Rev. Ronnie Rogers Responds Published on Tuesday, 17 September 2013 23:28 5 Comments Former Calvinist, Rev. Ronnie Rogers – and author of “Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist: the Disquieting Realities of Calvinism” — is pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Norman, Okla. As well, he is a contributing writer for SBCToday. Rev. Rogers sort-of burst onto SBCToday’s scene about two years ago when we became more aware of him, and particularly of his book. Since that time, he has written numerous posts for this blog, and in our opinion has offered sound responses to that which makes the majority of Southern Baptists uncomfortable regarding Calvinism (“majority” per LifeWay’s survey). Reading after Pastor Rogers requires (for some) a dictionary nearby so one may learn the meaning of “elide” and “transmogrify” and a veritable cornucopia of other phrenic argot (or, more hard words). Wordsmiths must delight in words that replace several others, e.g., transmogrify: to transform as if by magic. On September 13, SBCToday posted Pastor Rogers’ latest submission: “Is Libertarian Free Will Eternal?” The post continues to generate about 60 clicks/day. And it generated some comments that attempted to take Pastor Rogers to task. One of Pastor Rogers’ responses to someone who took exception to the post, as well as his book, offered answers to the inquisitor that were stunning, outstanding and, frankly, debilitating to the commenter’s objections and apparent positions. We decided to publish Pastor Rogers’ answers as a standalone post on the blog. We do this not to embarrass anyone at all, and we apologize in advance if that is the perception because it is certainly not the motivation. SBCToday offers this post for three reasons: 1. We want to share info we find valuable to our readers. 2. Similar to 1. We borrow Pastor Rogers’ words in noting that SBCToday “believe[s] the unbridled reality of Calvinism’s teachings and entailments need to be made known to both Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike.” 3. The Calvinism Committee Report, aka T5, calls for continuing conversation about the issues noted below. Here is the last sentence of Rev. Roger’s response. SBCToday thinks it apropos to begin with it: “My concern is that people do not understand enough about Calvinism and alternative options. Consequently, misrepresenting Calvinism is contrary to my purpose and spirit” – Rev. Ronnie Rogers. Here is a comment to which Rev. Rogers responded: “You were a four-pointer, rejecting Limited Atonement. The starting point for Calvinism is God’s knowledge before He created the world of those who were to be saved (the elect) and those who were not to be saved (the non-elect/reprobate). Non-Calvinists usually ignore this point, so I was confused as to how you could accept it and still reject Calvinism.” Rev. Rogers’ response: First, the starting point of Calvinism is not “God’s foreknowledge of those who were to be saved” because non-Calvinists believe that God knows everything. The starting point of Calvinism is that it pleased God to unconditionally elect some to Salvation and predetermined some for damnation (actively, passively or consequently). The position you stated, and Calvinism’s actual position that I stated are very different. Additionally, surely you are aware of the notable Calvinists throughout church and Baptist history who did not accept limited atonement (David Allen has done some important work in this area; for example, see his chapter in Whosoever Will). As a four-point Calvinist, I recognized, as do other four-point Calvinists, that limited atonement logically fits into the Tulip. However, we also believe, that the clear and ubiquitous teaching of Scripture says Christ meaningfully died for the sins of the world. Consequently, the departure of a four-pointer from limited atonement is not due to his lack of understanding of Calvinism, but rather a decision to depart from the system of Calvinism when they believe it is contradicting the straightforward teaching of a panoply of scriptures. Now, you may continue to opine that four-pointers do not really understand Calvinism, but wouldn’t it be better to recognize that some can disagree with you and other Calvinists because they do understand and believe the clarity of Scripture is superior to the logic of the system? Someone can understand your position and simply disagree, i.e., disagreement does not entail not understanding. They may be right or they may be wrong, but that is a discussion beyond deeming that they do not understand because if they did….well….. Now, you may want to dismiss me as an obtuse dolt who studied, taught and preached Calvinism for twenty years (I defended the arguments for Calvinism that I now reject) and spent another twelve years in thinking through some conflicts that I found between Calvinism and Scripture (as espoused by both four and five point Calvinists); however, it seems somewhat naive or hubristic for a five-pointer to conclude such about all four-point Calvinists today as well as many of the past. Again, David Allen has done us all a great service in cataloging many of the notables. Here are just a few from his book and blogs, Bullinger, Cranmer, Baxter, Hodge, Shedd, etc. I would suggest that the arguments about Calvin’s position have merit if for nothing more than his averring both sides of the coin in his