But Peter, They’re Not Really Calvinist! An Open Letter To Peter Lumpkins
Dear Peter,
I write to you as a fellow Southern Baptist.
I think real Calvinism has brought good things to Southern Baptists, but I just wanted to write you and mention that your present contention is not with real Calvinism.
They call themselves Calvinists, but that’s a lie. In fact, real Calvinists contend against them. Let me explain. The present movement you see in the SBC has a Calvinism label, but was really hatched by Jon Zens and a Seventh-day Adventist named Robert Brinsmead. Brinsmead created a project called the Australian Forum to promote the doctrine, and the two other primary contributors were Geoffrey Paxton and Graeme Goldsworthy. Their family tree, a work of mine with the help of others, can be seen in the following chart:
The basic frame of the doctrine they created is known as the centrality of the objective gospel (COG), and is what drives the present movement you see in the SBC. Apparently, the movement is now known as “New Calvinism,” and entails the T4G, The Gospel Coalition, and many, many other organizations that promote the movement.
Basically, it teaches that the gospel is something completely outside of us (objective), and that we are transformed by contemplating the depths of the gospel (or as John Piper states it: “Beholding as a way of becoming”). This outside, objective focus supposedly aids us in not being distracted by things that are subjective; for instance, even the belief that we are born again. In fact, the movement denies the significance of the new birth and teaches that Christians are still totally depraved. This can be illustrated by the video circulating on the Web called “John Piper is Bad” which doesn’t mean Piper is a cool guy, but rather that he is still a “T” in TULIP—totally depraved. Unlike real Calvinism, it projects TULIP onto sanctification as well. Piper acknowledged in an interview that he understood the video to mean exactly that and also agreed with it. Certainly, traditional Calvinism does not believe that Christians are still totally depraved.
In other words, the movement only recognizes justification (objective) and not the vital union or the new birth (subjective). We are supposedly transformed by focusing on the historical Christ event alone. This is why CJ Mahaney, one of the “core four” with Al Mohler in the T4G, always presents the gospel in the five-word epigram “Christ died for our sins.” In like manner, Piper presents a justification only gospel in “The gospel in 6 Minutes: “In a sentence….That’s the gospel.”
In 2008, one of the Australian 3, Graeme Goldsworthy, spoke at Southern Seminary (in the Australian Forum’s theological journal “Present Truth,” both Paxton and Goldsworthy declared the new birth a “false gospel”). John Piper reviewed Goldsworthy’s visit/lecture in an article posted on his Desiring God website (Piper is one of the keynote speakers at the 2012 T4G). In that article, Piper affirmed COG, and wrote the following:
“When the ground of justification moves from Christ outside of us to the work of Christ inside of us, the gospel (and the human soul) is imperiled. It is an upside down gospel [emphasis his, not mine].”
This is an interesting statement considering that Southern Baptists certainly change emphasis to our role as new creatures after we are saved. Piper is saying to do so is to put one’s soul in peril, and this is also exactly what the AF3 propagated. Furthermore, Piper seems to be saying that any emphasis on the work of Christ inside of us is a false gospel—also what the AF3 advocated. Peter, trust me, this problem is way bigger than Calvinism.
In addition, real Calvinist have fought this problem tooth and nail. As you can see from their family tree, the doctrine was repackaged by Dr. John Miller in the form of Sonship Theology while he was at Westminster Seminary. Pastors in the PCA (Calvin’s denomination) have been fighting the doctrine for years, especially Dr. Jay Adams who wrote a book against it in 1999. Tim Keller, a major figure in the New Calvinist movement, as well as David Powlison, were followers of John Miller. During a lecture at John Piper’s church, Powlison called Miller his mentor and chastised Adams for being critical of Dr. Miller for coining the phrase, “We must preach the gospel [justification] to ourselves everyday.” However, the fact that the criticism was in book form seemed to have slipped Powlison’s mind. Moreover, readers of my blog, one of which is taking the Sonship course presently, assure me that Sonship clearly teaches the total depravity of the saints, rejects the new birth, and holds to a New Covenant Theology view of the law. It is also common knowledge that Keller has taught Sonship Theology extensively.
