An open letter to Richard Coords

Posted by Ryft

Mar 23

Dear Richard Coords,

Somehow during an internet search on the subject of whether God’s electing activity is conditional or not (i.e., based on any human merit), your blog Examining Calvinism had placed well in the results and was one of the links I clicked through. I had a look at some of your articles, and left a comment on one of them. But what I am writing about today regards your article “Calvinists Are Sneaky” (2 May 2009; cf. your article by the same name at your site).

In another article elsewhere, you had cited a statement that Roger Olson had made in his book (Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities) which reflects a sentiment you have expressed yourself in different ways, which is that a person should make every effort to understand a position he claims to disagree with. As Olson put it, “We must make sure that we can describe another’s theological position as he or she would describe it before we criticize or condemn” (p.41), and that we could overcome the “harsh polemics” by simply “understanding each others’ real theological positions” (p.59).

The question I have for you is this: Do you honestly and genuinely feel that you have fairly represented, in your article, how the Calvinist would describe his own position? Do you truly believe, honestly, that a Calvinist could read your article and find that it reflects his real heart? Would you tell an inquiring mind that you wrote the article to help overcome the harsh polemics in the Calvinist-Arminian debates?

On what basis do you claim that Calvinists are being “sneaky”? In what sense are they engaged in “stealthful operations,” and what is the evidence for this? Are they being dishonest when they say that Jesus died for the ungodly, that he died for sins? Surely not, since that is what Scripture tells us. If a Calvinist tells a person that Jesus died for the sins of all those who repent and believe, is he being “intentionally vague”? If that’s what he truly believes, how is he being intentionally vague? Do you agree with Bob who you quoted as saying, “[They] intentionally mislead by using blanket statements and carefully constructed words”? Are they being misleading because they know that Jesus died for the sins of all mankind but pretend to believe otherwise?

You believe that man can obtain salvation (with God establishing the rules for how he can go about doing so). The Calvinist disagrees, emphatically, believing that the very reason Jesus came is because man cannot obtain salvation. Jesus Christ alone obtained salvation, satisfying the justices of God for all those who repent and believe. Calvinists agree with you that “the Father has decreed salvation for those in Christ,” and yet also with the apostles, that if anyone is in Christ it is by God’s doing. “It is because of God that you are in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Thes. 2:13-14, cf. 1 Thes. 1:4-5). So then the point arises immediately: If this is their genuine conviction, based on their study of the Scripture as God’s revealed truth, which they proclaim with sincere fidelity, then in what way are they being intentionally vague, sneaky, wilfully misleading, etc.?

Does the caricature you published reflect how the Calvinist describes himself, his heart and convictions, his real position? Can you honestly say that your article has helped to overcome the harsh polemics in the Calvinist-Arminian debates? Is this the spirit of the Society of Evangelical Arminians? Is your article consistent with your own sentiment that “in the tone of our dialogue with one another” we should remember that we are all Christian brethren? You might argue that the Calvinist is ‘wrong’ in his position, but accusing him of being dishonest and misleading, etc., is a very different thing, which does get personal and is not a Christian tone (cf. “Message to the reader”). It is my hope and prayer that you may take the high road and represent the Calvinist in a way that he or she would find recognizable, is consistent with your own biblical ethics, and may show what you find wrong about their view without assassinating their character.

In sincerity and brotherly love,

David Smart

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

Filed under: Ecumenical Dialogue

http://examiningcalvinism.blogspot.com/ Richard Coords

Hello David,

I’m very pleased with your request to discuss articles on my website. I often edit them, even as today, I’ve added a quote from Michael Brown on John 6:44, based upon the recent White vs. Brown debate. So I hope that our discussion will generate additional content.

I’d like to focus on the central matter, which is the specific article that you cited.

http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Complai…

If you wish to discuss the decree of salvation in Christ, which you mentioned, my hope would be that we can discuss it in a different Blog post, and if so, please reference my Ephesians 1:4 article, so that I can prepare for editing.

