By Dr. Steve Lemke, Provost, Professor of Philosophy and Ethics, occupying the McFarland Chair of Theology, Director of the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry, and Editor of the Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
In New Orleans we have medians on major boulevards which are traditionally called “neutral grounds.” These medians provided a boundary (somewhat of a demilitarized zone) between the various ethnic neighborhoods in New Orleans (French, Spanish, Irish, Italian, etc.). The members of the other ethnic group were not welcome to cross those lines, but anyone could be in the “neutral grounds,” the middle ground between them.
There are middle grounds between various theological polarities as well, including plenty of middle ground between Calvinist and Arminian Theology. In response to my recent post “Using Logic in Theology: The Fallacy of False Alternatives,” it has become apparent that some dear Arminian and Calvinist brothers and sisters in Christ are really struggling with the logical fallacy of false alternatives. In a parallel discussion on my Facebook page, one Baptist who “gets it” wrote a sarcastic parody of these responses which seem not to “get” this fallacy, and thus keep demanding an “either/or” Arminian or Calvinist identity: “But you still didn’t tell us which of the two you are!!!!! Which ONE is it? Are you sitting on the fence? You know what God says about being neither hot nor cold. . . .“ Indeed. It is rather amusing when the response to an account of the fallacy of false alternatives is to keep insisting that there are only two alternatives and demanding which of those alternatives you are. That’s not “getting it.”
Some have asked (in this blog and in other places) at what points the authors of Whosoever Will if at all we differ from Arminius, or at what points we disagree with Arminianism. Frankly, it would be difficult to enumerate all the ways in a setting such as this. To give a simple answer, since most of us serve at confessional Southern Baptist institutions which require affirmation of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as a condition of employment, to say that we were Arminians would require that we immediately resign our positions for departing from our doctrinal confession at least at the point of eternal security. Clearly, we have many more points of affinity with Arminianistic Baptists in the General Baptist or Free Will Baptist tradition than we do with pure Arminianism (because these Arminianistic Baptists have already denied some key elements of Arminianism proper, just as most Calvinistic Baptists have denied some key doctrines of Calvinist Presbyterianism proper). But we disagree with General Baptist and Free Will Baptists at some points as well.
I can’t speak for all the contributors to Whosoever Will (some of whom range from 1 point Arminians/4 point Calvinists to 4 point Arminians/1 point Calvinists), but I’ll give a short list of the doctrinal points about which I think most people who affirm the BF&M 2000 would disagree with the doctrines of Arminianism. Since our doctrine is enunciated in the BF&M 2000 (rather than a non-Baptist Arminian or Calvinistic document associated with the Synod of Dort), I’ll go by the order of the BF&M instead of imposing the structure of some Reformed document on our theology.
To those who deny that the BF&M expresses a valid and significant standpoint in this discussion, I’m struggling to avoid sticking my tongue out at you, but I’ll have to content myself with pointing out that the name “Southern Baptist” and our doctrinal confession really does represent a distinctive theology. The BF&M is the official confession of America’s largest Protestant denomination. It is not some unknown, hidden, or arcane theological perspective. More people affirm the BF&M than most other non-Catholic denominational faith statements in the world.
So, for what it’s worth, enumerated here are a dozen major points of disagreement with various classical forms of Arminianism . . .
Article II (God) – “The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being.”
Some Arminians in the Holiness/Pentecostal tradition do not hold to an orthodox view of the Trinity. This was not true of Arminius or most Arminians, but it is true of the churches in this strand of the Arminian tradition.
Article II (God), continued — “God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures.”
Southern Baptists do not affirm Open Theism. Neither Arminius nor many Reformed/Classical Arminians affirm Open Theism, but it is nonetheless a doctrine primarily associated with Arminianism. Not all Arminians are Open Theists, but most Open Theists are Arminians. Southern Baptists would want to clearly separate themselves from any view of God which denied His exhaustive foreknowledge.
Article IIB (God the Son) –”He [Jesus] honored the divine law by His personal obedience, and in His substitutionary death on the cross He made provision for the redemption of men from sin.”
Many Arminians in the Wesleyan tradition followed Arminian theologian John Goodwin (and earlier Arminian theologian Hugo Grotius) in moving away from the penal substitution view of the atonement toward the governmental view of atonement. Again, this was not the view of Arminius himself nor is it held by contemporary Reformed/Classical Arminians, but it does represent a significant thread within Arminian theology. Southern Baptists affirm the substitutionary atonement as a key element in our Christology and soteriology.
