Dr. Robert L. Sumner, “DUNGHILL THEOLOGY!”

Dr. Robert L. Sumner

Over 8 years ago we clipped an excellent article which had been written by William R. Estep, at the time the distinguished professor of church history, emeritus, at Southwestern Seminary. He wrote with Southern Baptists in view, seeking to douse the flames of a growing Calvinism in that denomination. I wish we could print the entire article since it was filled with so much wisdom and understanding. The term ‘dunghill’ theology was coined by Andrew Fuller in his The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, an answer to John Gill’s Calvinism.

Estep described Calvin: “He was no advocate of religious freedom, but an autocrat who often mistook his own will for the will of God,” adding that he “never was able to free himself from his Roman Catholic heritage. … His Old Testament hermeneutics and his uncontrollable temper acerbated his intolerance of those who disagreed with him.” Estep apparently wrote this article as an answer to Ernest C. Reisinger’s attempt to “call Southern Baptists back to what he conceives to have been their Calvinistic root,” to which he responded, “This assumption must be challenged on the basis of the original Baptist vision and its theological insights.” Amen to that!

Calvin’s theology might be summed up with his definition of predestination: “By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God by which He determined with Himself whatever He wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation, and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death” (Institutes, 3.21.5). If that isn’t fatalism, it’ll do until someone can think one up!

In talking about Baptists, Estep wrote: “Baptists arose out of English Puritan-Separatist movement, which was Calvinist, but they modified their Calvinistic heritage to a considerable degree. The first English Baptists of record (1608) came to be known as ‘General Baptists,’ since they believed in ‘general atonement’ – that Christ died for all and not just for the elect. Their Calvinism almost completely vanished under Anabaptist-Mennonite influence.”

In closing, he listed what he called “problems with Calvinism” as related to Baptists. Part of what he wrote was:

“First, it is a system of theology without biblical support.

“It assumes to know more about God and the eternal decrees upon which it is based than God has chosen to reveal in scripture or in Christ. To say God created some people for damnation and others for salvation is to deny that all have been created in the image of God.

“It also reflects upon both God’s holiness and His justice, as portrayed in the Bible.

“Further, Calvinism appears to deny John 3:16, John 1:12, Romans 1:16, Romans 10:9-10,

Ephesians 2:8-10 and numerous other passages of scripture that indicate, as Baptist confessions have consistently stated, that salvation comes to those who respond to God’s grace in faith.

“Second, Calvinism’s God resembles Allah, the god of Islam, more than the God of grace and redeeming love revealed in Jesus Christ.

“Third, Calvinism robs the individual of responsibility for his/her own conduct, making a person into a puppet on a string or a robot programmed from birth to death with no will of his/her own.

“Fourth, historically, Calvinism has been marked by intolerance and a haughty spirit. Calvin’s Geneva, the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) and the Regular Baptists (Hardshells, Primitives and Two Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists) are only some of numerous examples of this Calvinistic blight.

“Fifth, logically, Calvinism is anti-missionary. The Great Commission is meaningless if every person is programmed for salvation or damnation, for evangelism and missionary efforts are exercises in futility.

“Apparently, Calvinism is an excursion into speculative theology with predictable results, which we as Southern Baptists can ill afford.”

But what about “the great Charlie?” Estep wrote: “Charles Haddon Spurgeon often has been cited by Baptists as a staunch Calvinist. At times, the young Spurgeon claimed to be exactly that, but at other times it is clear he was neither a hyper-Calvinist nor even a consistent Calvinist. A. C. Underwood, in A History of English Baptists, writes that Spurgeon’s ‘rejection of a limited atonement would have horrified John Calvin.’ According to Underwood, Spurgeon often prayed, ‘Hasten to bring in all Thine elect, and then elect some more.’ The mature Spurgeon confided in Archbishop Benson, ‘I’m a very bad Calvinist, quite a Calvinist – I look on to the time when the elect will be all the world’.”

Don’t be taken in by “dunghill” theology!

Excerpted from The Biblical Evangelist: Volume 37, Number 3; May-June 2006.

Dr. Robert L. Sumner, (1922-2006) The Biblical Evangelist: “A Voice for Historic Evangelical Fundamentalism.”