Alright, as Christians, we should not engage in harsh polemics, exactly as you stated, and quoted from Dr. Olson, and my own pledge of not taking things personal, and to love our fellow brothers in Christ, as Jesus commanded. However, we should also be ready to rebuke un-Christian-like behavior, which rebuke you have outlined in your post, and which is perfectly justified if I have acted improperly. So I wish to discuss the article. But first let me state that the purpose of the “Common Charges” section of my website, was intended to convey the common charges on *both* sides of the isle.

http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/Complaints.html

1) Should a C Pastor in a non-C Church, evade being fully candid and transparent in his theology, by concealing his belief that he does not believe that Jesus died for everyone, by instead, generically stating, “Jesus died for sin,” as a way to conceal his belief that “Jesus died only for the sin of the elect”? First, there is a big difference between me, a non-C, stating that Jesus died “for sin,” vs. a 5-Point C stating it, knowing full well, the underlying theology behind it. For instance, some C Pastors in a non-C congregation will do this, in the interest of not being tagged with the “C” label. However, the second matter is more serious, since it involves Church splits.

2) There is an internet article by a C who outlines an approach to convert a non-C Church to C. He uses the term, “Reformation.” In it, he outlines a very stealthful approach, which confirms the common A charge that C’s can be, and have at times been, “sneaky.” Here is the quote from “Instructions for Local Church Reformation”:

“Don’t tackle the whole church at one time. Choose a few men who are sincere, teachable and spiritually minded and spend time with them in study and prayer. They will help you to reform. … Avoid terms such as Calvinism, reformed, doctrines of grace, particular redemption, etc. Most people will not know what you are talking about. Many that do will become inflamed against you. Teach your people the biblical truth of these doctrines without providing distracting labels for them.””

I do have a big problem with this, and even SEA, which you referenced, ran a similar article, which I linked, entitled, “Churches Beware! Calvinists on the Sly.” Here is the SEA link:

http://evangelicalarminians.org/Leonard-Churche…

Please review that link and post back.

Richard
http://aristophrenium.com/ Ryft Braeloch

Mr. Coords,

1. It’s a little strange that you did not take the opportunity to answer my questions, for that is what both myself and some of our readers were hoping to find. Perhaps you will do so in your follow-up response, so I shall wait.

2. The closest you came to answering my questions was your remarks about rebuking unethical behavior (by biblical standards). However, I already addressed that point in my open letter to you: “You might argue that the Calvinist is ‘wrong’ in his position, but accusing him of being dishonest and misleading, etc., is a very different thing, which does get personal and is not a Christian tone.” To rebuke someone for unbiblical conduct or teaching is one thing—and we certainly should—but to accuse an entire class of people (e.g., Calvinists) of being wilfully misleading, intellectually dishonest, etc., is going a bit beyond the pale. Is that not engaging in harsh polemics? We can underscore error without such gratuitous invective, yes?

3. You say there is a difference between you and a Calvinist asserting that Jesus died for sin or the ungodly, etc., but saying so doesn’t actually answer the question I had asked of you. (See my fifth paragraph, last sentence.)

4. I did read the article you cited about “stealthful operations,” and discovered some serious errors you made. First, it wasn’t by “a Calvinist” but by two authors and edited by a publisher; the authors were the late Ernest C. Reisinger and D. Matthew Allen. (Our readers may see for themselves: A Quiet Revolution. I highly recommend reading the Introduction. And Coords is referencing Chapter 4.)

Second, it wasn’t an outline for how “to convert a non-Calvinist church.” It was a book about the need for reforming Southern Baptists to their historic and Reformation roots and how to go about doing so in a biblical and Christ-like manner.

Third, the quote that you carefully selected and edited is astonishingly ripped from its context, and thus gives the impression you suggest. But when read in its context, we find that Reisinger and Allen were not only saying something very different but were actually expressing two distinctly different thoughts, which your edited quote doesn’t indicate at all.

When they wrote about selecting “a few men who are sincere, teachable and spiritually minded” and spending “time with them in study and prayer” and using them in the reforming efforts, it was a principle of restraint that is grounded in biblical precedent, followed by a series of passages from the Bible showing how the apostles taught and did that very thing.