Article III (Man) — “Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.”
Arminius and many Arminians continued to believe in original sin (as guilt) that was handed down through each generation, so each infant is born already guilty (and hence the need for infant baptism). Southern Baptists believe that although persons inherit a sinful inclination, they are not guilty of sin until the age of accountability.
Article V (God’s Purpose of Grace) — “All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.”
Arminius and the Remonstrants (and some Classical Arminians) make no definitive judgment about eternal security, noting that Scriptures could be interpreted either way. However, most Arminians deny eternal security of the believer. This is obviously a major point of difference with Southern Baptists, who affirm eternal security unambiguously.
Article VI (The Church)– “A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel;”
Many Arminian churches in the Wesleyan tradition function with an Episcopalian church polity rather than the local church autonomy of Southern Baptists.
Article VI (The Church), continued, further detailed in Article VII (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper) –”observing the two ordinances of Christ,”
Arminius retained the view of Calvin with regard to the ordinances not affirmed by Southern Baptists, and Free Will Baptists practice a third ordinance not recognized by Southern Baptists.
Article VI (The Church) continued — “Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.”
Again, most Arminian churches are organized in an Episcopalian church government, with bishops guiding the activity of local churches, rather than the democratic processes utilized in Baptist churches.
Article VI (The Church) continued — “Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons.”
Arminius and his immediate successors continued essentially the same Presbyterian church polity of Geneva. Southern Baptists believe that there are two scriptural offices, not three. “Elder” is another word for “pastor,” not an alternative to deacons.
Article VI (The Church) continued — “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”
Many Wesleyan and Holiness Arminian (and Calvinist/Presbyterian) churches affirm women pastors, but not Southern Baptists.
Article VII (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper) – “Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
Arminius and many of his followers practiced infant baptism and do not baptize by immersion. These practices are at variance with foundational Southern Baptist doctrines.
Article XVII (Religious Liberty) – “The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.”
Arminius continued the state church in Amsterdam modeled after the state church in Geneva and other cities dominated by Calvinism, as the name “Magisterial Reformation” suggests. Freedom of religion and the First Amendment are distinctively associated with Baptists.
Having listed these dozen points at which Southern Baptists are at variance from various varieties of Arminianism, this will hopefully help those who cannot understand that there truly is a mediating position between Arminianism and Calvinism, and thus we majoritarian Southern Baptists are “Neither Calvinists Nor Arminians, But Baptists”!
Many thanks Dr. Lemke, a thoughtful article..
Dr Lemke nails it. Again.
Like the sound of that!
Dr. Lemke,
If the contributors to Whosoever Will “range from 1 point Arminians/4 point Calvinists to 4 point Arminians/1 point Calvinists,” it would seem then that not all the contributors agree with the material that rejects the Reformed doctrines of unconditional election, limited atonement and/or irresistible grace. I think some reviewers did not get that impression but took the composite soteriology of the whole book as representing a consensus among the co-authors who were representing a “Calminian” majoritarian Baptist perspective.
For instance, I believe that Dr. Olson’s argument is that the soteriology presented in Whosoever Wills does not take a middle way on the U, L, and I of TULIP (the points in which Calvinism and Arminianism are mutually exclusive). Rather, it clearly represents the Arminian view, by affirming conditional election, universal atonement and resistible (prevenient) grace.
For Dr. Olson and other classical Arminians, these three points, plus total depravity, are the essentials of classical Arminianism (assuming one believes the Protestant doctrines of salvation by grace alone through faith alone). Moreover, from what I’ve learned from classical Arminians, no particular stance on any of the issues listed in this post, including eternal security and open theism, are essential to classical Arminianism. One can be a classical Arminian and hold to none of the points you mention as disagreeable to BF&M Baptists. Hence, in their view, the soteriology of Whosoever Will is properly called “Arminian.”
To me it seems like it’s not that Dr. Olson and other classical Arminians are struggling with the fallacy of false alternatives. Rather, it seems that they thought that the overall soteriology of Whosoever Will was a kind of consensus view among its co-authors and majoritarian Baptists, and that you have a different perception or criterion of what it means to be a classical Arminian.
Dr. Lemke,
This is an excellent piece of work – a seminary course in one post. I feel like I need to send you some tuition money or something!