Kevin Bauder’s Open Letter to Lance Ketchum: Where Do I Find Agreement?

On Sunday we began with more than just an introduction to a review of Kevin Bauder’s Open Letter to Lance Ketchum. Let’s continue with where I find some agreement with the Open Letter.

1) Hegelian Dialect

I am not familiar enough with Hegelian Dialect to know with certainty whether Dr. Ketchum’s assessment is correct or not. I will, therefore, refrain from commenting on that issue.

2) Is John MacArthur a hyper-Calvinist?

My definition of a hyper-Calvinist appears in my book In Defense of the Gospel.

“I am uncomfortable with, and reject all five points of Calvinism. There are Calvinists who are uncomfortable with the extremes of the so-called hyper-Calvinism, but what is hyper-Calvinism? I have found that people vary in their definition of what constitutes a hyper-Calvinist. Some believe, for example, that if a man holds to the Limited Atonement position (Christ’s blood was shed only for the elect) he is a hyper-Calvinist. Although I believe that Calvinism’s limited atonement is out of balance with and contradicts the Scriptures, I do not agree that holding to that position necessarily makes one a hyper-Calvinist. So how do I specifically define hyper Calvinism? For me there is one historically definitive mark of hyper-Calvinism. This identifying mark of a hyper-Calvinist is when he refuses to preach the gospel to every sinner, when he has little concern for missions and evangelism, when he refuses to offer an open and universal invitation to every sinner.” (IDOTG: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation, pp. 275.)

So, is John MacArthur a hyper-Calvinist?  In my opinion, John MacArthur does not fit the widely accepted definition of a hyper-Calvinist.

3) Is John MacArthur a “New” Evangelical?

A significant number of fundamentalists believe Dr. John MacArthur is a potential bridge to New Evangelicalism. The reason being that among the so-called “conservative” evangelicals MacArthur had been thought to be the most like fundamentalists. He has, therefore, been the most widely accepted.  

Today, based on verifiable evidence that any objective reader can examine, I believe it has become clear that there is a more direct bridge for the next generation of fundamentalists to move toward New Evangelicalism than John MacArthur. The bridge is Kevin Bauder, as well as Dave Doran, but even more so at present are Matt Olson and Tim Jordan. What they’ve written, how they’ve abandoned authentic “militant” separation, with whom they are in cooperative ministry with and the influence they exert is paving a glide path for the current and next generation to New Evangelicalism. Having just announced (Jan. 16) his joining the faculty at John Piper’s Bethlehem College & Seminary Andy Naselli is IMO a loss to New Evangelicalism.  How long will it be before we read Andy heaping “lavish praise” not only on John Piper and Tim Keller, which he has from his blog, but for Rick Warren as well?1

Is John MacArthur a “New” Evangelical? In my opinion he does not fit the classic definition of a “New” Evangelical.

We’ll be back on Thursday with the more critical review of the Kevin Bauder’s Open Letter to Lance Ketchum.

LM

Please continue this series with, Kevin Bauder’s Open Letter: Expanding Our Reach

New Critical Review: Please see Kent Brandenburg's new article,  A Really Nice, Gentle, Loving OpenLetter, Because That's What I'm Calling It, to Kevin Bouder (sic)

“Do you [Kevin Bauder] have available a similar kind of criticism of any evangelicals like you have criticized Lance Ketchum? I could appreciate your wordsmith applied to John Piper, instead of what seems like only glowing praise… Piper doesn’t believe and practice like you.   Ketchum doesn't believe and practice like you.  It seems that perhaps the deciding difference between Piper and Ketchum is that Piper doesn't criticize you at all.  He's only praised you that I have read… And your guys would be upset about criticism of Piper, diminishing your legendary status with them.”

Site Publisher’s Update (2/1/13):
Dr. Lance Ketchum publishes a response to Kevin Bauder’s Open Letter.  See, Defining Points

“The contradiction of all this is that men like Dr. Kevin Bauder, Dr. Doug McLachlan, Dr. Timothy Jordan, Dr. David Doran, and Dr. Matt Olson all profess to be independent, fundamental Baptists.  However, their new definition of the practice of separation is like that of the interdenominational Fundamentalism.  They want most other doctrines other than the Gospel to be eliminated from the practice of separation.  Independent, fundamental Baptists do not agree and do not like what they are trying to do.  They are convoluting what it means to be an independent, fundamental Baptist.”

Footnotes:

1) Andy has frequently promoted and endorsed the teachings of Tim Keller, who among other concerns, Recommends Roman Catholic Mysticism. Will the pseudo-fundamentalist Sharper Iron retain Andy’s Thoughts on Theology blog on the SI Blogroll when he begins writing positive reviews of Rick Warren’s ministry and/or theology?

Related Reading:
What is Hyper-Calvinism?

The Changing Landscape is Mudding the Waters, ReDux

A few weeks ago, I posted a rather lengthy article on the depravity of man that I wrote, which drew some measure of controversy.  I don’t apologize for that.  It is good when men and women put their brains in gear.  Most people live their lives with their brain either in neutral or laying up on some shelf.  Then my good friend, Lou Martuneac honored me by posting the article on his well-acclaimed web site. It was well received in both locations with a few exceptions.  The article was entitled, “The Changing Landscape is Mudding theWaters.”  The question that was raised had to do with this statement:  “Even the faith necessary to reach out and accept God’s free offer of salvation, is granted to us by God’s GRACE and MERCY.”  Frankly, I saw nothing wrong with the statement, but some did.

The idea came from Eph. 2:8-9 where Paul states, “For by grace are ye saved, through faith and that not of yourselves: (it is the gift of God), not of works, lest any man should boast.”  The subject through out this passage, beginning in verse one is Salvation, which is the wonderful gift of God. This salvation comes to us by God’s Grace, which is unmerited favor, and it is received by faith.  The issue here is, how does faith operate and where does faith come from? One thing we know about faith is that it is simply taking God at His word. It was said of Abraham that “Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.” From what we see through out the Bible, it is also an exercise of the will. For instance, in Hebrews 11, the Bible says that, “By faith Abel offered up a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.”  That is an exercise of the will.   In John 1:12-13 we read, “But as many as received Him (Christ), to them gave He the power, (authority) to become the sons of God, even to them that believe (faith) on His name.  Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”  Again, this is an exercise of the will.

However it works and wherever it comes from, it certainly doesn’t come from within ourselves.  What I was trying to say and obviously not very well, is that Salvation begins and ends with God. It comes to us by God’s grace, through our faith.  However, no one will get into God’s heaven and be able to say, “I helped God save my poor wretched soul.”  God did it all by Himself by His grace, by enabling us to reach out by faith to receive his offer of salvation. I don’t know how else to explain it. Again, in our attempt to distance ourselves from Calvinistic teaching we strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.


Dr. Lawrence Hufhand
Hufhand Ministries

Related Reading:
Pastor George Zeller, The Dangers of Reformed Theology

The Danger of Teaching That Regeneration Precedes Faith

What is Hyper-Calvinism?

I am uncomfortable with, and reject all five points of Calvinism.  There are Calvinists who are uncomfortable with the extremes of the so-called hyper-Calvinism, but what is hyper-Calvinism? I have found that people vary in their definition of what constitutes a hyper-Calvinist. Some believe, for example, that if a man holds to the Limited Atonement position (Christ’s blood was shed only for the elect) he is a hyper-Calvinist. Although I believe that Calvinism’s limited atonement is out of balance with and contradicts the Scriptures, I do not agree that holding to that position necessarily makes one a hyper-Calvinist.

So how do I specifically define hyper-Calvinism? For me there is one historically definitive mark of hyper-Calvinism. This identifying mark of a hyper-Calvinist is when he refuses to preach the gospel to every sinner, when he has little concern for missions and evangelism, when he refuses to offer an open and universal invitation to every sinner. In his book Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching Iain H. Murray accurately defines this form of hyper-Calvinism,

Hyper-Calvinism views gospel preaching solely as a means for the ingathering of God’s elect. It argues that such words as, “Trust in Christ and you will be saved,” should only be addressed to elect sinners for it is their salvation alone which the preacher should have in view. . . . Gospel preaching for Hyper-Calvinists means a declaration of the facts of the gospel but nothing should be said by way of encouraging individuals to believe that the promises of Christ are made to them particularly until there is evidence that the Spirit of God has begun a saving work in their hearts, convicting them and making them ‘sensible’ of their need. . . . A universal proclamation of good news, with a warrant for every creature, lay at the heart of his (Spurgeon’s) understanding of Scripture.