commentaries, etc. My dear brother, would it not be better to recognize that some do not reject limited atonement because they do not understand Calvinism (which implies if they did they would really not be so misguided) but simply reject the logic of some Calvinists understanding of the Scripture? Simply put, my rejection of any part of Calvinism, Calvinism’s re-inventions of some very clear scriptures, and the disquieting realities that I do not find reflective of the nature of God or the gospel as revealed in Scripture does not mean that I do not understand Calvinism, or Owen for that matter. Another comment to Pastor Rogers: “At the same time, you continue to affirm that God knew the non-elect when He created the world and that they were not to be saved; you also still affirm total depravity; and consequently, you affirm the role of grace to enable a person to accept salvation. People who understand Calvinism (Vance seems to, and Hunt enough to agree with Vance) know that they must reject Total Depravity and ignore God’s knowledge of the non-elect when He created the world. So, you called yourself a Calvinist by affirming TUIP but never grasped the significance of denying L. Then you became disenchanted with Calvinist theology while still affirming T and grace.” And Pastor Rogers’ response: I must admit, I find this concern quite baffling, and rather misleading, albeit unintentionally so. I will try to respond; first, of course, whether one is a Calvinist or not, God being omniscient, He has always known who the elect were, and for anyone to deny that God always knew who would be saved seems beyond the pale of orthodoxy. This is the kind of talk that clearly implies that non-Calvinists deny that God knew who the elect are, which is absolutely untrue your citations notwithstanding. Again, the essence of Calvinism is not the affirmation that God knows who will be saved (the elect), but rather that He unconditionally chose some to salvation and did everything necessary to predetermine that these unconditionally elect would freely choose to believe (although their choosing was not between choices); this freely exercised faith arises from their new nature which was forced upon them; additionally, God simultaneously predetermined to withhold the same (He could have saved everyone) from the vast majority of His creation, even though He told His people to present salvation to them like it was really available. While I do believe you did so unwittingly, your wording is an example of double talk, which elides the actual teachings and disquieting realities of Calvinism and implies even worse for non-Calvinists. I believe in election because the Bible teaches election, and I believe any true Biblicist must affirm election. Some Calvinists believe that rejecting Calvinism’s definition of election (unconditional) is the exact same as rejecting the biblical passages regarding election — only Calvinists are Biblicists. I would argue that the rejection of Calvinism’s unduly causal sovereignty and compatibilist free will is not the same as rejecting Scripture, some Calvinists claims notwithstanding. Thus, if you can accept that one can believe in election, while rejecting Calvinism’s definition, then you can see how I could have been a Calvinist-Biblicist and now I am simply a Biblicist. If you cannot, then you cannot. Second, at one time I accepted Total Depravity (TD) as Calvinistically defined (compatibilism, dead with the only possible solution of unconditional election and regeneration then faith). Now, it is that understanding of TD that I reject. I make no pretense of my present views being consistent with the Tulip. I am in no way trying to mimic the TULIP, or define things in such a way that allows me to be a quasi-Calvinist. I reject the TULIP and anything that I say that is consistent with an aspect of it is coincidental. I am seeking to express what I believe the Scripture teaches to the best that I understand it. That being the case, I believe the Scripture teaches TD rightly understood. Again, I am rejecting Calvinism’s understanding as well as the idea that rejection is tantamount to rejecting the biblical teaching. The opposite of TD is partial depravity, which I categorically reject. Would you think I understood Calvinism more if I believed in partial depravity? I believe the Scripture teaches that man is totally depraved (extensively), so that every part of him is so affected by the fall that He will not and cannot come to God on his own—I believe I sufficiently explain this in my book. Having been a Calvinist, I recognize the difficulty of some Calvinists to accept that one can believe in TD and reject Calvinism’s compatible understanding. Calvinists often chide non-Calvinists for minimizing the depravity of man (in some cases justifiably so), but when I, and others, teach TD (without Calvinism’s compatibilism) based upon incorporating all of the relevant characteristics as laid out in Scripture, it is said that we do not understand Calvinism — strange conclusions to me. Calvinism is a system of thought that seeks to explore and explain the Scripture. It seeks to do this consistently, comprehensively, emanating from and reflective of a devotion to God, and many godly and knowledgeable followers of Christ believe the system is the best at handling the totality and perplexities of Scripture. It is also true that Calvinism is not Scripture. Nor