Lumpkins

According to Peter Lumpkins:

***QUOTE***

It stands amazing, at least to me, how many Calvinists seem to suggest that Calvinism is such a natural hermeneutic when it comes to interpreting Scripture. Sometimes I get the feeling that Calvinists maintain that the classic five points are so clear, so basic and so incontrovertible that to question any single petal of the TULIP is to question Scripture itself.

More interesting is the theological ambiguity which Calvinism’s founder, John Calvin, possessed toward at least one of the famous five points—Limited Atonement. As the selected quotes from Calvin’s Commentaries will show, Calvin evidently did not hold to the unalterable view of Definite Atonement that his modern day disciples have inherited.

These represent some of the many statements in John Calvin that cause not a little difficulty for those who not only believe the Geneva don himself unwaveringly embraced the doctrine of Limited Atonement, but also those who themselves unwaveringly hold to the questionable doctrine. It appears at least odd that modern Calvinists apparently are more Calvinist than John Calvin.

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2006/10/john_calvin_and.html

***END-QUOTE***

A couple of basic issues here:

i) Have you ever noticed that when some folks discover something for themselves, they act as if they’re the very first person to ever make this discovery?

They then express their amazement that no one ever discovered it before.

Needless to say, this is a very old debate. Here are a couple of Calvinists who’ve gone into some detail on that very issue:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/NicoleRogerCalvinsLimitedAtonement.htm

Will of God and the Cross: An Historical and Theological Study of John Calvin's Doctrine of Limited Redemption (Princeton Theological Monograph Series) (Pickwick Publications 1990)
by Jonathan Herbold Rainbow

Has Lumpkins ever bothered to read Rainbow or Nicole on this subject? If not, why not?

If Lumpkins is sincerely interested what wanting to know what Calvin taught about special redemption, then we look forward to his review of these two works.

But if Lumpkins fails to explain what, exactly, is wrong with the detailed argumentation of Rainbow and Nicole, then we’ll know that he’s just another frivolous critic of Calvinism.

ii) But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Calvin did not subscribe to special redemption. Suppose there’s a discrepancy between Calvin’s own position and Reformed Orthodoxy? Then what?

At the risk of deeply disillusioning Mr. Lumpkins, I can think of equally shocking examples.

For instance, if you compare the 1828 edition of Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language with the 2006 edition, you will discover that the 2006 edition contains a whole lot of words and definitions absent from the 1828 edition. And yet the publishers continue to market this dictionary under the name of the original lexicographer.

By Lumpkins’ benchmark, it must seem awfully odd that modern lexicographers appear to be more Websterian than Noah Webster.

Continuing with Lumpkins:

“Thus, I simply refuse to allow non-essentials to drive me from my fellow believers. ‘By this, all will know you are my disciples’, Jesus said, ‘if you have love for one another.’"

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/about.html

If this is how he views the alternatives, then why is he attacking Reformed Baptists in the SBC? Doesn’t he regard them as fellow believers?

Either he regards the extent of the atonement as a nonessential doctrine, in which case he should refuse to allow this nonessential to drive him away from the Reformed Baptists in the SBC—or else he is attacking 5-point Calvinism because he does regard the extent of the atonement as an essential doctrine, which disqualifies a Calvinist from being treated by him as a fellow believer whom he’s entitled to love.

So, which is it? How is he going to act out his stated policy? We look forward to seeing him lead by example.

Continuing:

“I choose to consciously self-identify as non-calvinist--or, perhaps even post-Calvinist--in the main because I fail to identify with the much too aggressive spirit of many Southern Baptist Calvinists.”

Which Southern Baptists does he have in mind? Are they more aggressive than some of their critics in the SBC?

Also, when Lumpkins launches a public attack on 5-point Calvinism, does this manifest an aggressive spirit as well? Or is it only aggressive to defend Calvinism, but not to oppose it?

“I simply do not sense the urge nor possess the passion to convert the evangelical world to classic Five Point Calvinism, as apparently many of them do.”

Obviously not, since what he instead senses is the contrary urge or passion to dissuade the evangelical world from converting to 5-point Calvinism.