With all due respect to Dr. Yarnell and to Dr. Lemke, I consider the issue to still be rather un-nailed. I think the un-nailedness is primarily in the area that the issues of disagreement that Dr. Lemke has characterized Arminianism with above are not relevant to the primary points explored by the Whosoever Will book.
The primary issue is not whether one uses what label. It is rather what one says about issues of unconditional or conditional election, irresisitibility or resistibility of grace, limited or unlimited atonement. One’s conclusions on these matters renders one more toward the “Arminian” camp or the “Calvinist” camp. Since Baptists of both persuasions have held each of these, then well-disciplined theologians should avoid using such a vague description as “I’m just a Baptist.” The majoritarian or minoritarian adjectives are not helpful here since they are non-descriptive as to the actual beliefs since they can shift among Baptists with time. Maybe since the labels of “Arminian” or “Calvinist” are so problematic to some, we can come up with other summarizing descriptors that actually help categorize and reveal what one believes. I’m sorry, but with regard to these issues, “just Baptist” helps teach little theologically. I still highly recommend taking the survey quiz at the Society of Evangelical Arminians website.
David,
Just for clarification, let me remind you that the subject of my post was not primarily about the content of Whosoever Will. (By the way, your comment suggests that Whosoever Will is exclusively or primarily about soteriology. Perhaps you haven’t actually read the book, but in fact it is not just about soteriology, but has essays on ecclesiology, historical theology, the doctrine of God, anthropology, the problem of evil, the public invitation, etc.). No, my primary focus in both articles concerned committing the fallacy of false alternatives by forcing either/or Arminian or Calvinist labels on everyone.
However, it seems that you’re beginning to get the point. Instead of using absolutist either/or language like Arminian OR Calvinist, you’re using softer language like “more toward the Arminian camp” or “more toward the Calvinist camp.” That’s much better, more precise language, and much more helpful in communicating fine theological points with clarity.
You’re right, of course, that “just Baptist” (a term I did not use) is not sufficiently descriptive. As I mentioned in the article, the majoritarian Baptist perspective ranges from 1 point Arminian/4 point Calvinist to 4 point Arminian/1 point Calvinist. But then, “just Arminian” is not accurate either, is it? Because you have at least the Wesleyan/Holiness/Pentecostal/Campbellite/Classical/Reformed branches of Arminianism. Likewise, “just Calvinist” is not sufficiently specific, because there are at least the Presbyterian/Primitive/Particular/Amyrauldian branches of Calvinism. So, like “Baptist,” there is a wide range of meaning in what exactly the broad category of “Arminian” means, and what the broad category of “Calvinist” means. So let’s not get overly narrow in defining “majoritarian Baptist.”
Thanks for the interaction.
Let me tell you why this is important to me. I know of a church that has split due to the tensions arising from what could be described as the Calvinist tendencies of the pastor. The congregation is one where most of the members have little scholarly or historical knowledge of legitimate theological labels. The pastor was directly asked whether he was a Calvinist. He replied, “I’m a Baptist.” He eventually resigned and led half of the congregation to leave and start a new fellowship.
I’m thinking in terms of how do we assist pulpit committees in the task of evaluating candidates. Many of our resources are about evaluating salary packages and preaching style and personality fit and theological evaluation is relegated to “Do you agree with the Baptist Faith and Message?” The problem with that theological evaluation is that it gives no indication of “Calvinist” or “Arminian” qualities with regard to soteriology. Are soteriological particulars insiginificant? Then why have the “Whosoever Will” conference and book?
I’ve stated why I find “majoritarian Baptist” as a weak descriptive. The label “Calminian” is sloppy and unhelpful since one can honestly describe oneself as a “Reformed or Classical Arminian” and also a “majoritarian Baptist” all at the same time (since the issue of perseverance of the saints is not a disqualifier for the “Arminian” label). There is nothing particularly “Cal-” in the “Calminian” label. There has been an unfortunate Calvinist-led tainting of the “Arminian” label that increases historical and theological ignorance of their actual beliefs. And Arminians, at times, have also mis-characterized Calvinism. However, these descriptors exist and we should all move toward more accuracy in describing them.
We need to develop resources that would assist pulpit commitees in how to evaluate what a potential pastor believes. I’m concerned that many congregations don’t even know what questions to ask to discern those areas that may eventually lead to tensions between whatever theological tendencies of the pastor may arise. The congregation I referred to above was blindsided due to their own theological naivete. The way theologians describe things and the way congregations are taught what labels mean can be rather significant.