is it the only consistent, comprehensive, system that reflects a devotion to God from a host of godly and knowledgeable followers of Christ. Having been a Calvinist, your conclusions about me notwithstanding, I understand how difficult it is for some Calvinist to believe that someone else may be right. Another comment to Rev. Rogers: “You make several allegations of double-talk by Calvinists (not that individual Calvinists do not say goofy things or not always say what they believe – but what Calvinists say and what Calvinism is can be different things), and I could not make sense of the reasons for your disenchantment with Calvinism from them.” Now Rev. Rogers: I have gone to great lengths to define what I mean by double talk (see authorial glossary in “Refections”), which unfortunately for some seems to have done little good. I do not mean espousing inconsistencies that arise from human frailty — goofy or inconsistent positions — of which we are all guilty. Rather, by double talk, I specifically and only mean thinking, praying, writing or speaking in such a way that obscures what I call the disquieting realities of Calvinism (as your earlier explanation of Calvinism seemed to do). If a person accepts and unabashedly proclaims these realities, then he can be a knowledgeable and consistent Calvinist; but if one is unwilling to face, accept and proclaim them, he cannot be a consistent Calvinist. Additionally, I am not calling anyone a double talker nor is my use of this term intended in any sense to be pejorative. Now I am very clear about this, and if you seriously read my book, I believe it would be difficult not to understand my meaning. I give numerous examples of what I mean by double talk throughout the book. It is the ubiquitous presence of such in theology books, commentaries, and messages of Calvinism that fuels my disenchantment. You said: “I saw your allegations as straw men.” I infer that you meant this to be a serious statement, and I take it accordingly. Actually, this one statement indicates that I wrote a book that was not based upon knowledge of the subject and therefore required manufactured arguments. Saying an argument is a straw man and demonstrating such to be the case are two very different undertakings. If you can show me where you think I made a straw man argument, I would greatly appreciate it. Then, either I will clarify, or if it is indeed a fallacious argument, I will disavow it, and then thank you for pointing it out to me. I am very susceptible to saying dumb things. I may have even made an invalid argument concerning problems within Calvinism (which I learned almost entirely from studying and listening to Calvinists), but I am not aware of any. I have no desire to misrepresent Calvinism because I believe the unbridled reality of Calvinism’s teachings and entailments need to be made known to both Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike. I want people to really understand Calvinism as some very knowledgeable Calvinists do and forthrightly declare — which I applaud. My concern is that people do not understand enough about Calvinism and alternative options. Consequently, misrepresenting Calvinism is contrary to my purpose and spirit. (End of Pastor Rogers’ comments.) SBCToday neither requires nor expects any busy pastor who may post here to be attentive to this blog either by responding immediately, later, or at all. If Pastor Rogers chooses to respond, then he will do so at his convenience. But after having read this, one may deem that discretion truly is the better part of valor. Tags: Calvin Calvinism former Calvinist rebuttal ronnie rogers Ronnie Rogers Responds Savabilism Savabilist SBC Today SBCToday Total Depravity Traditionalism TULIP unconditional election This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 17th, 2013 at 11:28 pm and is filed under Front Page Posts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. 5 Comments rhutchin 18-09-2013, 07:28 Pastor Rogers writes, “First, the starting point of Calvinism is not “God’s foreknowledge of those who were to be saved” because non-Calvinists believe that God knows everything. The starting point of Calvinism is that it pleased God to unconditionally elect some to Salvation and predetermined some for damnation (actively, passively or consequently). The position you stated, and Calvinism’s actual position that I stated are very different.” These are not different positions. It is true that, “…it pleased God to unconditionally elect some to Salvation and predetermined some for damnation (actively, passively or consequently).” This action occurred before God created the world. Consequently, when God created the world, He knew the identities of the elect and non-elect as I stated. As non-Calvinists also believe that God knew the identities of the elect and non-elect before He created the world, the issue is then, “How does God know the elect and the non-elect?” Calvinists say that God knows them because He made decisions – to choose the elect to salvation and to pass over the non-elect. That is a legitimate explanation and does not contradict anything the Bible tells us. The non-Calvinists don’t offer an explanation for the source of God’s knowledge. One position they take is that God has a simple knowledge of all things – God just knows and no one knows how (it is a mystery). Some appeal to Molinism but I don’t see that it helps the