The Voice Of One Crying Out In Suburbia

Kickin' over straw men...

Tom Ascol at Founders Ministries pointed out an article by Dr. Elmer Towns of Liberty University, an article that asks the question:

WHAT SHOULD SOUTHERN BAPTIST DO WITH CALVINIST?

(His spelling, not mine)

Set aside for the moment the question of what makes Elmer Towns an authoritative voice for what Southern Baptists should or should not do. The entire article is a litany of pejoratives, unsubstantiated claims, self-important declarations and not an ounce of interaction with arguments made by Calvinists or the Scriptures. What we are treated to instead:

- We have the Calvin wasn’t a Baptist, so a Baptist shouldn’t be a Calvinist argument. Along with that we have the I am a Calvinist, just not a five point Calvinist. I would argue that if you reject one of the tenets of Calvinism, typically limited atonement, you kind of abandon the whole thing. I began to wonder if Dr. Towns is familair at all with Calvinism.

- Then, predictably, we get the Servetus issue that everyone from Arminians to cultists raise as an objection to Calvinism. Calvinism is NOT ABOUT CALVIN! If we reject every writing that comes from the hand of a sinner, we better start throwing out lots of books, starting with anything that Elmer Towns wrote. Dr. Towns and I and Calvin are all three different in lots of ways, but we are the same in one way: we are all three sinners.

- Tons of anecdotal “evidence” and blanket, unsubstantiated statements heavily peppered with pejoratives.

- The assumption that his years of teaching theology give him a insight over and above that of far more accomplished scholars. He proudly notes: “I’ve taught systematic theology since 1958 ”. Well, all that tells me is that he has managed to be wrong after half a century of teaching theology, and that hardly is a point in his favor!

- Spurgeon. It kills me how Arminians try to claim Spurgeon for themselves, even when the recognize that he was a Calvinist! Or maybe he was just a poor Calvinist who didn’t really believe it. But I guarantee this, get an Arminian Baptist going and he will always grab two figures out of history: Servetus and Spurgeon.

- What I find really troubling is the way that he makes his substantive arguments in the form of footnotes, whereas the main body is nothing but empty assertions. I also like how he uses the textbook that he wrote as a reference. That is like me referring to a blog post as a citation in another blog post, and assuming it is authoritative. Check out this scholarly footnote:

16 For those who want to carefully study Calvinism, I invite them to look at Theology for Today by Elmer Towns (Fort Worth: Harcourt College Publishers, 2001). In this volume I study the weaknesses of Calvinism, pointing out that I am a Calvinist. I examine the weaknesses of each of the five points of TULIP. The next chapter I discuss the weaknesses of Arminianism. At other places in this volume I discuss the weaknesses of the Covenant or Reformed view of theology. Since I am a dispensationalist, I discuss the weaknesses of baptism by sprinkling, and I examine the strength of baptism by immersion. Before one is quick to judge this paper, I would invite them to a full study of Calvinism from someone’s perspective that is not blinded by the limitations of Calvinism.

So anyone who disagrees with Towns or writes something contrary to Towns is “blinded by the limitations of Calvinism”. Only Dr. Towns has it all figured out, over and above men like Spurgeon and Albert Mohler and John MacArthur. I wonder if Mark Dever and Albert Mohler even realize how blinded they are by their Calvinism. He even speaks of himself in the third person!

The level of writing and scholarship expressed is embarrassing from a man who takes pains to point out that “I’ve taught systematic theology since 1958 ”. One would think that someone so quickly top throw his credentials around would at least live up to the expectations for one who holds those honors. He fails entirely to interact with Calvinism on a scriptural basis, but rather merely passes judgment on what the entire Southern Baptist Convention should do, which is ironic since it is so clear that many, if not most, of the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention were Calvinistic. The arrogance of his presumptive statements about what is or is not acceptable from churches that hold to Calvinism is incredible.

As his paper draws to a close, Dr. Towns resorts to clumsy attempts at being clever through the images of the TULIP acrostic of Calvinism.

Most of the time five point Calvinists are described by tulip, a lovely flower that grows from a single bulb in the ground. A tulip shares its beauty and aroma. But often five-point Calvinism is like the dandelion; beautiful in its yellow and black flower, but no dandelion ever stands alone like a tulip. Rather dandelions spread their seeds across the entire lawn, blown about by the winds of fads and self-examination. And what more do we know about dandelions, they kill the surrounding grass and as they spread across a beautiful lawn, they can destroy an entire lawn. I have often said that in a theological institution, every spring the dandelions come up. By that I am referring to young Calvinistic enthusiasts who suddenly feel they know systematic theology better than their professors. Over the years many have attempted to engage me, debate me and even convert me. If I have the time, I am usually gracious and take them to lunch. I discuss the whole plan of God with them, including the nature of God, the nature of regeneration, dispensationalism, and the mysteries of God that no human can explain. Usually my five point enthusiast wants to talk about five or six words they find in Scripture. I grant them that these words verify their narrow point of view; but there is much more scripture than just these five or six words. We arrive at true Bible doctrine when we look at all of the Biblical text.

Perhaps the reason that Calvinism spreads is that when people get away from the trite arguments of Arminianism, decisional regeneration, sensationalistic dispensation theology and start to dig into the Bible, what they find is not a few random verses supporting Calvinism but the totality of the Biblical record being one of man’s inability and God’s sovereignty. Calvinism is spread not because it is popular, because it is abhorrent to the heart of man, but through a study of the Bible that gets beyond the superficial and digs into the deeper things of God. The theology espoused by Towns, muddled though it is,

So Dr. Towns manages (after fifty years of teaching theology remember) to allegedly beat up on new seminary students who espouse Calvinism. I wonder how many debates he has held with mature Christians who hold to the Doctrines of Grace? After the Ergun Caner, Dean of Liberty Theological Seminary ducked and weaved to avoid debating James White and Tom Ascol on Calvinism, I suspect that Dr. Towns debating prowess is confined to verbal sparring with 22 year olds. Safe in the halls of academia, Dr. Towns is free to make blanket, unsubstantiated assertions and debate first years seminarians.