It’s all the same doctrine. If the doctrine hadn’t found new life at Westminster, it wouldn’t have survived the brutal pushback by Reformed Baptist (more real Calvinist) such as Walter Chantry. Chantry and others adamantly called it out for what it is: “neo-antinomianism.” In the same way that COG plagued the Reformed Baptist by splitting churches and families, this doctrine continues to wreak havoc on God’s people.
Peter, worry about the real Calvinist later—these guys must go!
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
“In addition to his own unchristlike attacks, he has an anonymous blogger, Turretinfan, run around slandering people and calling them “unregenerate” for not supporting James White.”
I called Peter Lumpkins “unregenerate” (not for “not supporting James White” but based on the unchristian way he was acting). I subsequently amended that to “unkind.” Is that the entire basis for this particular accusation?
LikeLike
Paul,
I assume that since Dr. White is a Reformed Baptist he wouldn’t be part of your “New Calvinist” taxonomy, any more than I would (I subscribe to the 1646 WCF). So perhaps Remi’s comments here are simply off topic.
-TurretinFan
LikeLike
Paul,
It should speak volumes after you read what is written here. Turretinfan is, as everyone knows, the attack dog for James White who does so from behind a computer. Talk to Peter Lumpkins about how he has treated him.
Micah is no different. He calls people God haters for simply not supporting James White, and James White supports all of this. I honestly think these guys give calvinism a very bad name.
Turretinfan, since you are only here because of reading Peter Lumpkins’ blog, how is addressing how you and Micah and the others went after him for not supporting James White off topic? And how do you continue claiming you are a Christian while anonymously attacking people who cannot defend themselves to you? Why does James White cower away and refuse to deal with posts on Peter Lumpkins blog and instead whine and say that everyone must call his radio show if they want to talk to him? Why doesn’t he respond on Lumpkins’ blog, instead of having you attack on it? Who is he to decide the medium that people must communicate? That screams insecurity.
The obvious question out of all of this is, how is any of their conduct Christian? Where is the christianity in their conduct? We are to love our enemies, and yet they spend their time defaming and slandering other BELIEVERS! Who are these people, honestly?
P.S. I agree that Micah is a hack. In all honesty, what he does is worse than someone getting paid, because he believes his wickedness is supported by God himself.
LikeLike
Remi,
I’ll stop by and look into White to see what kind of Calvy he is: new or old. Got any links for me? As for PL, I am blown away by how quickly he is grasping the NC problem–almost immediately recognizing it as a synthesis of sanctification and justification.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Mr. Nick,
I have personally been in James White’s chat room when he referred to people as “morons.” He also calls people “bigots” who disagree with him on his radio program and creates videos for the sole purpose of making fun and denigrating people.
A few months ago, Mr. White was confronted at a church about his unchristlike conduct(afterward, privately), he got so angry that he got in the face of the young man, with his eyes bulging out and made it clear that he felt justified in his actions. Is this the sign of a person committed to Christ? Where is the humility and love?
These are but a few examples of the many, however, I am quite sure there is nothing that would convince you that any of what he does is wrong.
LikeLike
Jen,
wow–sounds like a New Calvy to me –they do not play well with others.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Paul,
Thanks for the reply. Mr. White has been called out for his misleading about the languages he claims to know, and repeatedly called out for misleading about his education(such as by Dr. Paul Owen).
What saddens me is the fact that his defenders, as you see here, will defend ANYTHING he does because he is the champion of NC. It blows me away that they will defend the most unchristlike conduct, ignoring huge portions of scripture, just because they claim to hold the portions relevant to calvinism in such high regard.
