of North America.

The Banner is the magazine of the Christian Reformed Church and is also located in Grand Rapids. The article I link to below references a 1991 Agenda for Synod document by the Committee on Creation and Science. This was a response to Howard Van Till’s The Fourth Day (1986) and the teachings of Clarence Mennigna and Davis Young, which kicked open the door all the way (partly opened by others) to accepting theistic evolution in the CRC denomination. (Van Till, Mennigna, and Davis were professors at Calvin College.)

The document actually traces this slide into evolution acceptance! The document is 71 pages long, so it’s not easy to summarize. But in brief, it seems to call for a literal Adam and Eve and a literal Fall, but the authors of the document accept the standard evolutionary timescale and seem to accept human evolution. As we have seen time and time again, once the door of compromise with evolution and millions of years is opened, the slide into unbelief will increase—as is seen in this article written by a retired Christian Reformed pastor.

Just one interesting but sad side note that pertains to this issue: John Loftus, a pastor turned atheist, credits Van Till’s book as turning him away from Christianity. He has written the following:

Howard Van Till wrote the book The Fourth Day, which was one of the books that put me on a course of study that eventually led me away from the Christian faith. On page 79 in a footnote he listed several works on Genesis 1-11 that I proceeded to read. These initial books led me to still others, and others. After reading them I came to deny Genesis 1-11 was historical. I concluded these chapters were mythical. Anyway, Van Till has now been led down the same path as I. He has moved away from his Calvinism, and taken a much more ambiguous position on religion [http://www.freethoughtassociation.org/images/uploads/pdf/ODoRs.pdf ]. That too is where I was for a time in my intellectual journey. But it eventually led me to atheism. (http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/02/howard-van-tills-intellectual-journey.html)

I have excerpted sections from this article for you to read and link to the entire article for you. As you read this article, think of the students in colleges and people in churches who will become the John Loftus types in the future because shepherds departed from the truth of God’s Word and exalted the teachings of fallible man.

Sadly, this is the sort of shocking compromise and undermining of God’s Word that is happening to one degree or another at Christian colleges, churches, and other Christian institutions across the nation. This article is a warning on where compromise with man’s religion of evolution and millions of years leads—ultimately a rejection of the basic doctrines of the Christian faith.

Well, here are excerpts from The Banner article:

I suspect that a thousand years from now Christians will look back at the 21st century and say, “How could Christians have let themselves think that?” They’d have in mind our theology—some of the doctrines that are so precious to us and that we consider to be the backbone of Christianity. . . .

So I wouldn’t be surprised if a thousand years from now, or even in 500 years, people look back at our cherished doctrines and exclaim, “How could they believe all that?”

Why do I say this? . . .

It’s an insight that began as a hypothesis in 1859, gradually developed into a scientific theory, and is fast becoming recognized as established fact. I refer to what we have been calling “the theory of evolution.”

Scientists recognize generally that the universe began with an enormous explosion—the “big bang.” They provide various scientific avenues to demonstrate the great age of the universe, perhaps as old as 15 billion years. The varied scientific disciplines provide convincing demonstrations of the continuous development of the universe since its beginning, such as producing over billions of years the vast reaches of space and the seemingly infinite number of stars and planets and galaxies that dot the heavens. . . .

Implications for Theology . . .

Creation: We have traditionally accepted the words of Genesis 1—that God created the world as we know it today in seven literal 24-hour days. . . . But there is no way we can possibly continue to hold that doctrine any more than we can hold the doctrines of a flat earth and a geocentric universe. . . . So we have to find a better way of understanding Genesis 1, a way that embraces scientific insights. . . .

Adam and Eve: Traditionally we’ve been taught that Adam and Eve were the first human pair, Adam made out of dust and Eve from one of Adam’s ribs. But sustaining this doctrine is extremely difficult when we take seriously the human race as we know it today sharing ancestry with other primates such as chimpanzees. Where in the slow evolution of homo erectus and homo habilis and homo sapiens do Adam and Eve fit? We will have to find a better way of understanding what Genesis tells us about Adam and Eve. . . .

Fall into sin: We have traditionally understood Genesis to show the first human beings, in a state of innocence, living sinlessly in the Garden of Eden. They are then tempted. They yield to temptation and God sends them out of Eden. But if we take the discoveries of historical science seriously, where could we fit that story in? . . . We will have to find a much better way of understanding what sin is, where it comes from, and what its consequences are. . . .

Original sin: According to this doctrine, the fall of Adam and Eve is an actual historical event that plunged the entire human race into sin. . . . But if Adam and Eve are not understood as real historical people, then there can hardly be an inheritance of sinfulness from parent to child all the way back to Adam—in which case the entire doctrine of original sin falls by the wayside. We will have to find a better way of understanding not only what sin is . . .

Salvation: We have traditionally understood the work of Jesus as dealing with the two aspects of original sin: guilt and pollution. Jesus removes our guilt by dying for our sins on the cross; he removes our pollution by sending us his Holy Spirit. This makes good sense, but if the doctrine of original sin needs to be revisited, theologians need to consider whether our understanding of Jesus also needs to be revised.

After reading this article from a church magazine, I thought, “Is it any wonder that two-thirds of young people are departing the church?” (See my book Already Gone.)

You can read the entire article from The Banner at this link.

I can’t see how any Christian reading this article would not call its beliefs heresy.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken

Why is sound doctrine so crucial?

Why is sound doctrine so crucial?

Most churches have doctrinal statements, written creeds filled with absolutes. Such documents pose a problem for people who view absolute statements with suspicion. Modern culture downplays the importance of doctrine or rejects it as divisive and insensitive, but does that mean that churches should adapt their theology or jettison creeds altogether? Does it make a difference what the church teaches?

Biblically, yes, what the church teaches does matter. Sound doctrine is crucially important. Perhaps we should define sound. In this article, we'll take it to mean "solidly orthodox, conforming to biblical truth." Sound doctrine is teaching that agrees with the Bible.

Paul tells Titus to "teach what accords with sound doctrine" (Titus 2:1). Titus's teaching had to correspond with God's Word. The apostles were the pitch pipe through which God sounded the note to harmonize His church.

So, the main reason sound doctrine is important is that God directed us to teach it. There are other, secondary, reasons such as the fact that our faith is centered on a specific message. The Bible defines this message explicitly: "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures … he was buried … [and] he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). This is the clear-cut news we are to share. Paul says it is "of first importance." Change the message, and the basis of faith crumbles. Jesus warned us to build our lives on the immovable rock of His teaching, not on the shifting sands of man's philosophy (Matthew 7:24-27).

Another reason sound doctrine is important is that the gospel is a sacred trust. We dare not tamper with God's communiqué. We are the couriers of the message, not its editors. Jude was insistent that the church defend sound doctrine: "Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3; see also Philippians 1:27). To "contend" means to strenuously fight for something and to hold nothing back in the struggle. We should neither add to nor subtract from God's Word (Revelation 22:18-19). We receive what has been entrusted to us and uphold it "as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 1:13).

Also, sound doctrine is important because what we believe has an impact on what we do. There is a direct correlation between belief and behavior. Maya Angelou put it this way: "When you know better, you do better." A belief that one is invincible can easily lead to foolhardy behavior. In the same way, a man who rejects the idea of God and judgment will make very different choices than a man fears God. First Timothy 1:9-10 lists sins like rebellion, murder, lying, and slave trading and concludes with "whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine." In other words, bad behavior is out of sync with true belief. Sound doctrine curbs corrupt conduct.

Sound doctrine is also important because we must be able to distinguish truth from falsehood. "Many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). Jesus said there are tares among the wheat and wolves among the flock (Matthew 13:25; Acts 20:29). The best way to spot a counterfeit is to be familiar with the real thing; to identify the lie, we must know the truth.

Sound doctrine is important because of its end. Sound doctrine leads to life. "Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers" (1 Timothy 4:16). On the other hand, unsound doctrine leads to ruin. Jesus spoke of the "great crash" awaiting the one who builds his house on the sand (Matthew 7:27). Jude wrote of false teachers whose condemnation was sealed. Their crime? Teaching unsound doctrine, specifically, changing "the grace of our God into a license for immorality" and rejecting Jesus Christ (Jude 1:4 NIV). Preaching another gospel ("which is really no gospel at all") brings down an anathema: "let him be eternally condemned!" (see Galatians 1:6-9 NIV).

Finally, sound doctrine is important because it encourages believers. A pastor "must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine" (Titus 1:9). Believers naturally "long for the pure spiritual milk" because they want to grow (1 Peter 2:2). Sound doctrine is that "pure milk," wholesome, unadulterated, and vital.


Read more: http://www.compellingtruth.org/sound-doctrine.html#ixzz3K4uFs4rw

s Lifeway pushing Calvinism through The Gospel Project?

