Math has never been one of my strong points. It stands to follow then, that formal logic is sometimes difficult for me. I am much more prone to literature than logic. However, personal leanings do not excuse anyone. Logical rules apply whether we acknowledge them or not. It stands to reason then, that logical fallacies apply as well.
One of the most subtle logical fallacies is that of equivocation. Wikipedia says that equivocation has been “committed when someone word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same thing each time around.” Politicians have mastered the art of equivocation because it is an easy way to attack an argument without ever actually engaging in substantial debate.
Committing equivocation becomes particularly dangerous when used from a pulpit (intentionally or unintentionally). If the church is to be the “illar and buttress of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), the the pulpit becomes the “filter,” separating the wheat from the chaff, separating truth from error. Therefore, committing equivocation from the pulpit is a danger indeed, and one which all religious must be wary of.
The danger of equivocation becomes all the more serious if it becomes in a particular denomination’s politics. For example, as many have noted, there is quite a stir regarding the issue of Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention. While this is nothing new, what is interesting is that it is the opponents of Reformed Theology that are becoming much more outspoken. The problem is that many of them are committing equivocation, which puts some in an awkward position to say the least.
The current trend seems to be to identify the target as “hyper-Calvinism,” but in the process of defining the target, it becomes clear that what is defined is not actually “hyper-Calvinism” at all but traditional “5 Point Calvinism.” We saw Norman Geisler attempt something similar with his introduction of the term “Moderate Calvinism,” and now we see a resurgence of the practice.
What so interesting here is that this trend is truly alienating many otherwise strong, committed Southern Baptists who are also Reformed. I want to be known as a Christian who loves Christ, not who loves Calvinism. However, I also believe in standing for truth and calling error by its name. But now, if I stand up to correct the fallacy of equivocation that’s going on in the Convention, I’m labeled as one of those “argumentative Calvinists who’s just interested in pushing a system.” I’m met with, “Brother, I just love Jesus. You just go ahead and push your system, but I’m just going to love Jesus…” Quite clever indeed.
This process is breaking my heart because it so unnecessary. We ought to be able to move beyond the “Calvinism debate,” loving our Lord side by side, ministering for His glory. I love doctrine and I’m willing to let doctrine divide when it comes to issues of orthodoxy; this is not one of them. I pray that both sides would be genuine. If you dislike Calvinism, fine, preach against it, but please do so accurately, openly and honestly. Don’t play shell games with the truth.
Let me be clear: I am opposed to hyper-Calvinism as much as anyone. To my brothers preaching against hyper-Calvinism, please name names. Who is preaching it and I will join you, we will lock arms Together For the Gospel. Until then, please be honest, it’s the least we can expect from those who claim to serve The Truth.
The entire situation is a rebuke to us all. How quickly we come to love being right more than we love our “opponent.” How quickly we lose sight of speaking nothing but the truth in order to “score a point.” Doctrine might divide, and it ought to in certain cases, and this forces us to question when those cases really exist and if this is one of those “dividing lines.” Is it?
- Read Wikipedia’s entry concerning equivocation.
Brent,
Good post.
1. How would you define “hyper-calvinism?
2. You should direct people to that video you posted on Friday for an example of poor preaching against “hyper-calvinsim.”
3. Did you write this late at night? There are a few typos in this post that are not very Brent-like.
I did write this last night; fairly late as you can tell. The problem is not usually my spelling but my typing! Does anyone know of a spell-check plugin for WordPress?
I intentionally did not include the link to the video or name names for a couple of reasons, but as long as you point it out, for a rather blatant example of equivocation, watch this sermon (James White will examine it in detail, see here).
“Define hyper-Calvinism,” that really becomes the key issue, doesn’t it? Dr. Curt Daniel in his (as yet to my knowledge) unpublished “The History and Theology of Calvinism” jokes that “A Hyper-Calvinism is just someone who is more Calvinist than you are” (please note, I did say he was joking!)
In essense, all hyper-Calvinists are Supralapsarian but not all Supralapsarians are hyper-Calvinists. Daniel argues that “it is specifically the rejection of the ‘free offer’ (of the Gospel) that defines hyper-Calvinism.
Drawing from their rejection of the “free offer of the Gospel” to all, they also reject the idea of the “Duty of Faith.” That is to say, is it everyone’s duty to respond to the Gospel in faith? Most would answer that it is, while hyper-Calvinists would say it is not because the Gospel is simply not meant for some. Tied to this as well, hyper-Calvinists greatly limit the idea of “Common Grace.”
At root, it seems to be an over-emphasis on the sovereignty over the responsibility of man in salvation. Sovereignty becomes the attribute of God under which all others become subordinant.
Some have tried to argue that all “Five Point Calvinists” are hypers, which is simply false and we must lovingly state so.
I know that this is extremely brief, but it’s about all I can offer in the comment box!
Thoughts anyone?
I once heard a hyper-Calvinist church is one that hides the entrance to its church so that if you find your way inside it really was the will of God.
Did you hear about the Calvinist preacher who tripped over the threshold as he entered his church smacking his head on the floor? When he came to he said Boy, I sure am glad I got that over with!
sb
I watched the Caner sermon after you posted it last Friday. What a debacle!
After watching the service I have another question for the SBC. Is it common to ask a candidate for baptism only one question: “Do you know for sure that if you die tonight that you’ll go to heaven?”
Seriously, is that the extent of what a convert is expected to know about salvation and about our God? If that’s the case then I think you might as well baptize infants, because there are plenty of folks out there who are pretty sure that they’re going to heaven when they die even if they’ve never walked the aisle or stood up at the proper time.
Sean,
No, that is neither common nor sufficient.
Brent:
Good post.
I have spent very little time looking at blogs until just recently. I was reading Wade Burlesons blog which led me to Marty Duren, which led me here. Anyway, I have really enjoyed you site and the interaction of the people that visit here. Youre doing a great job. And it is funny I should end up here.
I have been reading a lot of Piper lately (Desiring God, Brothers We are Not Professionals, Dont Waste Your Life) all of which has made me take a good look at the definitions and issues surrounding Calvinism and Arminianism. I recently bought James Whites book The Potters Freedom, (and Geislers Chosen, But Free) but I havent got into them yet.
Anyway, Ive been chewing through the issues trying to get a grasp on them personally and professionally. Of course, one of those is the definition of hyper-Calvinist. (Thanks for helping me with the definition). However, if Im not sure what defines a hyper-Calvinist, Im pretty sure I would not know what a Supralapsarian is. A little help or a point in the right direction would be appreciated.
Of course after reading Seans post Ill have to watch the sermon also. Although maybe I do not want to.
Keith;
Sorry, I meant to define Supralapsarianism but forgot. Essentially, it is a discussion of the “Order of the Decrees” of God. Did God decree to elect before or after He decreed to permit the Fall? Since there is no progression in eternity, we are not speaking of sequential events, but rather, of logical succession for the finite understanding. The “Supra-” position maintains that God “begins” with election.
Hey Brent,
I just wanted to let you know that I’ll go in your place to the conference if you’d like.
Nicole
Thanks for defining Hyper-Calvinism and Supralapsarianism. And thanks for linking to that chart, too!
Things start getting to text-book-ish and my brain can’t follow (I am too right brained and not enough left brained.)
I’m gonna have to keep chewing to really get to the meat of all this stuff….