non-Calvinist cause. Nonetheless, given that initial condition – God knows the elect and non-elect when He creates the world – the question is posed by John Owen regarding the death of Christ, “What purpose was served by God in having Christ die for the non-elect if they were not to be saved?” Owen’s answer, “No purpose.” Thus, God did not send Christ to die for the non-elect. If the non-Calvinist has come to a different conclusion, why not explain it (non-Calvinists want a different conclusion, but I don’t think they have devised an argument to explain it). Reply Norm Miller 18-09-2013, 09:17 Hutch: Because I know Ronnie is a busy pastor, I want to attempt to shed some light here. I don’t speak for Ronnie. He can do that when /if he chooses. Before any satisfaction can be reached on election, it must be more fully defined — beyond the simplistic “action” by God. I know of no SAVABILIST who would say election is not an action of God. That begs the question: What was that action? And before answering that, then we must sort out the variety of positions on election — all of which would claim biblical bases. Is election corporate or singular? Is it unto salvation or service? Actually it may be all of the above, and one must determine the different uses of election in the Bible, and then keep them in their categories, and not borrow from one category to satisfy a presumption in another. Some months back, SBCToday posted an extended sermon outline on Election as preached by Dr. Paige Patterson when he presided over SEBTS. Here is a portion of his take on this, and I think his focus on God’s foreknowledge is spot-on. VI. Election is somehow bound up in the foreknowledge of God. A. Clearly in 1 Peter 1.2 “according to the foreknowledge of God….” B. This raises the questions for Calvinists: “Which came first, the chicken or the egg? If God foreknows something to be the case, is it conceivable that it be any other way?” And the answer is “No.” C. But be careful. Not once, but twice the Scriptures speak of election being bound up in the foreknowledge of God. 1. Romans 8.29-30 – For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. 2. It cannot be argued or denied that this passage of Scripture is not sequential in nature. a. Glorification does come after justification. b. Justification does come as a result of calling. c. Calling does come as a result of the predestining act of God. d. Predestination is based in the foreknowledge of God. Here is the link to the rest of the article that bears reading by anyone interested in the topic. sbctoday/2012/10/23/tuesday-post/ If God’s election is based upon God’s foreknowledge, then one needs to ask what God foreknew as is germane to the two passages Dr. Patterson cited above. And anyone who claims to know the foreknowledge of God had better have nail scars in his hands and feet. I would not attempt to speak for *all* Calvinists, but I think I can for all SAVABILISTS in this regard: election does not equal determinism. Just because God knows a thing doesn’t mean he will cause it to happen. Calvinists who may disagree with that point will also be making the case for God being the author of evil. And I think it is reasonably fair to say that some Cals do go that far. Whereas I am not sure how ‘evil’ it was that the USAir flight had to ditch in the Hudson River after plowing through some flying geese, Piper says, per a blog article, that event was designed by God. Wonder what he would say about jetliners flying into skyscrapers? Reply Robert 18-09-2013, 10:59 Rhutchin presents unwittingly the perfect illustration of a major problem with Calvinism and Calvinists such as him (i.e. their system of theology takes priority over what the Bible explicitly reveals, their system is more important than what the Bible actually teaches; this is why notwithstanding the ignorance of Calvinists when it comes to church history their view will always be the minority view the view rejected by virtually all other Christians across all of the theological spectrum). The Bible explicitly states that God desires the salvation of all people. The Calvinists system says that God desires the salvation of ONLY SOME. This is a contradiction and will always remain one no matter what arguments the Calvinists invent and construct to overturn the biblical revelation in favor of their false system. What this means is that you will often see the Calvinist appeal to the opinions of men and their invented arguments OVER the biblical revelation. Rhutchin presents a PERFECT ILLUSTRATION OF THIS when he writes: “Nonetheless, given that initial condition – God knows the elect and non-elect when He creates the world – the question is posed by John Owen regarding the death of Christ, “What purpose was served by God in having Christ die for the non-elect if they were not to be saved?” Owen’s answer, “No purpose.” Thus, God did not send Christ to die for the non-elect.” Did you all catch that? The opinion of a man, in this case, John Owen, invalidates what the Bible reveals. The Bible explicitly reveals that God desires the salvation of all (it cannot be plainer, even so-called 4 point Calvinists acknowledge this to be true): and yet JOHN OWEN argues against the Bible to conclude IN LINE WITH HIS CALVINISTIC SYSTEM that “God did not send Christ to die for the non-elect”. For rhutchin the opinion of a man, John Owen, takes priority over what the Bible