Is Lifeway pushing Calvinism through The Gospel Project? At least one church concludes it is and cancelled the curriculum by Peter Lumpkins
Maryland Southern Baptist pastor, Ralph Green, indicates in an interview at SBC Today that he and his church judiciously weighed The Gospel Project in the balances and found it wanting. Or, should I say leaning toward a Calvinistic agenda. Says Green to a question asked by Norm Miller as to why he was willing to speak publicly about the issue >>>

Well, it was already public for one reason. Second, I believe I have a responsibility to my fellow pastors and all Southern Baptists to ring the alarm bell when needed. I was alarmed at what I was reading in the Gospel Project curriculum. I want to encourage everyone not to take my word for this, though. Check it out for yourselves. See what you think. I know others have blogged about this and say they see no problem with the curriculum. But I have to wonder if they are not already Calvinists. If I were a Calvinist, I’d have nothing but positive things to say about the curriculum, too (//link)

When LifeWay first publicized the new curriculum, I checked out the website and downloaded the sample lesson to scan it. However, I was more interested in the team of writers, editors, and consultants that caught my eye since they would be putting the lessons together. What I found was incredibly disturbing. I wrote then:

First, few, if any, exceptions exist concerning the theology to which the editors and writers adhere who are preparing the Bible study curriculum for Southern Baptist congregations. In short, The Gospel Project Bible studies are overwhelmingly prepared by Calvinists. From a quick look at the names Lifeway publicized who are associated with the curriculum, one may be sure that the theological trajectory behind The Gospel Project, published by Lifeway and described as a new theologically driven study exploring the profound truths of Scripture, will be nothing short of a strong, robust Calvinism (//link)

Indeed out of the 20+ names associated with The Gospel Project as listed on the website--names at every level of involvement including advisory council, editorial, and writing--not a single name existed at that time which was not associated with strong convictional Calvinism. What is more, one member of the advisory council disdains Southern Baptist congregational polity so much, he dubbed it as being "an invention and tool of the enemy of our souls to destroy the church of Jesus Christ."1 So, LifeWay's The Gospel Project, has, on its advisory council, a member who believes our non-negotiable congregational governing polity was invented in hell to destroy the church of Jesus Christ? And, LifeWay defends this decision and expects Southern Baptists to just ignore such irresponsible decision-making which goes all the way to top-tier leadership at LifeWay?

Well, predictably not all did ignore the implications of bad executive-editorial decision-making. And, Pastor Ralph Green and his Maryland church represent at least some congregations that decided to do their own research and come to a conclusion about The Gospel Project which suited their contextual understanding and needs.2 Hence, we're appreciative of Pastor Green and wish his congregation the best in their excruciating decision.

In addition, we hope LifeWay learned a valuable lesson from its experience with the Maryland church. It simply cannot make bad decisions which inevitably breach the public trust without severe consequences. Green and the congregation trusted LifeWay implicitly and had no reason to question its material. Unfortunately, Pastor Green now expresses this policy toward LifeWay:

"I’m frustrated. I’m extremely disappointed. I feel like I’ve been deceived, and I don’t appreciate that. I will never buy another LifeWay curriculum without inspecting it from stem to stern. And you know, I shouldn’t have to work that hard on materials my own denomination produces. I don’t have time to be looking for hidden meanings. That irritates me. It bothers me that I can’t trust what LifeWay sends me" (embolden added)

While The Gospel Project advocates claim 300,000 people will be using the new literature it debuted by the year's end, it's difficult to say with accuracy how many persons will actually be using it. Presumably, the 300K represents the entire enrollment in Bible study classes. Yet just how many persons on the entire enrollment actually shows up for class sessions is another question. Furthermore, given the fact that even regular Sunday School attenders frequently take the study guides home and never pick it up until the next Sunday to bring it to Sunday School with them, how can we reasonably conclude that a full 300,000 will be studying the material when we don't know the unknown factors we've just mentioned? In short, 300K sold does not reduce to 300K studied or even used for that matter.3

Finally, even if the 300,000 number could be taken at face value indicating a true number studying the new material, that number does not indicate how many Southern Baptists are among the 300K. According to Managing Editor, Trevin Wax, "Thousands of churches from a variety of denominations and affiliations have ordered the curriculum" with General Editor, Ed Stetzer, adding "We're very pleased with how Southern Baptists have responded...we've also been surprised with how many non-SBC churches have ordered as well" (//link). Let's suppose both the 300K is a hard number of those studying the material and Southern Baptists constitute 75% of the hard number, or 225,000 subscribers to The Gospel Project. Let's suppose further that we have approximately 7.6m enrolled in Sunday School in Southern Baptist churches.4

If these numbers represent an approximate scenario, then The Gospel Project material represents just over 3% of all Sunday School subscribers in the Southern Baptist Convention, hardly a reason to pass the proverbial champagne buckets. Too, given the stunning amount of advertising monies spent on The Gospel Project--monies producing barely a 3% subscriber sales rate--one wonders what motivates LifeWay to risk so much for so little return?5

Additionally, comparing The Gospel Project numbers to say, the Explore the Bible series, and one can see just how insignificant the 300,000 users are except for advertising and promotional purposes. According to Thom Rainer, approximately 100,000 adult classes used the Explore the Bible series in 2010-2011. And, given classes average about 9-10 persons present per class, that's 900,000 to 1 million adults on average using Explore the Bible. However, The Gospel Project boasts 300,000 total users--users including kids, students, and adults. In short, the only reason to tout The Gospel Project's 300K total users is for advertising purposes only. It's a commercial!

Also, consider this: apparently the usual way to speak about the use of Sunday School material is not in terms of the users (i.e. individual persons) like The Gospel Project advocates do but in terms of groups and/or classes. For example, Thom Rainer offered in his 2011 annual report to the Southern Baptist Convention several statistics on Southern Baptists' use of LifeWay material but not a single time in his report did he mention individual users of LifeWay material. Instead he spoke of classes who used various curriculum:

"Approximately 400,000 Sunday School classes assemble in Southern Baptist churches each week, with about 9-10 persons present per class on average"

"This title [Life Values] is part of the Bible Studies for Life series, which was used by about 150,000 adult and student classes who explored the same Bible text from one of the series’ eight life-stage titles, making it by far the most popular choice"

"The Explore the Bible series was used by about 100,000 adult classes each week"

"The current popular series from, Bible Teaching for Kids, will continue to be offered. Some of the current 100,000-plus preschool and children’s classes using that series may adopt the new series..." (The 2011 Annual of the Southern Baptist Convention, pp. 172-173; all emphasis added)6

Hence, to suggest that The Gospel Project's 300,000 users is an amazing phenomenon now going into its "third printing" impresses very few when they peel back the veneer and see the promotional hype designed to make sales. It means nothing (at least yet) as to Southern Baptists' desire for such a material nor speaks to its quality as a Bible study series. Nor does 300,000 users address whether or not there exists a visible Calvinistic bias in the material. At least one church is on public record stating that, from their perspective, there exists an unhealthy Calvinistic bias in The Gospel Project. Predictably, more churches will conclude similarly either publicly or privately. After all, what could one legitimately expect from a strategic literary-production team made up entirely of strongly convictional Calvinists? I think most of us know the obvious answer to that simple question.

Other churches on the other hand will surely conclude either no unhealthy bias exists, or if it is present, the quality of the material more than suffices for any Calvinistic "bias" which might be detected. After all, Calvinists have a rich theological presence within our Southern Baptist heritage, do they not? Hence, they may conclude a bit of Calvinistic bias remains irrelevant. So, for local church decisions of all Southern Baptist churches concerning Bible study curriculum albeit different, the "demonic" congregational polity alleged to be "inspired in hell" by at least one strategically involved leader for The Gospel Project will be put to good Baptist use.

Once again, thanks to Ralph Green for his courageous words in "going public" with a decision his church made to return LifeWay's The Gospel Project, a new Bible study resource they were originally excited to use at all levels in their Sunday School but, after careful scrutiny, changed their mind. We also tip our hat, so to speak, to SBC Today for posting the interview with Pastor Green which, I must confess, lends credibility to concerns I publicized when the material debuted earlier this year, concerns centering on LifeWay's obvious, strategic recruitment of almost all strong Calvinists to produce, from beginning to end, the new material called The Gospel Project.



1The Gospel Project advisory council member who wrote his diatribe against historic Baptist church polity is Dr. James MacDonald, founder of a church-planting ministry called Harvest Bible Fellowship. MacDonald's piece entitled "Congregational Government is from Satan" appeared in June, 2011. Boyce College professor, Denny Burk, offered a critique of MacDonald's anti-congregational views as did others (here).

2completely overlooking Pastor Green's repeated, explicit statements indicating he was speaking only for himself and his congregation, encouraging others to "not to take my word for this" but to "Check it out for yourselves," some strict Calvinist bloggers like Chris Roberts, Mark Lamprecht, and Josh Breland treated Green as if he were not only a theological moron, but Josh Breland, a young college student at Louisiana College in Pineville, Louisiana, went so far as to frivolously imply Green's studied conclusion concerning LifeWay's new cirriculum was equivalent to bringing "charges of sin" against LifeWay and its leadership. The careless ease in displaying moral ignorance in the public square still stuns me I have to admit. One cannot even criticize Sunday School material and mark an entity's decision as "bad" or even regretful without getting accused of bringing "charges of sin" against the entity and its leadership. What is more, as indicated above, Pastor Green repeatedly suggested no one take his word for it but to do their own homework on the matter. Clearly, says he:

"My perceptions of the curriculum are exactly that: my perceptions. If a few want to condemn me for my perceptions, that’s on them. While I believe there are some black and white evidences of Calvinism on the pages of TGP, I say again that Southern Baptists ought not take my word for it. They should do the research for themselves."