I would encourage you to look at just Peter Lumpkins’ blog regarding James White as starters, but there are plenty of other resources available on the internet that demonstrate, very clearly, the vicious and slanderous away Mr. White and his followers go after those who disagree with him. Where is the christianity in that? Where is the Christianity in having an anonymous blogger named Turretinfan run around in sin and flame everyone for Mr. White, so that he doesn’t have to be attached to the slander himself?
LikeLike
Remi,
So, your saying he is a newbe. Well, if he is,it goes without saying that antinomians play by their own rules. Besides, they don’t think that the Bible is for instruction anyway–like the Emergent postmoderns, they think it’s primarily a meta narrative.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Pauldohse, James White is a champion of the faith with well over 80 public debates under his belt. He is not a New Calvinist. He’s a Reformed Baptist. He’s published dozens of books.
(Jen):
Does that mean he’s not a sinner? Of course not.
The Bible calls men fools for believing lies, I’m quite sure that if you actually listened to Dr. White a bit more than just his reasoned defenses of the faith, you’d know there is a pastoral caring heart behind much of what he does and he’s not just an internet sniper. His ministry is one of teaching and preaching, not apologetics alone.
I personally feel that he has set a much higher standard for apologists to conduct themselves. He is, in my estimation, a great example of the balance of salt and light.
LikeLike
Paul,
http://summerspinch.blogspot.com/2011/07/11-days.html
You can see here the way James White responds to people who question his unchristlike behavior. He seems to just level personal attacks at them instead of responding to what they are doing.
For a bit of context, the “you, sir, are a liar” is a famous quote from James as he regularly calls all those who disagree with him “liars,” as also do his followers.
LikeLike
Nick,
“Not JUST an internet sniper?”
Tell us, regardless of how much contributions he has made or claims to have made, how much does one have to contribute before the rest of their hatred and unchristlikeness overshadows it?
What next, we act like a preacher who is cheating on his wife should be allowed to continue because he has contributed so much and that should overshadow everything?
P.S. I have personally attended one of his debates. He was, not surprisingly, vicious and the only people he convinced were the people that already supported him. The idea that that would justify the rest of his hateful conduct is shameful.
LikeLike
I’m not much for public debates anyway. It’s putting God on trial. We should preach the gospel with authority. However, debate among Christians arguing with the Bible as authority is a good thing.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
The fact that Nick is calling James White “doctor” is just more of the same. This has been addressed ad nauseam and he has been reproached by such real doctors as Dr. Paul Owen, yet he and his followers continue to mislead people about his education.
Paul, there is NO CONVINCING these people, and they believe they are doing a service to calvinism by defending anything and everything this man does.
LikeLike
Remi,
Now, I will say this in regard to what I have plainly observed of late: if someone carries the label, “Calvinist,” they can teach anything they want to. Of late, this is even MacArthur’s attitude.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Jenny, please. Please tell me that is not what you are calling “hatred and unchristlikeness” (the comment at Summerspinch blog).
I’m going to leave this alone, there are obviously some pretty skewed points of view out there that cannot be reasoned with.
And my statement was not meant to imply that he was an internet sniper in the first place. I felt that was the characterization made by you and others.
No one said anything about having conducted debates entitling anyone to anything. You have put words in my mouth.
Your personal assessment of the outcome of a debate is your own, but if you know anything about James White, it’s that he conducts debates for God’s glory, not his own. The expected outcome of a debate is not to win over the attendees present – only the Holy Spirit can change hearts. But I suppose if you are an anti-Calvinist, you believe man is sovereign and makes those changes of his free will.
Sigh.
LikeLike
Nick,
Two questions:
1. Is White a New Calvinist?
2. What’s your assessment of the following statement?:
““Sanctification is cooperative. There are two partners involved in the work. I must work and God will work. If ever the extra-biblical maxim, “God helps those who help themselves,” had any truth, it is at this point. We are not called to sit back and let God do all the work. We are called to work, and to work hard. To work something out with fear and trembling is to work with devout and conscientious rigor. It is to work with care, with a profound concern with the end result”
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike