Pensees: Comparing Two Baptist College Presidents

What’s the source of the Charles Phelps’ quote? Is he the President of Maranatha or Northland?

Thanks

President of Maranatha Baptist Bible College and the quote is from the most recent newsletter.

He makes the mistake of presuming that to be reformed with regard to Soteriology is an antithesis of being dispensational.

This excellent book, Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths (Michael Vlach, The Master’s Seminary, dispels that myth.

I appreciate your blog by the way!

I don’t think it’s that “dispensational, Baptist positions are becoming increasingly rare.” The fact that there are not many books supporting his position could be an indicator of 1) He’s not writing any. 2) He’s looking in the wrong places (is there even a Christian bookseller in Watertown?) 3)He’s could be wrong in his definitions.
It seems like what he means by “careful” is something like, “as I interpret the Scriptures and life.”
The radical resurgence of Calvinistic, Reformed thought is in part due our generation’s no longer tolerating soapbox tirades that are represented as sermons. We want to hear the truth of God’s Word preached—if that happens to line up with Calvinistic, Reformed thought, well then give me that label.
Further, I know plenty of Calvinistic Reformed BAPTISTS. So it would seem that his real concern is with Covenant Theology as opposed to Dispensational Theology, right?

Dr. Phelps remarks are curious since a basic study of Baptist history reveals that a high proportion of Baptists over the years have been Calvinists. Given that history, the introductory language used (“uniquely precarious” and “radical”) does not seem to fit and, instead, comes across as exaggerated, almost sensationalistic — which I would not have expected from Dr. Phelps.

Is the newsletter available online? I did not find it when I looked, though I had some trouble because the web site does not work right with Firefox.

I think this link should work.

Thanks for the link, Ben. I wondered whether seeing the whole newsletter might reveal any more about the context, but it does not. On second thought, maybe the lack of further context is itself revealing.

Whatever one’s positions on these important doctrinal issues, we need to communicate carefully and clearly about them. Regrettably, this cursory language, with its sweeping terms and unspecific objections, does not accomplish that.

My wife got this same e-mail from Dr. Phelps. I was greatly disappointed. Coming from New England, I have been to Dr. Phelps’ church for several events. I have always been impressed with the church and with him. While I knew I had some differences with him, I guess I expected more.

I would want to know what he means by “radical.” I also wonder if in his mind he is linking Calvinism and “prophetic themes” which he mentions in the same paragraph.

I’ll be attending the Conference at MBBC tomorrow night, I may ask him about it.

As a graduate of MBBC, I received the same update from Dr. Phelps. Like some of you, I’m not crazy about what I read because he did not define his terms. I actually emailed the school and asked for clarification.

Before this letter came out, a pastor friend of mine in Wisconsin told me that he heard Dr. Phelps, while attending a pastor’s conference, say, “our battle is first and foremost against Reformed theology.” Again, what does he mean by reformed theology?

I’ll let you know how the school defines the terms used in the update letter.

It wasn’t clear to me, either. Is he promoting Arminianism vs. Calvinism? Dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology? Both? If so, what does he think about those who are Calvinists and dispensationalists, like those represented by DBTS? What are examples of the “radical resurgence” that alarms him?

In one sense, I appreciate a leader being willing to lay his cards on his table. I’m just not sure what those cards are.

Chris,

I appreciate your appreciation for candor. But a lack of clarity is not the only issue here. Unless I’m grossly mistaken (and I hope I am), further explanation of intent is not going to wipe away some really wrong ideas that are embedded in this statement (along with several others Phelps has made in recent months).

I don’t disagree, Ben. My point is simply that I’d like to understand what he sees as such a danger. I’m not saying that clarity will make everything okay, just that it will make things…well, clear. If, for example, he intends to take the school further away from Calvinism/Reformed soteriology, I’d like to know it. I’d certainly disagree with him—-I see the resurgence of Calvinistic thinking to be a very good thing—-but at least I’d know the direction he’s headed.

Based on what he said in the email, I’m assuming that he thinks Reformed Soteriology (Calvinism) and Covenant Theology are grave dangers, which MBBC will earnestly oppose (apparently in addition to non-Baptists and non-fundamentalists). If that’s not what he intended to say, he should clear things up.