In the face of this open, clear admission that he was offering his perceptions and only his perceptions, anti-traditional SBC Calvinists like Roberts, Lamprecht, and Breland offer detailed rebuttals to Green as if Green was making a formal case as to why everybody else ought to dodge The Gospel Project and come to the identical conclusion as did he and his church. They meticulously suppose numerous "logical fallacies" Green allegedly committed in offering extremely brief answers to specific questions in an interview format and proceed to rebut each alleged "logical fallacy." Nevertheless, to attempt to criticize a Q/A interview format in the same way one would criticize a reasoned literary piece, the purpose of which is to lay out, in formal fashion, a case for a particular point of view, is so fundamentally skewed, it remains difficult to believe educated men would actually publish such critical rubbish with their names attached. Not even the college student would have missed this had he paid attention in English 101.

Indeed one blogger (apparently unaffiliated with Southern Baptists) was so obsessed in showing off his wikepedia-type knowledge of "logical fallacies," he listed no less than 20 supposed fallacies Pastor Green made in his brief Q/A session with Norm Miller (by the way, all three anti-traditional SBC Calvinists named above linked to this blogger apparently as a model of "reasonable" critique). Here is the stark reality: nothing will count as verifiable evidence for Calvinistic bias in The Gospel Project material so far as anti-traditional SBC Calvinists are concerned. If knowing that virtually 100% of the team producing the curriculum will not even suggest the possibility of Calvinist bias much less the probability of bias, then there's little point in attempting to satisfy their unquenchable thirst for evidence which meets their standard as evidence. About all one may expect in return, among other really "intelligent" responses, are--"Red Herring!" "Begging the question!" "Strawman!" "Slippery slope!" "False dichotomy!" "Bandwagon!" "Cum Hoc!" "Weak analogy!" "Tu Quoque!"

Of course, from my perspective, this puts strong, convictional Calvinists in a precarious situation. If, as anti-traditional SBC Calvinists apparently presume, strong Calvinism displays no marked theological difference in the interpretation of biblical soteriology than strong, convictional non-Calvinism--or perhaps even "Semi-Pelagianism" (see my response to Roberts' and others hopeless polemical errors here)--a curious presumption concerning The Gospel Project material, then what is all the theological fuss lamenting the waning of strict Calvinism in the convention? If a strong convictional Calvinism cannot be theologically detected, then why should we even be concerned with Calvinism? What is more, are we to believe that when strong, convictional Calvinists write, they sound precisely like strong, convictional non-Calvinists or "Arminians" as anti-traditional SBC Calvinists like to dub them? Are there no real differences between Calvinists and "Arminians"? Suggesting there are no visible theological differences seems to be the implication coming from anti-traditional SBC Calvinists like Roberts, Lamprecht, and Breland pertaining to The Gospel Project producers. Even so, for me, this constitutes little less than pure nonsense and serves as one more piece of evidence that double-talk exists all-too-often in our "Reformed" brothers' camp.

3And, yes, this goes for all SS materials no matter who writes it or produces it. It's just a dynamic of small groups. In addition, I do not fault LifeWay for using the 300K as a promotional number, a perfectly legitimate tool for advertising purposes. However, when advocates attempt to exploit the 300K as evidence it is a "raving success" it needs to be pointed out that the 300K is for advertising purposes and should not be taken at face value

4the 7.6 million is actually taken from the 2011 SBC Annual (p.124)

5presently one can hardly receive any brochure from LifeWay that does not have The Gospel Project splattered across the front page or in a very prominent location. In addition, Lifeway "wined and dined" (i.e. a simple figure of speech not to be taken literally) several bloggers after it was revealed that the entire strategic-literary production team were strong Calvinists. Nor to my knowledge were any of the bloggers given airfare, meals, and hotel expense all courtesy of LifeWay who were not already sympathetic to LifeWay's project

6I also note with interest that though several future projects were mentioned for release in 2012, Dr. Rainer never mentioned The Gospel Project in his report. I find this entirely strange since The Gospel Project appears to be the chief promotional pursuit so far as LifeWay curriculum is concerned. Yet The Gospel Project does not appear to be on the radar in the 2011 annual report. Why?

Posted on Aug 22, 2012 at 01:14 PM in Baptist distinctives, Baptist history, Baptist personalities, Baptist Press, Biblical studies, Calvinism, evangelicalism, gospel, gospel-centered, Lifeway, non-Calvinism, Peter Lumpkins, research, salvation, SBC, SBC issues, Scripture, The Gospel Project, theology, Young Restless and Reformed, YRR | Permalink
Technorati Tags: Baptist distinctives, Baptist history, Baptist personalities, Baptist Press, Biblical studies, Calvinism, Ed Stetzer, evangelicalism, gospel, gospel-centered, Lifeway, non-Calvinism, Peter Lumpkins, research, salvation, SBC, SBC issues, Scripture, The Gospel Project, theology, Thom Rainer, Trevin Wax, Young Restless and Reformed, YRR
Reblog (0) Pin It! Save to del.icio.us
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451a37369e20176175d24dd970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is Lifeway pushing Calvinism through The Gospel Project? At least one church concludes it is and cancelled the curriculum by Peter Lumpkins :

Comments
Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Wyman Richardson
Peter,

I have not looked at the Gospel Project material, though I'm aware of it. I'm curious to know if you are aware of anybody who has posted examples demonstrating the alleged Calvinist bias in the material with citations from the material?

Wyman Richardson

Posted by: Wyman Richardson | Aug 22, 2012 at 03:21 PM
Darryl Hill
Wyman, the anger and fuss has primarily been over the contributors to the Gospel Project, not its actual content. Pastor Green, who is mentioned above, actually quoted the material twice in his critique. Emir Caner, of SBCToday, reviewed it and didn't quote any sections of the material but did reference the phrase "spiritual leprosy" which was referenced in one lesson as evidence of calvinistic indoctrination. It is a tempest in a teapot in my opinion. Here are the 2 actual quotes Pastor Green used...

1. “It is also an act of grace that God would reveal Himself to us personally. God was under no obligation to pull back the curtain and let us see aspects of His character and evidences of His power. He could have spoken the world in existence and then never spoken again, leaving us in ignorance about our Creator and our purpose.”

Green said he thought this was teaching what he alleges to be the calvinistic view that God doesn't love people. Ironically, the section that contains that quote is teaching about God's love.

2. “The point of the story is not about the type of fruit, as if the fruit juices would poison the minds of Adam and Eve. No, the poison of sin coursed through their veins before the fruit entered their mouths. ‘It was the not the nature of the tree that made it dangerous, the bearer of covenant curse and death, but what it stood for, obedience to the word of God.’”

He saw in this quote that the curriculum was teaching that God is the author of sin and evil, which he also attributes to calvinism. His argument was that since the writer says that "sin" was "coursing through their veins" before they took a bite, that this is referring to God being the author of evil. I don't think that's what is being said at all, but that was his opinion.

All of the other criticisms have been about the contributors of the material and their calvinistic leanings. Also, there were some folks quoted in the material who have calvinistic leanings, even though their actual quotations are not particularly calvinistic. That's all I got.

Posted by: Darryl Hill | Aug 22, 2012 at 04:07 PM
Clark Dunlap
Oh Peter, here you go again. You could report what Bro. Green said without the 'ad hominems'. You again delight in stirring up trouble and I am sad that you have a voice to do so.
There are many on the TGP editorial team who are not calvinist. Are you accusing Stetzer of being reformed? Danny Akin? Trevin Wax? Who? Yeah, I know, Matt Chandler, Carson, etc. I don't even know for sure about others.
Also, the 300,000 opening orders for the curriculum is pretty amazing! Life&Work and Bible Book have been around a long time. This is new and its numbers are impressive. Why so dour about it? Was it to downplay ANYTHING that a reformed-style baptist has anything to do with, regardless of what damage you do to the body, the denomination, or Lifeway?
It certainly doesn't appear that Bro. Green sought to do this kind of damage. He honestly reported how the curriculum appeared to him and acted conscientously. God Bless Him.

Posted by: Clark Dunlap | Aug 22, 2012 at 04:43 PM
Lydia
Peter, Not sure I can trust anything coming out of Lifeway from stats to declarations concerning curriculum. I would love to see the figures on what has been spent to date on TGP but not sure I would trust those either.

Posted by: Lydia | Aug 22, 2012 at 05:43 PM
Mary
Dr. Caner's post today was really good. I find it disturbing that so many of the resources and quotes are from Calvinists. How can a curriculum not be biased when the additional resources they are directing you too are teaching Calvinism?

The Stats are interesting. The Calvinists of course are touting it as a great success when you've shown with your Stats - not so much.

Posted by: Mary | Aug 22, 2012 at 08:39 PM
Mike
Clark, it is too bad there isn't a like button! Peter it does appear that what Clark has said is so. To be fair, where do you stand?

Posted by: Mike | Aug 22, 2012 at 08:42 PM
Lydia
"also note with interest that though several future projects were mentioned for release in 2012, Dr. Rainer never mentioned The Gospel Project in his report. I find this entirely strange since The Gospel Project appears to be the chief promotional pursuit so far as LifeWay curriculum is concerned. Yet The Gospel Project does not appear to be on the radar in the 2011 annual report. Why? "

Good question. Very strange for all the hype involved and obviously it took a lot of money to produce and market but not mentioned in his report?

Posted by: Lydia | Aug 22, 2012 at 09:33 PM
JD Hall
Neither in Greene's original post or in his subsequent interview was he able to articulate what, specifically (with references from the curriculum) was overtly "Calvinistic." He is now "unavailable for comment." This is unfair to the developers of the curriculum for him to "drive-by" Trevin Wax and the others, and then retreat without answering questions to substantiate his claims.

There needs to be more evidence presented than that the majority of contributors are Calvinists, because Southern Baptist Monergists like myself are going to say "that's because it's where you find the majority of respected scholarship."

