So grows the Lotus

Back in May of 2014, I wrote about “Tulips, Roses, Poinsettias and Lilies: a veritable theological garden.” Now ten years later, I have discovered a new flower growing in the acrostical soteriological garden – the Lotus.

Apparently “LOTUS” is the brainchild of Daniel Weierbach, pastor of Open Door Baptist Church in Prattville, Alabama. According to his book LOTUS: A Free Grace Response to TULIP (Daniel Weirbach, 2024), Weierbach wanted to create a five-letter acronym, based on flower name, that would “counter” the Calvinistic acronym TULIP, point-by-point, in sequential order. Here grows the Lotus:

• Liable Depravity - Each person is liable for their own sin, but not so depraved that they can’t choose to believe in the Gospel.
• Occupational Election - Election is never unto salvation, but is to an office, position, service, or blessing.
• Total Atonement - The death of Jesus Christ was sufficient to pay for the sins of the entire world, not only the “elect.”
• Unlimited Grace – God’s grace is unlimited in the sense that it extends to all people who have to decide to receive or reject it.
• Security of the Saints -A Christian has eternal security because of the power and promise of God.

The Lotus’s weak version of depravity encapsulates the spirit of the age, and sets the flower in array against the Bible itself. I quickly lost interest in any beauty it might have.

While looking into the LOTUS, I ran across another acrostic – PROVIDE. Not a flower this time, but evidently created by Southern Baptist theologian Leighton Flowers.

• People sin: Which separated all from fellowship with God.
• Responsible: Able-to-respond to God’s appeals for reconciliation.
• Open door: For anyone to enter by faith. Whosoever will may come to His open arms.
• Vicarious atonement: Provides a way for anyone to be saved by Christ’s blood.
• Illuminating grace: Provides clearly revealed truth so that all can know and respond in faith.
• Destroyed: For unbelief and resisting the Holy Spirit.
• Eternal security: For all true believers.

Provisionist Southern Baptists and Independent Baptists seem to be going of the cliff in rejecting total depravity. Regardless of any abuses of the terminology, we are totally depraved sinners whose only hope is Jesus Christ and not ourselves. Separated from God. No way back on our own. All of us. Totally. Hereditarily.

Theologically, LOTUS and PROVIDE seem to be two peas in a pod.

Report on the 1611 Translation to the Synod of Dort

The Synod of Dort, held at a city in the Netherlands known as Dordrecht, was a called meeting for the Reformed churches best remembered for its debate regarding differences in the teachings of John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius. It convened over a two-year period – November 1618 to May 1619. It was, however, not just a Dutch meeting, but had representatives from Reformed churches across Europe, including England. Often we do not recognize or remember that the first agenda of the Synod was to commission a new Bible in the Dutch language. Accordingly, the Statenvertaling or Statenbijbel was published in 1637.[i]
 
At the seventh session on November 20, 1618 (on Tuesday before noon) a report on the new Bible of 1611 (now commonly known as the Authorised or King James Version) was given to the Synod about that translation. The report in Latin, with an English translation, is included in a facsimile reprint of the Authorized Version published in the year 1611, edited and introduced by Alfred William Pollard.
 
Samuel Ward, a King James translator in the Second Cambridge Company, was one of the delegates from England to the Synod of Dort.[ii] The information about the translation may be his alone. The information below is (hopefully) an accurate transcription of the report, first in the Latin, with the English translation following. (If you do not read Latin, just skip down to the English. If you read Latin and find transcription errors, please let me know.)
 
LXII. REPORT ON THE MAKING OF THE VERSION OF 1611 PRESENTED TO THE SYNOD OF DORT.
 

Sessione Septima.

 

xx Novembris, Die Martis ante meridiem.

 
Theologi Magnae Britanniae scripto explicarunt, quo consilio, quaque ratione negotium accuratissimę versionis Anglicanę à Serenissimo Rege Iacobo institutum fuerit, quę ratio in distribuendo opere fuerit observata: turn que leges interpretibus fuerint prescripte; ut inde ea, que nobis usui fore judicarentur, desumi possent. Exemplum ejus scripti hie subjicitur:
Modus quem Theologi Angli in versione Bibliorum sunt secuti.
            Theologi Magnae Britanniae, quibus non est visum tantae quaestioni subitam et inopinatam responsionem adhibere, officii sui esse judicarunt, praematura deliberatione habita, quando quidem facta esset honorifica accuratissimae translationis Anglicanae mentio, à Serenissimo Rege Iacobo, magna cum cura, magnisque sumptibus nuper editae, notum facere huic celeberrimae Synodo, quo consilio, quaque ratione sacrum hoc negotium a Serenissima ejus Majestate praestitum fuerit.
            Primo, in opere distribuendo hanc rationem observari voluit: totum corpus Bibliorum in sex partes fuit distributum: cuilibet parti transferendae destinati sunt septem vel octo viri primarij, Linguarum peritissimi.
            Duae partes assignatae fuerunt Theologis quibusdam Londinensibus: quatuor vero partes reliquae divisae fuerunt aequaliter inter utriusque Academiae Theologos.
            Post peractum à singulis pensum, ex hisce omnibus duodecim selecti viri in unum locum convocati, integrum opus recognoverunt, ac recensuerunt.
            Postremo, Reverendissimus Episcopus Wintoniensis. Bilsonus, una cum Doctore Smitho, nunc Episcopo Glocestriensi, viro eximio, et ab initio in toto hoc opere versatissimo, omnibus mature pensitatis & examinatis extremam manum huic versioni imposuerunt.
            Leges Interpretibus praescriptae fuerunt hujusmodi:
Primo, cautum est, ut simpliciter nova versio non adornaretur, sed vetus, et ab Ecclesia diu recepta ab omnibus naevis et vitiis purgaretur; idque hunc in finem, ne recederetur ab antiqua translatione, nisi originalis textus Veritas, vel emphasis postularet.
            Secundo, ut nullae annotationes margini apponerentur: sed, tantum loca parallela notarentur.
Tertio, ut ubi vox Hebraea vel Graeca geminum idoneum sensum admittit : alter in ipso contextu, alter in margine exprimeretur. Quod itidem factum, ubi varia lectio in exemplaribus probatis reperta est.
            Quarto, Hebraismi et Graecismi difficiliores in margine repositi sint.
            Ouinto, in translatione Tobit et Iudithae, quando quidem magna discrepantia inter Graecum contextum et veterem vulgatam Latinam editionem reperiatur, Graecum potius contextum secuti sunt.
            Sexto, ut quae ad sensum supplemendum ubivis necessario fuerunt contextui interserenda, alio, scilicet minusculo, charactere, distinguerentur.
            Septimo, ut nova argumenta singulis libris, & novae periochae singulis capitibus praefigerentur.
            Denique, absolutissima Geneologia et descriptio Terrae sanctae, huic opere conjungerentur.
 

TRANSLATION.

 
The theologians of Great Britain offered a written explanation of the design and plan in accordance with which the business of the very accurate English version was instituted by the most Serene King James, of what plan was observed in distributing the work, and what rules were laid down for the translators; with the intent that any points which might be judged useful to us might be taken from it.
A copy of this document is subjoined.
            Method which the English Theologians followed in the version of the Bible. The theologians of Great Britain, unwilling to give a sudden and unconsidered answer to so important a question, considered it their duty to hold an early consultation, and since honourable mention has been made of the very accurate English translation lately set forth, with great care and at great expense, by the most Serene King James, to notify to this numerously attended Synod the design and plan with which this sacred business was furnished by his most Serene Majesty.
Firstly, in the distribution of the work he willed this plan to be observed: the whole text of the Bible was distributed into six sections, and to the translation of each section there were nominated seven or eight men of distinction, skilled in languages.
            Two sections were assigned to certain London theologians; the four remaining sections were equally divided among the theologians of the two Universities.
            After each section had finished its task twelve delegates, chosen from them all, met together and reviewed and revised the whole work.
            Lastly, the very Reverend the Bishop of Winchester, Bilson, together with Dr. Smith, now Bishop of Gloucester, a distinguished man, who had been deeply occupied in the whole work from the beginning, after all things had been maturely weighed and examined, put the finishing touch to this version.
            The rules laid down for the translators were of this kind:
            In the first place caution was given that an entirely new version was not to be furnished, but an old version, long received by the Church, to be purged from all blemishes and faults; to this end there was to be no departure from the ancient translation, unless the truth of the original text or emphasis demanded.
            Secondly, no notes were to be placed in the margin, but only parallel passages to be noted.
            Thirdly, where a Hebrew or Greek word admits two meanings of a suitable kind, the one was to be expressed in the text, the other in the margin. The same to be done where a different reading was found in good copies.
            Fourthly, the more difficult Hebraisms and Graecisms were consigned to the margin.
            Fifthly, in the translation of Tobit and Judith, when any great discrepancy is found between the Greek text and the old vulgate Latin they followed the Greek text by preference.
            Sixthly, that words which it was anywhere necessary to insert into the text to complete the meaning were to be distinguished by another type, small roman.
            Seventhly, that new arguments should be prefixed to every book, and new headings to every chapter.
            Lastly, that a very perfect Genealogy and map of the Holy Land should be joined to the work.
 
The Holy Bible: a Facsimile in a reduced size of the Authorized Version published in the year 1611, Alfred William Pollard (1859-1944), Editor. Oxford: Printed at the University Press, 1911, pages 141-142.

---

[i] The Statenvertaling was the first translation of the Bible into Dutch from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages.
[ii] The delegates from England were Walter Balcanqual, George Carleton, John Davenant, Thomas Goad, and Samuel Ward. Goad attended the Synod in place of Joseph Hall, who had to return to England. See “The English Delegation to The Synod of Dordt” by Mark Shand. Some sources also name Lancelot Andrewes and William Ames.

Tulips, Roses, Poinsettias and Lilies: a veritable theological garden

Several years ago I posted on Calvinism and other acrostics. Since that time I’ve noticed a few other theological acronyms blooming. Here’s some of the old and new.

The oldest and most established flower, of course, is the Tulip.
* The Five Points of Calvinism

Others that have appeared in the soteriological hot bed, though not necessarily flourished, include:

Roses
* “Roses” (an Alternative to TULIP)

Two different Daisies (one of which sounds more like a caricature of Arminian theology than a flower planted by an Arminian)
* The Five Points of Arminianism
* DAISY: The 5 Points of Arminianism

The Lily
* Malcolm Yarnell’s Lily

Lilac (an “Arminian” list also crafted by a Calvinist)
* The Poisonous Petals of the Arminian LILAC

As if Calvinism needed another, there is always the Aster:
Absolute predestination
Specific atonement
Total inability
Effectual calling
Reliable promise

Perhaps the best supported of the new acronyms is the Poinsettia, sporting many more than the traditional five petals.
* Doctrinal Statement -- “Poinsettia: a new flower in the soteriological garden”

Book recommendation, not a review

Are Baptists Reformed? Kenneth H. Good. Lorain, OH: Regular Baptist Heritage Fellowship, 1986. 394 pp.

Is the moniker "Reformed Baptist" a contradiction? What does it mean? Kenneth Good can help, with his book Are Baptists Reformed. This is not a review of  Good's book, but simply a recommendation of it. I recently purchased it from Backus Book Publishers, Rochester, NY. I have not yet read it, but scanned  a number of representative pages. With this scan, it is obvious that this book will be of great interest to me, even though it is equally obvious that there are some parts with which I will not agree.

The late 20th century and beginning of the 21st has seen a revival of Calvinistic soteriology among Baptists. Such revival offers some welcome contrast to theology that had become increasingly human-centered and even at times suggestive of Pelagianism. But that revival has brought with it the dilatory side-effect of some looking to the Reformers as the acme of theological wisdom -- and adopting some of the non-Baptist ways. Good's book is a deliberate attempt to contrast Baptist theology -- even such that is "Calvinistic" soteriologically -- with the theology of the Reformers. What is the difference?

Good highlights the differences in 4 categories. He says Baptists differ from the Reformed:

1. In their views of the Word of God
2. In their views of the church considered as an organism
3. In their views of the church considered as an organization
4. In their philosophy of history

Good apparently has no objection to learning from the Reformers where we can, but his book offers important corrections. Baptist distinctives should not be watered down by creating just one more slightly different version of Reformed churches. One reason that I am getting out this recommendation is that Backus Book Publishers is offering an overstock sale price for this worthy book. Finding a $24.95 retail book of 394 pages for only $5 is quite a deal! Is there any reason not to buy it? Strike while the iron is hot.

To order, go to Backus Books Special Offer.

Who or what is a Hyper-Calvinist?

Question: "Who or what is a Hyper-Calvinist?"
Answer: "Anyone who is more Calvinistic than I am!"

Some folks regularly write about and against "the Hyper-Calvinists" as if that is some readily identifiable group, when in fact it is not.

Free Will Baptists look at Southern Baptists and say they are hyper; while Southern Baptists look at Calvinistic Southern Baptists and say they are hyper; while the Calvinistic Southern Baptists look at the Limited Predestinarian Primitive Baptists and say they are hyper; while the Limited Predestinarian Primitive Baptists look at the Absolute Predestinarian Primitive Baptists and say they are hyper! You get the picture.

Many would think the Absoluters wouldn't have anybody to point the finger at, but then there's the Outside the Camp folks who believe a true Christian "...obviously believes that Arminianism is a false gospel, that all who hold to it are lost, and that all who claim to believe the true gospel but who speak peace to those who bring a false gospel of Arminianism are lost." I'm not sure if there is anyone more hyper than that! ;-O

The point is not just about what the above groups believe, but to point out that "Hyper-Calvinism" is truly a matter of perspective. AND the use of the term is generally pejorative, a type of argumentum ad hominem debate sometimes called poisoning the well. The fact that one is a Hyper-Calvinist should be "proof" enough that they are wrong, shouldn't it?

Ultimately, if we're reading discussion about "Hyper-Calvinism" we must try to find in the context of the writer just whom he/she thinks is a Hyper-Calvinist to properly understand what is being written.