I am glad this discussion is generating reflection. I hope that all those discussing this issue can generate helpful means for instructing the sad state of theological illiteracy in our denomination.
Oh just one point of clarity. I want readers of my comments to know that I am not Adrian Rogers son. He has an internet presence at times, and I don’t want my musings and possible nonsense to taint his better known reputation.
Blessings even in the midst of some disagreement,
David Rogers
While Dr Lemke is lecturing us on logical fallacies in the last article, it seems to me, with all due respect, that he’s committed and demonstrated for us a major fallacy here called red herring. This fallacy is also known as ignorance of refutation (in Latin, ignoratio elenchi) or simply smokescreen. The commentors to the last article challenged Dr Lemke to demonstrate how he and his theological cohort differ from classical Arminianism. The primary doctrines in discussion have been the five points of Arminianism/Calvinism, but Dr Lemke sought to cloud the issue by listing all these other doctrines that are not even in the discussion and are thus irrelevant, leading basically to the subject being changed. Furthermore, he admitted several times that the difference he was demonstrating had nothing to do with classical Arminianism. Either he didn’t understand what they were seeking or intentionally ignored the question. I’m guessing the latter.
Do you see any other logical fallacies in Dr Lemke’s approach? I’ve got a few others in mind.
Hi Ben. Technically, you’ve committed the fallacy of poisoning the well (or else it’s the fallacy of a red herring), for intermixed in your critique is subtly-inserted “Dr. Lemke sought to cloud the issue.” But in any case, you must be wary not to commit the fallacy fallacy, that is to say, name a fallacy and therefore think the position to be defeated. You must interact with the issue stated. Calvinists (and many Arminians) think the issue revolves around the five points. However, this is mistaken. The issue revolves around soteriology itself, and it is true that deviation from the eternal security issue alone is enough to be a deviant from classical Arminianism. QED, and such. :)
Randy,
First, I did not commit poisoning the well. Poisoning the well is a preemptive attack on a person in order to discredit their testimony or argument in advance of their giving it. Dr Lemke spoke and then I raised a concern with what he said.
Second, you took issue with me saying that Dr Lemke clouded the issue. That phrase is simply another name for the smokescreeni fallacy. You see, this fallacy, which is sometimes called clouding the issue, occurs by offering too many details in order to obscure the point. If you produce a smokescreen by bringing up an irrelevant issue, then you produce a red herring fallacy.
Third, I’ve certainly not committed what you call a fallacy fallacy. I didn’t assert that his position was defeated. I simply wanted to bring attention to the deep irony that Dr Lemke is lecturing us on our logical fallacies and commits a big one himself.
Fourth, as for interacting with his position, my Arminian brothers on this comment thread are doing such an excellent job tearing down his argument that I would just be getting in the way.
Thanks for the interaction, Randy.
A few initial thoughts.
First, my main takeaway is that this largely satisfies what I had asked for. While I think Dr. Lemke demonstrates, intended or not, that the beliefs of many Whosoever Will contributors can fall within the bounds of classical Arminianism, there remains one significant difference: what classical Arminianism leaves open ended, Baptists generally nail down. In the area of soteriology, that would be the matter of eternal security. While classical Arminians would be willing to embrace both those who believe in security and those who do not, those affirming the SBC statement of faith will only (doctrinally) embrace those who believe in eternal security. This, I think, is a fair distinction between classical Arminianism and someone who today affirms the BF&M.
Second, I do tend to fault Lemke’s tendency to distance himself from classical Arminians due to their children. Every movement has its mutations. While I think Arminianism has produced more than its fair share of bad doctrine, it is not fair to distance oneself from early leaders based on the deviations of later followers. Open theism and unitarianism, to name just two, are serious errors, but they were not Arminius’s errors any more than current day liberal Calvinists are the fault of John Calvin, nor any more than the CBF is the fault of early Southern Baptists.
Third, I remain opposed to saying Baptist is a term that applies to a middle road between Calvinism and Arminianism, since there continue to be many Calvinists and Arminians who claim the name Baptist, whether within or beyond the SBC. Making Baptist the centrist term is itself an exclusive act. One might acknowledge that there are Calvinistic or Arminianistic Baptists, but saying Baptists are not Calvinists nor Arminians but are Baptists indicates that any claiming those titles are not allowed within the Baptist camp. This fits too well with the ongoing trend of trying to escort “unacceptable” forms of Calvinism out of the SBC.