Posted by: JD Hall | Aug 23, 2012 at 10:06 AM
peter lumpkins
Mike,

First, where do I stand pertaining to what?

Second, I wasn't going to give Clark's comment a response since it made entirely no sense to me given what I actually wrote. However, since you appear to believe that what "Clark has said is so," allow me:

First, Dunlap asserts without offering any hint as to what he refers, "You could report what Bro. Green said without the 'ad hominems'." Excuse me? What 'ad hominems'?

Second, Dunlap also asserts without the least indication as to how he knows that I allegedly "again delight in stirring up trouble." Really? And, what criteria would Dunlap employ to accurately judge what constitutes my inward desires? And, since you apparently agree with him, perhaps you could inform us all how you come to judge it so exactly what my desires happen to be, Mike. If you're going to judge my inward motives for what I write accusing me of perpetually desiring to stir up trouble, it's only right to at least inform us of your evidence for knowing what's in my inward most desires.

Third, Dunlap ridiculously claims that "many on the TGP editorial team" are not "calvinist" including Stetzer, Akin, and Wax. About the only way one could claim such is to ignorantly presume that legitimate Calvinism must exclusively be 5 Point Calvinism, a theologically-historically deficient notion. Convictional Calvinism is broader than the TULIP and incorporates deeply convictional Calvinists who do not embrace, for example, Limited Atonement. Hence, while Dunlap may assert my conclusion is incorrect, he can validly do so only if he begins with his erroneous assumption about Calvinism not mine.

Fourth, I clearly--clearly--and openly--openly--expressed precisely why I criticized the use of the 300K, an open expression Dunlap completely ignored while at the same time absurdly questioning why I'd have reservations about the 300K. I need not, therefore, re-express in the comment stream what I clearly wrote in the OP when, for whatever reason, a critic fails to read thoroughly before popping off about my intentions.

Finally, what Dunlap and apparently you, Mike, judge as "stirring up trouble" and therefore doing "damage" to "the body, the denomination, or Lifeway" I call openly expressing my own views in the public square. If you or another do not find my views palatable, kind, Christianly, sober, or lacking any other worthy virtue, I wholeheartedly encourage you to not read my site. I assure you: I am not writing for you. Nor is my message intended for you.

After all, that's the beauty of liberty is it not? It is also the benefit of the internet and RSS feed. You may unsubscribe anytime you feel I no longer--assuming I ever did, of course--bring the right beans to the BBQ.

I trust you have a good afternoon.

With that, I am...
Peter

Posted by: peter lumpkins | Aug 23, 2012 at 10:49 AM
peter lumpkins
JD

Thanks.

First, you assert 'Neither in Greene's original post or [sic] in his subsequent interview was he able to articulate what, specifically... was overtly "Calvinistic."' Well, perhaps not to your satisfaction. However, he is not required to meet your criteria. Were he attempting to persuade you or another strict Calvinist, perhaps your complaint would have validity. As it is, it makes no sense to conclude he was unable to articulate what, 'specifically... was overtly "Calvinistic."' He most certainly did meet his own expectations and the expectations of his church else he would not have concluded as he did. What is more, he plainly, repeatedly encouraged others--like you, for example--to do your own homework and come to your own conclusions, using your own expectations as your standards for what may or may not be overly Calvinistic.

Second, as for his being "unavailable for comment" I do not see how that is necessarily "unfair." Nor was it a "drive-by" for heaven's sake. Green was asked questions. He answered. Why would you insist on framing his interview in the darkest terms" O.K. so he didn't satisfy you. Well, truth be told he didn't satisfy me fully either. I would have asked some more questions (it may obviously surprise you, but I may have asked a few tougher questions than were asked). But again, I didn't do the interview. And, therefore to attempt to read between the lines or fill in the blanks or chronically whine about what he didn't do or say that I would have liked him to say is nonsense.

Third, your creepy admission that "that's because it's where you find the majority of respected scholarship" does your kind no good, JD. It smacks of the blatant theological snobbery strict Calvinists are, on the one hand, forever accused of, and on the other, inevitably deny. You give the former's accusation sharp teeth with which to bite hard in making their point.

And, for the record, so far as I am concerned, other than sheer, uninformed ignorance, I have no clue what can adequately explain how a person could actually hold such an absurd notion that reputable scholarship boils down to Calvinistic convictions. Oh boy...

With that, I am...
Peter

Posted by: peter lumpkins | Aug 23, 2012 at 11:16 AM
JD Hall
Peter,

Are you genuinely saying that the number of respectable theologians of long-lasting influence on the Reformed side don't greatly dwarf the number on the Synergist side? Not being snide here, but do you seriously see the two as being evenly distributed?

Posted by: JD Hall | Aug 23, 2012 at 11:31 AM
Randall Cofield
The hyper anti-Calvinists keep churning out criticisms of TGP. "We don't like that the editors are Calvinists" and "too many of the quotes are from Reformed sources" and (my personal favorite) "they referred to Adrian Rogers as 'A Voice From Church History' instead of 'A Voice From the Church.'"

Question: Peter, can you point to a critique of TGP where someone has dealt with its teaching on the Biblical texts in a meaningful way?

Does it not seem this would be incumbent upon those (including Pastor Green) who wish to publicly express their displeasure with TGP?

The whole "we don't like the editors" and "they're inflating their circulation claims" shtick is pretty lame.

Soli Deo Gloria

Posted by: Randall Cofield | Aug 23, 2012 at 12:29 PM
Lydia
Sheesh! One has to give lessons in "Thinking 101". If there is one thing I am finding Calvinists hate is freedom of expression they do not control or are unable to frame the debate and own the definitions. But that fits with the oppressive nature of "Calvinistic" Despotic Traditions.

Posted by: Lydia | Aug 23, 2012 at 01:07 PM
Lydia
"Are you genuinely saying that the number of respectable theologians of long-lasting influence on the Reformed side don't greatly dwarf the number on the Synergist side? Not being snide here, but do you seriously see the two as being evenly distributed"

JD, Respectable to whom? Who decides? Is there a special panel that decides such things for the ignorant masses? What is the criterion? Published books? Peer reviewed?

Posted by: Lydia | Aug 23, 2012 at 01:10 PM
peter lumpkins
JD,

What I am genuinely saying is reputable scholarship is no respecter of sides least of all a respecter of soteriological sides. Nor may one determine truth, as R.C. Sproul puts it, by counting noses.

Hence, entertaining the notion that our number of reputable scholars is bigger than your number of reputable scholars analogically reduces to a spat between junior varsity football players bragging that "we gots more big guys on our team than you gots on yours." JD, do you really want to waste life on a blog exchanging with me over something so entirely mundane?

With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | Aug 23, 2012 at 01:42 PM
Max
JD says, in reference to the superior intellect of Calvinists, "that's because it's where you find the majority of respected scholarship."

Such statements are reminiscent of Dr. Mohler's suggestion that the Reformed faith is the only viable option for thinking Christians. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6lRMMvNCn8

There is certainly no shortage of arrogance in the ranks of New Calvinism!

Posted by: Max | Aug 23, 2012 at 01:42 PM
peter lumpkins
Randall,

I've been as careful as I know how to make legitimate inferences from the current info we have on TGP. So far as I know, none of my actual inferences match your 3-fold complaint concerning editorial unlikeability, lop-sided citations, or quotation categories. Hence, I'll be glad to address anything I've written, inferred, or cited. But I'll leave comment on your 3-fold complaint for others to haggle about.

As for your question--"can you point to a critique of TGP where someone has dealt with its teaching on the Biblical texts in a meaningful way?"--I've answered it, at least partially, in my response to JD above (1st paragraph), for his assertion was very similar to your own: "'Neither in Greene's original post or [sic] in his subsequent interview was he able to articulate what, specifically... was overtly "Calvinistic."'

What is more, I also anticipated your question in the original post, endnote #2:
Here is the stark reality: nothing will count as verifiable evidence for Calvinistic bias in The Gospel Project material so far as anti-traditional SBC Calvinists are concerned. If knowing that virtually 100% of the team producing the curriculum will not even suggest the possibility of Calvinist bias much less the probability of bias, then there's little point in attempting to satisfy their unquenchable thirst for evidence which meets their standard as evidence.

The truth is, repeatedly Pastor Green made it abundantly clear he was definitively stating his conclusions based upon his research using his criteria while at the same time encouraging everyone else not to take his word for it but to do their own original research. He by no stretch either implied or hinted he was attempting to persuade a single other soul that his or his church's view should be embraced by Southern Baptists. While such a tentative, non-imposing position used to garner praise from us, it now apparently only draws more and more scathing skepticism on the one hand or a blank stare on the other.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | Aug 23, 2012 at 02:14 PM
Mary
Am I the whole one who thinks that when the additional resources listed in the materials are all Calvinist resources that, that is a covert way to encourage study in Calvinism?

Everybody keeps screaming where is it? where is it? The addtional resources are directing people to read materials that promote Calvinism. Even a quote from a Calvinist could lead people to Calvinism. So when this sections are overwhelmingly Calvinists because if a bunch of Calvinists are writing their bias will be toward referencing their favorite Calvinist and Calvinist resources you have a subtle way of pushing people toward Calvinism.

Now understand it's not wrong to list resources that are Calvinists are to quote this reformed person or that one, but when these parts of the material are slanted overwhelmingly to one side and not labeled as "reformed" there's a serious problem.

