In a recent issue of SBC Life, which is a mainstream Southern Baptist newspaper, I read an article by Dr. Malcolm B. Yarnell of Southwestern Baptist Seminary entitled “The TULIP of Calvinism.” As I read the article, I was once again reminded of how important sound exegesis is in preaching, teaching and even in scholarly writing. The article began, with this statement: “The following is a summary of the "TULIP" of classic Calvinism, set against the backdrop of its origins and compared to the Baptist Faith and Message, with the full recognition that Scripture is the final authority on all beliefs and doctrinal systems.” With an introduction like this, I felt sure that Dr. Yarnell was about to give us a fair treatment of the Doctrines of Grace! However, as I began to read, I was quickly convinced otherwise. For what I found instead, was a cleverly crafted attack against the beliefs of historic Southern Baptists.
One of the first things I noticed was that with every point, Dr. Yarnell built a “Calvinistic” sounding straw-man that he could easily tear down. He did this by subtly transitioning each point of classical Calvinism into one with a Hyper-Calvinistic point of view. For those with little or no understanding of what these historical doctrines actually teach, this would be very hard to spot. But for many, this should be immediately obvious. For example, under the point of unconditional election, he begins with a true statement regarding the view of classical Calvinism. He stated that “Followers of Calvin” - though they were not actually followers of Calvin, but followers of Christ - “argued that God decreed from eternity to elect some to salvation.” This is a true statement. You can easily turn to one of many passages of Scripture to see that this is so: 2nd Timothy 1:8-9, Ephesians 1:3-14, 1st Peter 1:1-2 and many others. He then proceeded to say that “Subsequent followers posited a more extreme view” and then describes a heretical Hyper-Calvinistic view of the doctrine of election called double-predestination. The view that he describes is a false view that is overwhelmingly rejected by those of us who hold to the doctrines of grace as described by classical Calvinism. Then following this transition, he proceeds to tear down his readymade straw-man with a comment about how “Most Southern Baptists would counter” with a different opinion. Now it was my understanding that Dr. Yarnell’s objective was to compare the views of classical Calvinism with those held by Southern Baptists as described in the Baptist Faith and Message. However, what he does in each case is compare the views of Hyper-Calvinism to the views of a specific group of Southern Baptists, whose doctrine, while similar in some ways to those of historic Southern Baptists, are much more in line with the views of the Free-Will Baptist church. To say that this is a little misleading would be an understatement.
This is simply very poor scholarship. Dr. Yarnell, while he claims to speak for “Most Southern Baptists,” falls very short of doing so. To support his case, that his is the historic perspective, he quotes selected portions of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. In this case he states that “The Baptist Faith and Message, in simple accord with Scripture, states: "Election is the gracious purpose of God" which "is consistent with the free agency of man."” And while these words are actually found in the current version of the BFAM, Dr. Yarnell fails to mention that he strategically left out several very important words that appear in between those that he sited. The actual text that appears in the 2000 BFAM states that: “Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.” This is in no way contradictory to the original, “true,” statement regarding the classical view of Calvinism; “God decreed from eternity to elect some to salvation.” On the contrary, The 2000 BFAM affirms that God is the one that does the electing, and that the result of Him doing so is the regeneration, justification, sanctification and glorification of the sinner. It clearly does not say that He elects “all sinners” because doing so would promote the heretical view of universalism.
In another effort to lend credibility to his position, Dr Yarnell mentions the names of E.Y. Mullins, Herschel Hobbs, and Adrian Rogers. While these three men were great scholars in many respects, each of them seemed to have a specific and well documented weakness when it came to the doctrine of election. For example, Dr. Yarnell states that “Hobbs decried the "error that election relates to certain individuals, with some destined to salvation and others to damnation."” This is a quote from a book by Mr. Hobbs entitled “Fundamentals of our Faith”. This quote is taken from page 90 where Mr. Hobbs is stating some of the “errors regarding the doctrine of election.” The third one in a list of four errors is the one mentioned above. As his proof text, Mr. Hobbs suggests John 3:16 and Revelation 22:17, neither of which are verses specifically dealing with the doctrine of election. Very poor exegesis! Again, to think that this is an exhaustive list of prominent Southern Baptists that reject the doctrine of election is very misleading. He failed to mention names like J. P. Boyce, one of the founders and the first president of Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky who stated in his Abstract of Principles that “Election is God's eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life-not because of foreseen merit in them, but of His mere mercy in Christ-in consequence of which choice they are called, justified and glorified.” And while this one Southern Baptist founder should be enough, we could easily name many, many more: John L. Dagg, P.H. Mell, Basil Manly Sr., B.H. Carroll, or even the current president of Southern Seminary R. Albert Mohler Jr., just to name a few.
So, while this article has a good title, and an enticing introduction, the content is very misleading. It is a very good example of how to not “exegete the text!” However, I will say this about SBC Life; in the same issue, they also ran a very good article dealing with the same subject by Dr. Daniel L. Akin of Southeastern Baptist Seminary. It is worth reading!
Below are links to both of these articles:
The TULIP of Calvinism In Light of History and the Baptist Faith and Message by Malcolm B. Yarnell III, Ph.D.: http://www.sbclife.net/Articles/2006/04/SLA8.asp
Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility How Should Southern Baptists Respond to the Issue of Calvinism? by Daniel L. Akin, Ph.D. : http://www.sbclife.net/Articles/2006/04/SLA7.asp
Soli Deo Gloria,
Dave Scarbrough
No comments:
Post a Comment