Ben,
Again, let me remind you, as I did David, that my article was staying on point, that is, the fallacy of false alternatives — which is forcing an either/or Arminian or Calvinist categorization on everyone. My article was not about this variety or that variety of Arminianism. In fact, if one acknowledges that there are a variety of positions within Arminianism and Calvinism, it proves the point that there are not just two postions. Furthermore, my article did note when classical/Reformed Arminians would agree or disagree with that particular belief of some other Arminian traditions I mentioned. So, sorry, but there were no red herrings. The red herring is trying to make my article into something it was not.
Dr Lemke, I’ve noticed that you often respond with the equivalent of “I’m rubber; you’re glue. Bounces off me and sticks to you.” I put forth you committed a red herring. So, you turn around and say I actually did the red herring. In an earlier discussion with you, I suggested that you were committing a category error. So, how did you respond? By suggesting the actual category error was on my part. I guess that’s one tactic of debate but a little elementary.
Ben, once again, this does not deal with any of the points raised! Perhaps instead of insults, you ought to do some introspection?
Very good, helpful article. I enjoyed it.
David R. Brumbelow
I’m a little confused by the middle way proposed above since this article is in response to recent claims that there is no middle way between Calvinism and Arminianism. The rejection of a middle way in the current debate has to do with soteriology. This post, as far as I can tell, does not address soteriology. It would seem that this post would have addressed the actual contention of there being no middle way within the area of soteriology rather than what is provided above.
For example, in the introductory post Using Logic in Theology: The Fallacy of False Alternatives it was stated:
Since the above was stated as such it only seemed reasonable that this post would tackle and propose a soteriological middle way. My observation is that this post actually shifts the debate away from the five points that are normally disputed and, therefore, less helpful than anticipated.
Furthermore, (1) if the contributors to Whosoever Will “whom range from 1 point Arminians/4 point Calvinists to 4 point Arminians/1 point Calvinists” and (2) “there truly is a mediating position between Arminianism and Calvinism” then lets stop all of this theological infighting.
Following up on my own initial comments.
Breaking down Dr. Lemke’s examples of differences between himself and Arminians, I saw the following:
* Five differences between the BF&M and later followers of Arminius, rather than Arminius himself.
* Three or four doctrinal differences with Arminius (the fourth being eternal security and the difference being that the BF&M takes a definite stance while Arminius left it open; still, the issue Lemke focuses on is that many later followers of Arminius rejected eternal security).
* Of four doctrinal differences, two dealt with soteriology.
* Three differences in the area of church polity.
* One difference in the area of church and state.
I draw this out just to observe that the Calvinist/Arminian debate within the SBC is almost entirely a debate over soteriology. There are debates within the SBC over issues like covenant theology and the role of elders, but these are not always Calvinist/Arminian debates (To my surprise, the SBC churches I’ve been personally familiar with that have elders are not Calvinist). The debate is almost always about soteriology and specifically involves the five points of Calvinism (and the five articles of Remonstrance, even if many people are not familiar with these articles), which is why many people position themselves in terms of the five points.
Many Presbyterian Calvinists say that one cannot really be a Calvinist without accepting the whole package, including infant baptism. I understand their point but also recognize that the term Calvinism has come to have a rather precise meaning. It does not refer to the sum total of Calvin’s doctrine but focuses in on his soteriology. The same with Arminianism. Thus I believe a person could label himself one or the other while disagreeing with issues beyond soteriology. I am a Calvinist; I do not agree with infant baptism. But when I say I am a Calvinist, most people do not assume that I am saying anything about baptism; they know I am talking about matters of salvation.
Of Lemke’s twelve points, only two deal with soteriology so only two are really germane to the Calvinist/Arminian/something else distinction within the SBC. That said, I could understand someone taking a position similar to the Presbyterians – “If you claim the title, you claim the whole package. If you don’t claim the whole package, you can’t claim the title.” But if someone were to take that position with regards to Arminianism, it would also have to be taken with regards to Calvinism. In other words, can one legitimately reject the label Arminian in toto while accepting a label such as moderate Calvinism?