Posted by: Mary | Aug 23, 2012 at 03:02 PM
peter lumpkins
Mary,

Below is a scenario I logged on the comment thread back in January when Round #1 commenced on The Gospel Project. To my recall, no one touched it then. Nor have any of the anti-traditional SBC Calvinists ever addressed it so far as I know.

The fact is, it’s purely intuitive common sense which rightfully deduces the high probability that if;

a) a Bible study curriculum touted as a “theologically driven study” the goal of which is to point people to Jesus and make the “profound truths of Scripture” accessible to everyone is;
b) written and produced by a particular team made up almost exclusively of those who strongly hold to a definitive, singular theological persuasion, then;
c) the “theologically driven study”produced will inevitably reflect the “profound truths of Scripture” as the particular team actually believe, a team made up almost exclusively of those who strongly hold to a definitive, singular theological persuasion. In the case before us, it is Calvinism.
In what follows in my comment, however, I stripped the present conflict over Calvinism and instead offered a similar scenario exploiting other theologies which could conceivably fit Southern Baptists:

Consider, however:

Perhaps the next "Gospel Project" Lifeway could pursue would be to round up all the charismatic Southern Baptist writers we have, put them under an Advisory Council led by eminent, visible scholars of both Charismatic and Pentecostal persuasion including Gordon Fee, Amos Yong, Peter Althouse, J. Rodman Williams, and Stanley Horton to name a few. No one in this team could hold a non-Charismatic, cessationist view. The assignment of this prestigious team would be to develop a theologically driven study on The Holy Spirit. Let's see how this would fly.

After that, Lifeway could consider rounding up all the Moderate Baptist churches in the SBC and pooling from them, the best writers for a new theologically driven study on Baptist Identity. The Advisory Council could be headed by Walter Shurden with members including Bill Leonard, Bruce Gourley, and Bruce Prescott among others. And, no one serves on the team who is not a moderately-leaning Baptist. How would this go over? Precisely as the study on The Holy Spirit did.

Hence, I suspect the absurdity of this notion is surely complete by now.

So, yes, Cal, I'd be a squeaky wheel if Lifeway posed a project which catered exclusively to the multiple factions within our convention --no matter the stripe--pulling an exclusively picked group to write theologically driven Bible study materials from an obvious truncated perspective yet publicized as if it's healthy and proper for the entire denomination…. .

Since there exist innumerable Southern Baptists who are also theological Dispensationalists, Lifeway could put together a theologically driven study posing it to the entire denomination as "The Biblical Gospel Project." The Advisory Council could conceivable include John Walvoord, Zane Hodges, Dwight Pentecost, and perhaps even Hal Lindsay.* And, one may be fairly certain that a suitable plethora of capable Dispensational authors could be found to write a distinguished theologically driven study, all team members of which are visible, high-profile Dispensationalists.

And we know that since all Calvinists in the convention are simply in theological love with dispensationalism, Calvinists would be ‘givin the high-five’ for this illustrious new material promoted by Lifeway as "The Biblical Gospel Project," a project exclusively composed by visible, high-profile, Dispensationalist believers.

*some of these men here and above are passed on to glory


It's very easy to see the absurdity in this proposal when we strip it of conflict and insert a theological paradigm not presently under our microscopic scrutiny.

With that, I am…

Peter

Posted by: peter lumpkins | Aug 23, 2012 at 03:46 PM
Randall Cofield
Mary,

Am I the whole one who thinks that when the additional resources listed in the materials are all Calvinist resources that, that is a covert way to encourage study in Calvinism?
Covert indeed! Poor guys didn't have a clue that anyone would pick up on that. Now you've blown their cover. ;-)

Posted by: Randall Cofield | Aug 23, 2012 at 04:03 PM
Randall Cofield
Lydia,

Sheesh! One has to give lessons in "Thinking 101".
How positively....."arrogant" of you... ;-)

Posted by: Randall Cofield | Aug 23, 2012 at 04:13 PM
Lydia
Randall, The arrogance comes from those who think anyone owes them asort of white paper to be peer reviewed by Calvinists written in a way they will accept according to their views/definitions/Augustinian filter. Ain't gonna happen. Can't happen. We do not believe in a Determinist God. It is that simple.

That is what we have all been trying to make you all understand. People ARE allowed their views whether you think they are stupid or ignorant or do not make their case according to your standards. This is the part of Calvinism that just blows my mind. The attempt to censor people using hyperbole, shame, insults, etc. I have lived with it for quite a few years now at ground zero. I am not sure if you understand that the percentage of arrogant and even spiritually abusive and controlling Calvinists I have met WAY outnumber the celebrity self seeking seekers I have worked with~ And that is saying a lot.The Calvinist take the cake!

And that is because of "indoctrination" that youare right and others are wrong.9Personally, I fear it is more complicated than that. I think many fear they might be wrong and that is why they are so thin skinned about disagreement on the doctrine)

So we say, we are going to present our views because we have been listening to how NC is the only place to go if you want the true Gospel and see the nations rejoice for Christ...and we do not have the mental processes to understand Calvinism, etc, etc....for a long time now in various forms from 20 somethings on up who emulate their leaders and favorite REformed celeb. I have seen YRR guys tell little old ladies to shut up in bible studies!One recently on SBCToday told me to "shut my piehole and go take care of my husband". I LOVED IT. That is what they are like here all the time. Little petty boys who are insecure and cannot stand to be challenged.

Seriously Randall, if you interact with the people who pay you to pastor them in this manner, I do wonder about their level of cognative ability.

Randall, I am not seeking followers after myself. Remember that. And I do not follow man. Especially those who are "unable" and "totally depraved". :o)

Answer me this? Why didn't Lifeway proudly proclaim their advisors/creators were Calvinists? Why not proudly proclaim that James MacDonald,an advisor, thinks congregational polity is from Satan? That ought to go over big in the SBC. :o), What are they afraid of if they think these men are great theologians?

Posted by: Lydia | Aug 23, 2012 at 08:17 PM
Lydia
"Covert indeed! Poor guys didn't have a clue that anyone would pick up on that. Now you've blown their cover. ;-)"

Randall, You would be shocked at how many people in the seeker world were buying Piper's books years ago and had NO idea he was a Calvinist. Think of it, it finally came full circle when Piper invited Warren to teach at DG! The irony still slays me! This is still happening in many circles with quite a few names including Driscoll, Chandler and Platt. But more are waking up and feeling like they were sucker punched. Why not proudly proclaim it oustide the T4G and GC circles? Because it does not sell more books or get more to the conferences.The Reformed wing outmarkets and out celebs the seekers in ways that are incredible to me. I did not think it could happen.It is Madison Ave Calvin style. Johnathon Edwards is my homeboy T-shirts!

A friend of mine told me recently that some friends of hers got involved in a neighborhood bible study started by Sojourn (as they are doing in many areas of the city). Her friends were a bit puzzled by some things the young guy was teaching that sounded "off" from what they understood about God and were discussing it with her. She said, that is Calvinism! Did he tell you he was a Calvinist, she asked? No. So they went back and asked him and he said he believed in the doctrines of grace, not Calvinism.

Posted by: Lydia | Aug 23, 2012 at 08:29 PM
Randall Cofield
Peter

Me:

The hyper anti-Calvinists keep churning out criticisms of TGP. "We don't like that the editors are Calvinists"…
You:

So far as I know, none of my actual inferences match your 3-fold complaint concerning editorial unlikeability, lop-sided citations, or quotation categories.
You, from your article:

What I found was incredibly disturbing. I wrote then: First, few, if any, exceptions exist concerning the theology to which the editors and writers adhere who are preparing the Bible study curriculum for Southern Baptist congregations. In short, The Gospel Project Bible studies are overwhelmingly prepared by Calvinists.
Now allow me to draw a “legitimate inference”: You don’t like that the editors are all Calvinists.

Me:

Can you point to a critique of TGP where someone has dealt with its teaching on the Biblical texts in a meaningful way?
You:

Here is the stark reality: nothing will count as verifiable evidence for Calvinistic bias in The Gospel Project material so far as anti-traditional SBC Calvinists are concerned.
I didn’t think so.

Soli Deo Gloria
Posted by: Randall Cofield | Aug 23, 2012 at 08:32 PM
Mary
Moronic Statements around the internet department:

■There are traditionalists, who signed the TD this summer (last I heard the count was about 800, but I don’t know a final count). But the simple fact is that most non-Calvinists in the SBC decided not to sign that document


So all 7.5 million people enrolled in SS across the SBC knew about the document and made the decision not to sign the document and that means that everybody is a Traditionalist hater like the person making the statement?This is described as FACT???? PROVE IT PROVE IT PROVE IT!

And this:

....the Founder’s documents have some statements that could be interpreted as indicating that it is their desire to turn every SBC church into a thoroughly Reformed, five-point haven


The Purpose Statement of Founders

The purpose of Founders Ministries is the recovery of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in the reformation of local churches. We believe intrinsic to this recovery is the promotion of the Doctrines of Grace in their experiential application


So how on earth could anybody think the Founders Minsitry means to "recovery the Gospel... in the REFORMATION of local chuches.... promotion of the DOG.....

You can't post a discussion on UNITY and then post such nonsense which #1 Attacks the people you hate and #2 tries to pretend like it's somehow up for interpretation when an organization very clearly states all over it's website that it's purpose is the Reformation of the SBC. This should be denounced by those who want unity. But it just gets dismissed like Al Mohler didn't really mean what everybody thinks he meant but you stupid fools won't shut up and more people are starting to pay attention so here we'll throw you a bone and suggest that even though you're an idiot who doesn't understand plain English maybe Al Mohler could say something nice. And words ain't gonna cut it anyway - it's actions that are needed.