Furthermore, the “avoid terms such as Calvinism” quote was from an entirely separate principle distinct from the former; i.e., the former regarded those who would help in the reformation, while the latter addressed the clarity a pastor must speak with from his pulpit. But perhaps far more important is the material missing from your edited quote, which explained this principle of clarity: “In the pulpit, don’t use theological language that is not found in the Bible. Avoid terms such as Calvinism, reformed, doctrines of grace, particular redemption, etc. Most people will not know what you are talking about. Many that do will become inflamed against you. Teach your people the biblical truth of these doctrines without providing distracting labels for them.”

And that is simply good advice. Even though some people might know what words like ‘soteriological’ mean, the church body as a whole probably doesn’t. Moreover, whether this teaching is Arminian or that one is infralapsarian, etc., is quite beside the point of whether or not it’s biblical—and a teaching being biblical is the point these authors are trying to stress as important; i.e., teach the Bible from the pulpit, not sectarian labels.

5. And Reisinger and Allen were not trying to describe how to convert a non-Calvinist church to Calvinism. Read the Introduction. The reformation they were describing was about rescuing the Baptist church from liberalism, humanist pragmatism, prosperity gospel teaching, works-based piety, etc., back to a biblical foundation, applying biblical authority to every arena of spiritual life. “We must be ruthless in the application of all the precepts of Scripture to every aspect of our lives. At one time in our history, this point was not open to debate.”
Richard Coords

Hello,

I will refer the “A Quiet Revolution” article to my peers in order to see if they have the same impression as I. I inferred that it was pretty obvious that the author was, in fact, a Calvinist, when they stated the following: “Avoid terms such as Calvinism, reformed, doctrines of grace, particular redemption, etc. Most people will not know what you are talking about. Many that do will become inflamed against you. Teach your people the biblical truth of these doctrines without providing distracting labels for them.” In other words, teach the biblical “truth” of Calvinism without using “distracting” labels, but distracting from what, the distraction from what you actually believe? Another reason for me to couple the quotes as one complete thought, is because exactly such a “Reformation” had been attempted at one Baptist Church in Florida, where the Pastor and Sunday School teacher were in agreement on teaching the “sovereignty of God” to a Sunday School class, and when the deacons had learned of it, the matter came to a head, and both persons were asked to leave the Church. Previously, the Pastor had been careful, from the pulpit (exactly like in the article), not to disclose his theology, candidly with transparence, but stealthfully spoke in ambiguous terms, and people later realized what he was up to. In addition, my suspicion of the overall “Reformation” approach is supported by the SEA article that I had previously mentioned: “Churches Beware! Calvinists on the Sly” http://evangelicalarminians.org/Leonard-Churche…

You had asked if my views were consistent with SEA and I think that article answers the question. Nevertheless, in fairness, I will forward the “Reformation” article to my peers for a review.
http://aristophrenium.com/ Ryft Braeloch

Mr. Coords,

1. When I said it wasn’t written by “a Calvinist,” the stress wasn’t on the eponym but rather on its being singular; i.e., it wasn’t a Calvinist but two, Reisinger and Allen, and further edited by a publisher, Founders Press. Your description earlier made it sound as though it was the product of some lone ranger, so I indicated that it really wasn’t.

2. The authors made it clear what the labels distract from: ‘clarity’. That was the very heading under which the quote appears. As I had said, “being biblical is the point these authors are trying to stress as important; i.e., teach the Bible from the pulpit, not sectarian labels.” Since the congregation does not possess much theological vocabulary, clarity is robbed by using it. And since terms like Arminian and Calvinist have been negatively stigmatized by harsh polemics, clarity is further robbed. Whether some teaching is Amyraldist or infralapsarian or some other theological label is quite beside the point of whether or not it’s biblical, so stick to teaching Scripture. That was their point.

3. While uncharitable conflict among church elders (like you described at this Florida church) is deeply troubling and cause for earnest prayer, that simply does not justify broad-brushing an entire class of people with that behavior. In other words, it would be inappropriate for me to say “Arminians are sneaky” on the basis that some had been sneaky. You broad-brushed all Calvinists, and quite unfairly.

4. The problems I found with Mr. Leonard’s article are difficult to number. I’ll accept that you agree with his article, but I’ll also note my heaviness of heart to find out that you do. I wish avoiding harsh polemics wasn’t a one-way street.

5. Let me know what your peers have to say (if you feel so inclined) about Reisinger’s and Allen’s book, A Quiet Revolution.