reveals. This is why there will always be confusion and division in the church in regards to Calvinism and its false theology and false teachings. On one side you will always find those who do take the Bible to be clearly teaching that God desires the salvation of all: and on the other side you will have the Calvinists like Owen and rhutchin who because of their commitment to their system of theology must deny the Biblical revelation and do so by constructing and inventing arguments against what the Bible reveals. And this division and confusion will never end as long as these theological determinists continue to argue for their system over the biblical revelation. The devil cannot get Christians divided over the trinity, the deity of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, etc. And yet it sure looks like he has done an extremely good job by means of the Calvinistic system. Robert Reply rhutchin 18-09-2013, 07:59 Pastor Rogers writes, “Thus, if you can accept that one can believe in election, while rejecting Calvinism’s definition, then you can see how I could have been a Calvinist-Biblicist and now I am simply a Biblicist. If you cannot, then you cannot.” Election is difficult for non-Calvinists, so you do not (and I think, cannot) say much about it other than the Bible affirms it, so you affirm it. Let’s take it further. Election describes an action taken by God. It is God who elects. There is an object of God’s election. Those whom God elects are saved in the course of time. God’s election is not based on anything a person does (e.g., a foreseen faith cannot be the basis of election as this would deny God’s omniscience). The Calvinist definition of “election” is simple; it is an action by God; it is choosing those He will save. You reject that definition. Fine, what definition do the non-Calvinists offer as an alternative? I have yet to see one. Non-Calvinists will sometimes appeal to free-will but as God knows the elect when He creates the world and God’s knowledge of the elect is not based on foreseen faith, then free-will cannot define election. To say that God chooses to elect those who will believe must deny God’s prior knowledge of the elect if it is to work – it says that God cannot elect people until He learns that they believe. So the issue for the non-Calvinist is to define election and then show how it would work in a non-Calvinist system. I have not seen this done in my limited readings of non-Calvinists. Reply Robert 18-09-2013, 11:17 Rhutchin writes: “The Calvinist definition of “election” is simple; it is an action by God; it is choosing those He will save. You reject that definition. Fine, what definition do the non-Calvinists offer as an alternative?” It is not a case of the correct definition but a case of correct understanding of election. The answer to his question here is simple and straightforward: God chooses to elect those who trust in Him alone for salvation. But behind this simple concept are some important understandings. We must understand that God alone saves. That God decided how people would be saved (as Paul makes clear especially in Romans it is **through faith** that people are saved). And that God provided a means of atonement for all so that all who do believe can be saved (i.e. the atonement of Christ for the whole world). Now if you deny these truths as Calvinists do, then of course the simple affirmation that God elects those who trust him to be His people is meaningless. “I have yet to see one. Non-Calvinists will sometimes appeal to free-will but as God knows the elect when He creates the world and God’s knowledge of the elect is not based on foreseen faith, then free-will cannot define election.” Yet again rhutchin appears to be intentionally dense (I say this because he has been corrected on this point over and over and over again and yet he continues to ignore the correction by others). It is true that God knows before he creates the world who will and who will not end up being saved. This does not vitiate the fact that he desires for all to be saved and provides opportunities for people to be saved even though some of them will reject the opportunity. It also does not vitiate the fact that God chooses to save people on his terms according to the plan of salvation he designed (which He himself says repeatedly involves an individual exercising faith in Him alone for their salvation). It is not that God foresees faith and then elects that person: it is that God sets up a plan of salvation in which he will save those who trust him (and those who trust Him are elected to be His people). This has always been his way both in the Old and New Testaments: God chooses to save those who trust him alone for salvation. “To say that God chooses to elect those who will believe must deny God’s prior knowledge of the elect if it is to work – it says that God cannot elect people until He learns that they believe.” God’s foreknowledge does not contradict his plan of salvation. God foreknows everything, and yet God also saves people according to a plan of salvation which *****He devises****** (and which involves individual people’s faith). There is no contradiction between God’s foreknowledge and His own plan of salvation (though rhutchin implies that there is). Robert Reply
Posted on: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:24:43 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015