Another area of concern that flows from Calvinistic theology, which I mentioned above, is: regeneration must precede faith. Earlier I mentioned Calvinism takes the total depravity of man (Jeremiah 17:9), but push it to the position of total inability. The Bible says that man is dead in his sins (Eph. 2:1). The problem begins where the Calvinist believes lost men cannot understand or respond to the gospel unless he has first been regenerated, that is: born again by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. The Calvinist maintains that only after a lost man has been regenerated can he express faith in Jesus Christ and call upon the name of the Lord. I address this issue here and elsewhere because it appears to be the position of most pro-Lordship [Salvation] advocates, and is a presupposition that leads to Lordship’s theology.

In my opinion, if a man teaches regeneration must precede faith, he has the ordo salutis (order of salvation) out-of-order. Faith, not regeneration is the trigger for the events that occur simultaneously at the moment of salvation. Those simultaneous events are: faith, repentance, regeneration, conversion, justification and adoption.

Through interaction with Reformed theologians I have found that regeneration before faith, while in my opinion is error in its own right, leads to even greater error. What is the “greater error?” Some of the men I have interacted with in online discussions take the regeneration before faith position to such an extreme they insist God regenerates some infants in the womb, who years later will express faith in Christ. The infant regeneration position is just about as far to the left as one can go in Reformed circles. Men I have interacted with, who hold to infant regeneration, have cited the following passages in support.

Jeremiah 1:5  Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Luke 1:15  For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.

Doctrinal buildings should not be set up with these ambiguous passages. What happened to Jeremiah and John the Baptist was a totally unique, one of a kind experience. Taking an infant regeneration position places regeneration in a chronological order that can be far removed from personal faith in Jesus Christ. The events in the ordo salutis become chronological far beyond the “casual” or “logical” order as expressed by some Calvinists. Years ago some Puritan types were preaching regeneration as an infant and then acceptance of the gospel well down the road of life. Consequently, one ends up with regenerate unbelievers, which is a true heresy.

Is regeneration before faith a mark of hyper-Calvinism? Admittedly, regeneration before faith does not necessarily fit the classic definition of hyper-Calvinism. As some men slide deeper into extremes, such as infant regeneration, we may one day have to reopen a discussion over the potential inclusion of additional defining characteristics of hyper-Calvinism.

Whenever possible, I choose to exercise Christian charity and allow for a believer to exercise his own conscience, and I allow for the autonomy of local churches. Once, however, a man’s Calvinism leads him to withhold an open proclamation of the gospel, with an invitation to every sinner, I would no longer in good conscience be willing to fellowship with him, and would not hesitate to identify him as a man to be scrutinized and avoided.

Romans 16:17-18  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.  For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

If I may recommend an excellent book, which I quoted from above, it would be Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching by Iain H. Murray. There is no doubt that Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892) was an ardent Calvinist, while at the same time an eminent winner of souls. Spurgeon preached the “whosoever shall call” gospel and passionately invited all sinners to respond the gospel and receive Christ. Many of his early years in ministry were, in part, embroiled in a theological battle against the hyper-Calvinists of England. Spurgeon vigorously resisted the extremes and proliferation of hyper-Calvinism in his day. Many are familiar with Spurgeon’s resistance to modernism and ultimate separation from the Baptist Union of England. That controversy may have led to his early demise. However, the former battle against the advocates of hyper-Calvinism was for Charles Spurgeon just as important and intense with very much at stake.

LM

In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation, pp. 275-278.

Related Reading:

Ps. George Zeller, The Dangers of Reformed Theology

Ps. George Zeller, The Danger of Teaching the Regeneration PrecedesFaith

Dr. Peter Masters, The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness

Ps. Bob Topartzer, Calvinism Today: Neo-Calvinism

Lordship’s Out of Order Salvation