Ben,

What other comments has Phelps made in recent months? And don’t you think that it would be wholesome for some of you who have such issues with what he has said to go to him in person? I hardly think that the spirit of this conversation would be reflected in the spirit of some of the historic reformed theologians who you hold so dear. Certainly a cursory reading of Spurgeon’s “Lectures to My Students” would tend to lead me to believe that he would never be in favor of attacking a man of God in such a back-handed way without first approaching him. I really hope that you feel like this conversation is accomplishing something. It’s certainly not unifying. You are dangerously close to becoming what you hate. Just some thoughts, and thanks for your time.

Chad,

Let me ask a couple questions. First, are you suggesting that when people put ideas out in public, they are not subject to analysis and criticism? That it’s wrong to warn people about untrue ideas? Second, Are you suggesting that implying untrue things about Reformed theologians is not divisive? Third, what makes you assume that many of us who have concerns have not had personal communication? The public implication that I have not is unjustifiable on your part.

In all seriousness and sincerity, start with Phelps sermons at the links below, and let me know who you think is stirring up division. Consider asking him if he is addressing anyone in particular, and whether he has talked with that individual or individuals personally:

http://www.bethelbc.org/pages/sermons.html

http://www.mbbc.edu/sermons/sermon.aspx?s=546

(Perk up your ears when you hear “Melchizedek.”)

Chad,
You’ve got to listen to his lecture from the Fundamental Baptist Conference this past summer. He makes assertions and names names, but he is wrong on all counts, it really is as Ben says, stirring up division.
He has no hesitation in “attacking a man of God in such a back-handed way without first approaching him.”

So when your ox is the one being gored, the cardinal sin of ‘divisiveness’ has occurred, but when you gore someone else’s ox, it is just being honest, discerning, and the like.

eh?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I recently received a note back from Dr. Phelps concerning his comments. In all fairness to him, he told me he apologized for using unclear wording and clarified that he was referring to Hyper-Calvinism, Covenant Theology, Reformed Ecclesiology and amillenialism). Unless something further comes to light, my initial concerns are alleviated. I appreciated his quick response.

This is the classic dodge, Steve. Make broad-brush attacks against Calvinism (and therefore all self-described Calvinists) and then as soon as one is called on the carpet for it say, “Oh, I was really speaking about HYPER-calvinists.” If he really wanted to clear it up he’d make the apology as loud as the offense. I’m unimpressed.

Several observations. Writing is more deliberate than speaking. A slip of the tongue is far easier to make than a slip of the pen. Given Dr. Phelps’ education and experience, he should know the distinction between Hyper and traditional Calvinism, and would be cautious to make that distinction. The fact that he didn’t is troubling. I see the same problem with the term “Reformed thought.” If the true issue was Hyper Calvinism, Reformed Ecclesiology, Covenant Theology, and Amillenialism it seems that could have easily been said in the initial statement. I may be out of the theological loop, but I find it hard to believe that Hyper-Calvinism, Reformed Ecclesiology, et al., are some of the great threats to modern day Fundamentalism. I also wonder what comments were made in the above referenced sermons (Ben’s post) that would shed light on the statement in the MBBC newsletter? Sorry, we have a very slow server, so it takes a long time to download vids and audio files. Anyone care to give a summary?

Yes, Ben, can you be a little more specific about which sermon should be listened to? I think I figured out the one that goes with the Bethel link, but the MBBC one goes to a bunch of chapel addresses.

Yes, Ben, can you be a little more specific about which sermon should be listened to? I think I figured out the one that goes with the Bethel link, but the MBBC one goes to a bunch of chapel addresses.

Who’s a “Hyper Calvinist”? What does that term mean to Dr. Phelps?

None of the Covenantalist, Presbyterian/Reformed Ecclesiologists, or Amillenialists I know — and I know a lot — have an ounce of patience for true hyper calvinism as historically understood.

Of course if you are trying to establish an Arminian, Congregationalist, Dispensationalist church/movement then any and all of these things are a threat. So, what’s the surprise that he thinks so? You guys just all need to join a good Presby church — come on in the water’s fine (at least the little bit that we sprinkle on babies).

Keith

Phelps knows better, and he knows the difference between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. I’ve heard him speak at length about the differences, and he was very precise at the time. For him now to paint with the broad brush and lump them both together is deeply disappointing!

Good evening. Nice website. I can see why its so popular. Help me! Looking for sites on: Atenolol and calcium. I found only this - atenolol for migraines. Atenolol, only now for chemicals with caution. He began to see and was arterial to take what was growing me, atenolol. Thank :-( Thomas from Guyana.