The only action we got is the "SHUT UP ABOUT CALVINISM COMMITTEE." So the elite can say see we talked about now let's marginalize voices who disagree with the Calvinizaion of the SBC.

Posted by: Mary | Aug 23, 2012 at 08:40 PM
Mary
""I think many fear they might be wrong and that is why they are so thin skinned about disagreement on the doctrine"


This is a big point that I think shows the hysterics over the Traditionalist Statement. The YRR have been indoctrinated as to what everybody believes but here you have something that has been intentionally kept from them - People like Mohler, Akin and Ascol absolutely knew that the other side of Calvinism in the SBC is Traditionalism, but it didn't fit inside the box they wanted to give to the YRR so as to control them. So when faced with something they haven't been taught immediately you see the meltdown and the necessity to insist that you had to wear this semiPelegian label or to insist you really don't believe what that statement says so here let me rework it for you. It doesn't ever cross their mind that maybe this is something new that they haven't studied at their indoctrination camps and so they should perhaps sit back and listen for a while and then do some study outside the box they've been placed in by the elites.

Posted by: Mary | Aug 23, 2012 at 08:46 PM
peter lumpkins
Randall,

I am simply not going to tit/tat with you when no real engagement is brought to the table from your end. The level of the "comebacks" you inevitably log fails to connect virtually every time I get in a back & forth with you:

a) when you can show precisely how drawing conclusions about a literary teams' theological perspectives necessarily reduces to personal likeability or unlikeability, I'll entertain your complaint. Otherwise, I'll assume you have no real point to make, only a personal judgment assessment against me (i.e. the reason I have a problem with TGP is because I don't "like" the authors)

b) I'm not going to answer something I already addressed, Randall. Do you not even finish a comment before you return a response? Great Scott! I specifically pointed you to "my response to JD above (1st paragraph)" where I addressed your query. Rather than deal with that, you quote a follow up I offered only to log what I suppose you think to be a clever one-liner--"I didn’t think so." Yeah. Right.

So, since you appear to be uninterested in attempting to engage fully what I actually write, I'm through. I have neither interest nor energy to tit/tat with someone who'd rather mindlessly spar than genuinely communicate.

With that, I am...
Peter

Posted by: peter lumpkins | Aug 23, 2012 at 09:10 PM
JD Hall
Peter, did a blogger just say I was wasting my time commenting on a blog...in a comment he left on a blog?

Posted by: JD Hall | Aug 23, 2012 at 09:16 PM
peter lumpkins
JD

Excuse me?

Posted by: peter lumpkins | Aug 23, 2012 at 09:19 PM
peter lumpkins
All,

I found at least three comments in the spam bucket and just posted them. Mary, one was yours. I do not know why they were there. Sorry for the late posting of them.

With that, I am...
Peter

Posted by: peter lumpkins | Aug 23, 2012 at 09:22 PM
Lydia
Mary, If you notice...or at least I have seen it, Mohler never outright dissed the Non Calvinists in the SBC. That would be foolhardy as they are the largest donor base to the SBC in general. he does not have to. He simply says NC is the true Gospel or the only place to go...blah, blah. There is a reason for this. He is also careful what he says depending on the audience. He also was influential in starting T4G and brining in many Reformed outside the SBC to partner with us. He was building the brand for many years under the radar.

The internet is the worst thing to happen to him and others like DRiscoll, Mahaney, etc. It used to be so easy to strategize and control people using other people's money.

I do want to say that I respect Allen Cross and his words in even acknowledging there are problems with Mohler behavior and words. But it is naive. People do not understand how things work in that rarified stratosphere of celebrity Christianity. Mohler will "apologize" if he thinks his position demands it. But I think he will simply say he has explained his words, always cooperated with non ?Calvinists and leave it at that. And I doubt Page or any of the others have the nerve to press such a thing.

When we have to ask our leaders to repent, I often think of this blog post which spelled out my views perfectly but written about elders instead of entity heads but I think it still applies:

http://jamaljivanjee.com/2012/04/please-pray-for-our-elders/

Here is what I think applies:

" I want them to realize that putting a descriptive term like ‘elder’ (one who is wise in the faith) upon a person who is not wise in the faith makes no sense. Instead of being frustrated with these people, simply see them for who they are, and who they aren’t."

Just substitute leader for elder. Mohler has proven he is not wise (or a unifier) as an entity leader. Why are we looking for him to all of a sudden be wise and part of a unity process?

What do we expect when many of the same people sealed documents for 15 years and engaged task forces to go around messenger votes? Where is the wisdom or even the shame in our leadership? Frankly they are not spiritually wise.

Posted by: Lydia | Aug 23, 2012 at 09:23 PM
Lydia
Most ironical statement of the day: We cannot prove that Calvinists do not have a Calvinist bias.

Folks, I honestly do not know how to engage such thinking it is so far out of the realm of logic. That would be like saying, prove Trads do not have a Trad bias. Or, prove Liberals do not have a Liberal bias. Or how about one has to prove that Margaret Thatcher does not have a Tory bias. or prove that Ronald Reagan does not have a conservative bias.

Is logical thinking really this dead? What is even more frustrating is the Calvinist bias is not really the issue. Just slap a "Proudly REformed" sticker on it and be done with it. But instead, they try to pretend it is illogical, mean, hateful or wrong to think there would be any bias when all the creators/advisors are Calvinists.

Pretening they did not even know the creators/advisors of TGP were Calvinists is the bigger issue. Then trying to insist we have to prove that Calvinists do not have a
Calvinist bias! Did I just walk into the world of circular thinking that is "Calvinism"? I cannot "prove" a Calvinist has a Calvinist bias....so it must be that they don't!

Posted by: Lydia | Aug 23, 2012 at 11:13 PM
Mike
Peter lets face it. Your perceived projection of a lack of grace is well known (and no I do not intend on giving 59 examples of this to prove my point. If it isn’t apparent to you, then go back and read any 5 of your posted articles plus your responses and I am sure you will find more than enough to convince you). Simply put, you rub people the wrong way.

That is why I wanted to be fair to you and allow you to defend yourself, in the event my perception was inaccurate. Based on your sarcastic, graceless response, you clearly displayed (at least to me) that my assessment is true.

Peter, you stated that “Dunlap also asserts without the least indication as to how he knows that I allegedly "again delight in stirring up trouble." Really?”

I say yes REALLY. Again, he nor I need to present numerous examples of these claims. You Peter, are the author/originator of this blog. You certainly know the context of the conversations on this blog. To have him or anyone else “defend” themselves with these types of examples is pure silliness.

You also asked, “And, what criteria would Dunlap employ to accurately judge what constitutes my inward desires?”

As I stated above, the perception that you give off is not a pretty one. To answer your question I would say that because the overflow of the heart causes the mouth to speak, you my friend, not Dunlap, or anyone else, have got some splainin’ to do before you can ever ask that question since his response was to your perceived actions. Your heart motive appears to overflow in your writings. And that apparent motive is not pretty.

You then asked me to “inform us all” how I come to judge is so exactly what your desires happen to be. Again, to answer that question refer to my response above... By the way, who is “us”?

When you have time, I would love for you to write a post on exactly what “legitimate Calvinism” is. Im sure it would be really interesting and even more, informing since I have never heard the term “legitimate Calvinism” (is that your term and definition?). By the way, if you did write that article, would you allow real live Calvinists to correct you if you were wrong in your assessment? Or would the criteria that determines just what a “legitimate Calvinist” was, be developed by you?

Now then let me clearly state, Calvinism minus Limited Atonement IS NOT broader than the TULIP... quite the opposite. Calvinism minus Limited Atonement limits Calvinism. When you remove anything from something, there is less (2-1=1).

Peter, Calvinism is larger than TULIP. Calvinism is so much more than 5 points. Since you try so hard to rail against Calvinism, I would think that you would know this Peter. Since you do not, maybe you should not accuse others of “ridiculous claims”, “ignorant assumption” and “erroneous assumptions” until you know what those you write about, actually believe. When you do make these accusations, you are the one who comes off as the one who is ignorant, not others.

Last in regards to your suggestion of me not reading your blog, that is the most inane and immature comment I have heard from you yet. Let me ask you how you could possibly ask such a stupid, yes stupid, question? Why in the world would I not want to defend myself and my understanding of God against someone who is perceived to be intentionally misrepresenting what I believe and someone who appears to continually desire to stir up trouble for those who hold fast to his understanding of God and who He is?

As long as you give me a voice on this blog, meaning that if I am no longer heard on this blog, it is because you have silenced me, I will defend these perceived attacks. Period.
Posted by: Mike | Aug 23, 2012 at 11:19 PM
peter lumpkins
Hi Mike

Your words are embolden and my response follows:

Peter lets face it. Your perceived projection of a lack of grace is well known… Simply put, you rub people the wrong way. I addressed your comment and you return with a personal evaluation of me? Ummm… Well, no I don’t have to “face” anything, Mike. I am not here to satisfy your personal desires about how I should or should not communicate. And, if I do, in fact, “rub people the wrong way” by speaking my thoughts, well, that’s life. Besides, that’s just another one of your personal evaluations. How about let’s talk about the ideas, Mike.

That is why I wanted to be fair to you and allow you to defend yourself, in the event my perception was inaccurate. Based on your sarcastic, graceless response, you clearly displayed (at least to me) that my assessment is true. So, let’s see: I have the worst of motives…horrible desires to cause conflict…desires you personally can read and know…but you, Mike, have the aura of innocence hanging over your head—“I wanted to be fair to you and allow you to defend yourself…” In addition, my straightforward response is described as graceless sarcasm when not a syllable in it bears any resemblance to sarcasm. This is just another personal evaluation you write, not based on the words I pen but the way you feel about me

Peter, you stated that “Dunlap also asserts without the least indication as to how he knows that I allegedly "again delight in stirring up trouble." Really?”…To have him or anyone else “defend” themselves with these types of examples is pure silliness. You completely overlooked my point, Mike. Perhaps if you’d stop trying to evaluate me personally and actually read carefully the words I write, you would have understood I was not asking for examples from Dunlap for anything. Rather I was implying the impossibility of you and Dunlap knowing what my desires are. Mike, you have no way of knowing that. But to suggest you do by referring me to me last five posts is the real silliness here. You could check out my last 1,000 posts and still you could not know what’s in my heart. Hence, you cannot judge my heart’s desires. I suggest you read Matt 7:1 and begin to put that into practice.

You also asked, “And, what criteria would Dunlap employ to accurately judge what constitutes my inward desires?” As I stated above, the perception that you give off is not a pretty one… To answer your question I would say… you my friend, not Dunlap, or anyone else, have got some splainin’ to do… Unfortunately, more personal assessment of me. How about dealing with the words I write and stop trying to understand or interpret my inner psyche? Nor, Mike, am I obligated to explain anything at all about me personally. Sorry. If you cannot be satisfied with engaging ideas, you need not come back here and expect me to lie down on a couch and you delve into my innermost desires. My blog exists for other purposes I’m afraid.

You then asked me to “inform us all” how I come to judge is so exactly what your desires happen to be. Again, to answer that question refer to my response above... By the way, who is “us”? Well, your response above is not only nonsense, it directly flies in the face of Jesus’ words in Matt 7:1 pertaining to judging your brother's heart. So looking there does us no good. By the way, the “us” is the thread community. It is public after all.

When you have time, I would love for you to write a post on exactly what “legitimate Calvinism” is. Im sure it would be really interesting and even more, informing since I have never heard the term “legitimate Calvinism” (is that your term and definition?). “Legitimate Calvinism”? Mike, this is hilarious. It shows precisely how some of you sometimes read with your emotions rather than your brain. Rather than seeing I was using the term “legitimate” to question Dunlap, you took it as me creating a special term. What a Georgia hoot.

By the way, if you did write that article, would you allow real live Calvinists to correct you if you were wrong in your assessment? Or would the criteria that determines just what a “legitimate Calvinist” was, be developed by you? Mike, to imply I lack articles on this blog concerning Calvinism and my straight-forward take on it is so fundamentally ridiculous it’s hard to even respond. 70% of the blogs I write deal with some facet of Calvinism for crying out loud. And, the thread is open. I do not disallow commenters to challenge my notions based on whether or not they are Calvinists. All one has to do is consider the thousands of comments left by Calvinists. Sheeesh.

Now then let me clearly state, Calvinism minus Limited Atonement IS NOT broader than the TULIP... quite the opposite. Calvinism minus Limited Atonement limits Calvinism. When you remove anything from something, there is less (2-1=1). I haven’t a clue what you are talking about. I explicitly noted that Calvinism is not restricted to five point Calvinism. What your comment means I cannot detect.

Peter, Calvinism is larger than TULIP. Calvinism is so much more than 5 points. Since you try so hard to rail against Calvinism… maybe you should not accuse others of “ridiculous claims”, “ignorant assumption” and “erroneous assumptions” until you know what those you write about, actually believe. Until you can show how I’ve misunderstood someone’s position or have been unfair to one’s position, your exhortation is meaningless. I take great care in reading a position before I critique a position. So either be specific or drop the point, Mike.

Last in regards to your suggestion of me not reading your blog, that is the most inane and immature comment I have heard from you yet. Let me ask you how you could possibly ask such a stupid, yes stupid, question? Let me see if I understand. Here’s what I wrote that’s supposed to be the the most inane and immature comment you have heard from me yet:

If you or another do not find my views palatable, kind, Christianly, sober, or lacking any other worthy virtue, I wholeheartedly encourage you to not read my site. I assure you: I am not writing for you. Nor is my message intended for you.

After all, that's the beauty of liberty is it not? It is also the benefit of the internet and RSS feed. You may unsubscribe anytime you feel I no longer--assuming I ever did, of course--bring the right beans to the BBQ.


So, my encouraging you not to read my site if you find it unedifying is the most inane and immature comment you have heard from me yet? My implying my blog is not for you is immature? And, my suggesting the beauty of liberty is that you are not required to read constitutes a frame of mind so amazing that you find yourself wondering how it is possible I could ask “such a stupid, yes stupid, question”? It’s moments like these I don’t know whether to laugh, cry, or be angry that I have to put up with such profound absurdity. It makes a guy want to shut all comments down and keep on writing without the useless gutter banter. Maranatha

Why in the world would I not want to defend myself and my understanding of God against someone who is perceived to be intentionally misrepresenting what I believe and someone who appears to continually desire to stir up trouble for those who hold fast to his understanding of God and who He is? You don’t have to. Nor do I have to put up with accusations I’ve intentionally misrepresented others, including you, Mike. What you’ve just implied is, I’m lying about your words. I do not at all find that helpful or acceptable. Thus far it’s been about your feeling and psychological evaluation of me. Now you’re insinuating I’m deceptive. Don’t ever come back here and do that again, Mike.

As long as you give me a voice on this blog, meaning that if I am no longer heard on this blog, it is because you have silenced me, I will defend these perceived attacks. Period. Well, no it won’t be because I’ve “silenced” you. Had you paid attention to what you called the “stupid, yes stupid, question” you would have concluded that liberty’s beauty is, I cannot silence you. You have a blog, don’t you? How am I going to silence you? On the other hand, if you think I’m going to wade through your long emotional spews of psycho-sessions where you judgmentally slam my inner life contra the Lord Jesus (Matt 7:1), I think you really need to reconsider. I am uninterested in winning you over even if I could, Mike. I do not blog to satisfy you or anyone else. I have this blog to post on issues I think are helpful to the majority of Southern Baptists.

I hope I’ve been both clear and fair with your words.

With that, I am…

Peter

Posted by: peter lumpkins | Aug 24, 2012 at 05:40 AM
peter lumpkins
All,

Just so we’ll be clear concerning my strong albeit clear and necessary response to “Mike.” It’s not that “Mike” is a green newcomer to this site. He’s been around since at least June--just prior to the SBC this year. Apparently, he “stumbled” upon my blog while surfing for something else. What I find telling, however, is “Mike” almost invariably logs on mostly to give us all “what for” preaching to us that we all need to “repent”. Let me show you what I mean by offering a few samplings of his contributions here:

---“Referring to the maturity of the conversations coming from both camps as a cesspool is pretty specific. Your fan club does no better than the fan club of the Driscolls etc... Snide, sarcastic, condescending remarks against fellow brothers and sisters in Christ are nothing less than wickedness. You know it and your followers know it...So yes, I say repentance!” source
---“You guys (yes I am speaking to those of you who speak wickedly and who are anti-Calvinists) have to stop. This is horrible. Peter, Im sorry to call you out publicly but I know of no other way of contacting you. Peter you are part of the problem just as the moderators of the "Calvinist" blogs who do not promote brotherly love are part of the problem. Your job as not only a Christian moderator but as a pastor is to not allow sinfulness grow in the flock you are immediately over nor those whom you influence from afar. Brother you are not doing this. In fact you seem to be promoting it. Peter, stop it. From a man who loves you, to a man who holds the very Spirit of God within him, the same Spirit who lives within me, STOP IT!… Peter please do not respond with a scathing review which nit picks every word I have said and which throws the focus off of what I have said. This is a plea for you, not the other guy who may or may not be a Calvinist, who spews venom or allows it on his blog, but a plea for you to stop. Lovingly, I say, you ARE part of the problem. Please do not continue to be part of the problem. “ source
---“Lydia, your right the YRRs who act as you state ARE WRONG. No ifs and or buts about it… [however] Your comments, as well as those from others on this blog, specifically are highly offensive and saddening to read, not just to Calvinists but to other "camps" as well.” source
---“Lydia, please, reread your post…. Too, I want to encourage you to remember Paul’s words to Titus in chapter 2 where he wrote, “You must teach what is appropriate to sound doctrine… teach the older women to be reverent in how they live, not to be slanderers… but to teach what is good [so that]… they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure… so that no one will malign the Word of God.” ….You are to be a reflection of your Maker and in at least your actions on this blog, you have not been doing this. There are younger women who read your comments and are influenced by them. They see the hatred, the vileness, the mean things that come out of your mouth… are they being taught that it is “all about me”; “It’s all about what I want”; “Im number one and Ill verbally run over who ever I want in order to express my opinion”? Let me remind you that there is no grace in those responses. “…Mary… The supposed actions of these you are so hateful towards are absolutely not an excuse for your actions. Period… “ source
---“[Lydia]…You actually are thinking wrong. As I said, God placed a love for you on me and you are the one that I am addressing. If I were trying to prove my point in regards to me being either a Trad or a Calvinist, you would have seen that in my responses to you. You are right, I am rebuking you. But Im doing it in love. Im glad that you have realized that I am rebuking you. I ask you to reflect to see if what I am saying is true or not. … Lydia, I dont think little of you. I think enough of you to loving rebuke you. Whether you realize it or not, I hold you in high regard” source
---“Lydia, Mary I am at a loss... Sadly, I will stop speaking the Truth in love to you. Thus I will not contact you again. You have my word. May you be blessed and seek your joy in Him.” source
---“[Tim]…If in fact that is what was communicated, then your remark of "You do not have to stop by here and play the role of the Holy Spirit" was uncalled for. That is what I called you out on….Tim you are reading too much into what I stated. Never, not once, did I mention anything in regards to the post. What I called out was you and your apparent sophomoric response to what Randall called you to” source

My point in logging a significant portion of “Mike’s” commenting history is to show a fairly consistent pattern he’s developed at SBC Tomorrow. For some reason, “Mike” apparently concludes it’s perhaps his responsibility to “rebuke,” “call out,” and “correct” commenters here whom he feels fails to meet his personal criteria of crossing "over-the-top" so to speak. As I recall in scanning all his comments, while there were some amicable, more reasonable and sober moments when he “backed off,” so to speak, his imagined role as an ambassador for cleaning up our alleged “cesspool” two characteristics stood out ahead of the pack:

a) ever how congenial and/or courteous his comments became, “Mike” seemed to devolve back into the let-me-preach-you-a sermon-to-rebuke-the-godless-vile-words-your-write mode. Hence, his latest flurry above against me personally rather than Lydia, Mary, or another makes fairly good, predictable sense given his prior pattern;

b) out of all the comments I read that “Mike” logged, I cannot remember a single one when “Mike” actually engaged the issue of the original post or even a side-issue spawned in light of the thread. Rather “Mike” overwhelmingly was busily personally “correcting,” “rebuking,” and “calling out” either me or another commenter. And, while I cannot imagine there are no exceptions to this (after all, I read though them quickly), I stand confident the consistent pattern exists. And, I am perfectly willing to stand corrected on that.

Even so, I shall continue doing what I have been doing. I will raise questions on this site about theology, ethics, and other issues affecting particularly Southern Baptists, offering my honest albeit far from perfect assessment of the issue I raise and shall do so in the most congenial, straight-forward way as my own literary gifts and abilities allow.

Furthermore, I will neither stand down nor remain silent on the issue of aggressive Calvinism in the SBC no matter the curious unbaptistic calls to be silent while Dr. Page's "advisory" committee on Calvinism does "its" job. I have been speaking out publicly on this particular issue since 2006, and those who've followed for some time know it was the particular reason I started blogging in the first place.

Nor, might I add in closing, will Calvinists like "Mike" who come on this site and demand I "stop it" affect me in the least in moving forward. My own purpose for SBC Tomorrow not only does not address "winning over Calvinists" to "my side" (personally I have no desire to "win" Calvinists to "my side." They need to come to their own conclusions concerning what Scripture teaches. If I have a part in that, so be it; if not, so be it.), neither does my purpose bow to their own aspirations about how I ought to run this site. In short, their pay-grade just doesn't cut it. I answer to One far more authoritative than any man could ever obtain--including even an elder-board mentality (wink wink!).

Finally, at the risk of "Mike's" wrath coming down hard for
mentioning such a "stupid--yes stupid" thing, I encourage those who read this site to continue if they find it helpful (and helpful despite some of the orneriness that takes place at times).

However, if you find this site drags you down, offers no help to you, but only makes you angry or depressed, please, for the sake of your spiritual life, move on. Not only do I encourage you to do so, in my view, you're obligated to do so. I learned early in 2006, blogging is a place where, if one commits to deal with provocative or controversial subjects, one must expect, at sometime or another, to end up not only being splattered with mud, but sadly flinging some one's self. That's not how it ought to be; rather that's realistically a description of how it actually is.

With that, I am…

Peter

Posted by: peter lumpkins | Aug 24, 2012 at 12:14 PM
Randall Cofield
A few quotes from The Gospel Project projecting the horrible Calvinism you guys are up-in-arms about:

“The God of the Bible in
the very first chapter is not
some abstract ‘unmoved
mover,’ some spirit
impossible to define, some
ground of all beings, some
mystical experience. He has
personality and dares to
disclose himself in words that
human beings understand.
Right through the whole
Bible, that picture of God
constantly recurs. However
great or transcendent he is,
he is a talking God.”
–D. A. Carson

“You called and cried out
loud and shattered my
deafness. You were radiant
and resplendent, you put to
flight my blindness. You were
fragrant, and I drew in my
breath and now pant after
you. I tasted you, and I feel
but hunger and thirst for you.
You touched me, and I am
set on fire to attain the peace
which is yours.”
–Augustine

“No real faith was ever
wrought in man by his own
thoughts and imaginations;
he must receive the gospel as
a revelation from God, or he
cannot receive it at all.”
–Charles Spurgeon

“Religion operates on
the principle of ‘I obey—
therefore I am accepted by
God.’ The basic operating
principle of the gospel is ‘I
am accepted by God through
the work of Jesus Christ—
therefore I obey.’ ”
–Tim Keller

“The voices of visible
creation…are equally clear to
everyone…giving everyone
the one message, that they
were made by someone and
do not exist of themselves.”
–Diodore of Tarsus

“God’s speech in nature is
not to be confused with the
notion of a talking cosmos,
as by those who insist that
nature speaks, and that we
must therefore hear what
nature says as if nature were
the voice of God. ‘Hear God!’
is the biblical message,
not ‘Listen to nature!’
Nature is God’s created
order, and in nature God
presents himself.”
–Carl F. H. Henry

“The created realm (creation)
is a spectacular theater that
serves as the cosmic matrix
in which God’s saving and
judging glory can be revealed.
God’s glory is so grand that
no less a stage than the
universe—all that is or was
and will be, across space and
through time—is necessary
for the unfolding of this allencompassing
drama.” 6
–James M. Hamilton Jr.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Posted by: Randall Cofield | Aug 26, 2012 at 08:58 PM
peter lumpkins
Randall,

"...projecting the horrible Calvinism you guys are up-in-arms about:"

First, I've personally not focused on the "Calvinism" within TGP. Nor have others on this site for that matter--at least to any substantial degree. While I've read the entire first quarter of the adult material, I've not offered any kind of analysis on the actual lessons (and probably won't until we get a substantial bank of material available). Rather I've consistently focused on the number of "Calvinists" who produced the material--almost exclusively "Reformed."

Second, offering great quotes from TGP, it seems to me, hardly affects the conclusion to which Green and his congregation came in their rejection of TGP. You may think differently, and Green and his congregation bless you in your conclusion. Why can you not bless them in their conclusion? The only ones who required satisfaction in their decision are members of Green's church. And, at least from the criteria they employed, they judged the material so sufficiently promoted Calvinism that they could not in good conscience use the material.

Third, the irony is striking in the actual quotes you offer above, quotes which in some sense lend credibility to Green's analysis. If I recall correctly, he claimed that most of the sources quoted in TGP were Calvinists. And, what do you quote? Out of the seven quotes you offer from TGP, six are definitively strong Augustinian-Calvinists.

With that, I am...
Peter

Posted by: peter lumpkins | Aug 27, 2012 at 04:54 AM
Robert Carter
Peter,

I would agree with you that Pastor Green's 2 quotes from the material don't say, or even imply, what he read into them. Possibly, he went to the material predisposed to find something "pushing Calvinism"? There seems to be an inferred assumption that if someone tends toward a Calvinistic theological framework then they must be a bad theologian, or have an agenda. That's not really a fair accusation. Not everyone has an agenda.

Also, I couldn't help being a bit amused at the downplaying of the 300k number. Seems pretty significant for something new in Baptist life. Anyone who's ever been a pastor in an SBC church knows how difficult it is to go through all the red-tape to get a congregation to vote to switch material. More will come to this new curriculum, I suspect. Plus, it doesn't seem too long ago that the exact same people downplaying the 300k people were stoked to have 800 people sign a silly statement after pushing it heavily including at the SBC convention. 300k or 800? We're Southern Baptists. Our defining book of the Bible is Numbers. Seems, then that 300k might be more significant than presented.

Posted by: Robert Carter | Aug 27, 2012 at 09:56 AM
Bob Hadley
IN looking at the 300K figure I want to go to Stetzer's own comment with reference to the popularity if TPG..

Needless to say, we are thrilled that so many have decided to use the curriculum. I was just looking at the list of churches using it and it is amazing. We are glad to see that lots of different denominations are using the curriculum: Evangelical Free, Baptist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, non-denominational, and Lutherans (one Lutheran church using thousands of the student guides). The biggest user is a part of the Restoration movement! But, what is encouraging is that there are churches of all sizes and places, different denominations, and ministry styles. We are just thrilled that this will be a great help to so many churches. It's great to see people care about theology and mission and want to study it together.
So, let's be clear... the 300K are not Southern Baptists perhaps half of them are and the largest user is apparently not Southern Baptist...

As to the statement that "not everyone has an agenda" then pray tell WHY Lifeway decided that it was necessary to use an exclusive all calvinist club as advisers? There had to be a reason for doing so and to suggest that is not the case is absurd! Furthermore, to even attempt to suggest that this group is not going to share their theological convictions is equally absurd; for if they do not then this project will not be worth reading in the first place.

There is always an agenda.