That said, I do think it is fair, as I mentioned before, to make a distinction between Arminianism and “something else” based on the Arminian openness on the issue of security. The original Remonstrants left unsettled the question of eternal security. The BF&M does not. While one can be a Southern Baptist and not affirm the BF&M in its entirety, it does remain the official confession for the convention and thus marks at least one clear distinction between those who affirm the BF&M and classical Arminianism. But even with that, I believe one could fully affirm the BF&M while still claiming the label classical Arminian based on the wording of point five of the Remonstrances:
“But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scriptures before they can teach it with the full persuasion of their minds.”
So a Southern Baptist might say that they agree with point five – the matter must be settled by Scripture, and they have concluded in their own conscience that Scripture has settled the matter by teaching the eternal security of the believer.
The second soteriological point of difference deals with original sin. Here I face a challenge because I believe the BF&M is at best too vague and at worst wrong: “Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.” It would be very easy to take that in the direction of Pelagianism: “We are not born sinners, we are only inclined toward sin; that means it is possible to resist the sinful inclination and live a sinless life.” The BF&M barely redeems itself with the final sentence that all people do become transgressors, but the whole section remains too vague.
On the matter of age of accountability and Calvinist/Arminian positions, that is too big a debate for an already too-long comment. I believe Dr. Lemke is wrong about the Reformed position, and I’ve discussed that at length on my own blog. As for the Arminian position, Article 3 of the Remonstrances states: “That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free-will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: ‘Without me ye can do nothing.’” That statement is not at odds with what is found in the BF&M and is, I think, the best statement found in the Remonstrances. Unfortunately, where the Arminians go from there is incorrect, but on Article III they are spot on and fully in line with what orthodox Christians of all stripes have always believed.
So to finally conclude, while I think it is legitimate to distance oneself from Arminianism on the basis of eternal security, I do not think it is necessary to do so. As for the other issues Lemke addressed, those are certainly fair distinctions but are not germane to the debate within the SBC. If those areas of theology would lead one away from the label Arminian then none of the contributors to Whosoever Will have any business claiming any part of the label Calvinist – moderate or otherwise – since they disagree with Calvinism on points of soteriology as well as more distant doctrines such as ecclesiology.
It is very easy to read John Leland in terms of one’s own present ay theological preferences, but in the light of the situation in his time it beggars such usage. The unifying of Separate and Regular Baptists in Va. in 1787 (the scene of Lelad’s awakening labors) began to allow for the preaching that Christ tasted death for every man to be no bar to communion (which tells us plainly that Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption was the name of the game). Prior to that union, it is noted that Stearns and Sandy Cree were in union to some degree with the Philadelphia Ass., thatthe majority of the Separate Baptists were just as committed ot Particular Redemption as were the Regular Baptists. Biblical Sovereign Grace is a diffult truth to grasp, in fact, it is humanly impossible as it requires a true miracle of God’s grace to enable one to accept it. The truths are paradoxical interventions, therapeutic paradoxes, if you please, which, if understood and rightly proclaimed, are more intensely evangelistic and compassionately convicting and convincing and converting that the best Arminian, Jesus died for everybody, invite them all, manipulate the dickens out of them, and lie to beat the ban as one evangelist in Georgia did long ago and justified it on the basis that he did get someone forward. The sad tragedy is hat it repudiates the teology that produced the First and Second Great Awakenings and launched the Great Century of Missions and started Southern Baptists on the road to being the tremendous missionary and evangelistic organization that it became. Prayers have been going up for a Third Great Awakening, one which will win every soul on earth beginning (we pray) with this generation and continuing for a 1000 generations (I Chrons.16:15) just to fulfill the promises to the Patriarchs of a seed as innumerable as the stars of heaven, the sand of the sea, and the dust of the earth. I think it was the old theologian must blamed for limited atonement who gave me the idea that we might just as well have the converts of 1000s of worlds as this one. O yes, John Owen and his Death of Death in the Death of Christ from whom and from that work in particular (but along with a few others), Andrew Fuller got his ideas for The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. What Sovereign Grace theology does, as George W. Truett pointed out in his Centenary Address on the birth of Spurgeon in London in 1934 where he was introduced by the Prime Minister of the British Empire, is that it presses down on the individual man’s brow the crown of personal responsibility. What? Calvinism producing responsibility? Why it boggles the mind! And yet it did and does just that, when understood and applied with love to the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ and His triumph over the whole earth. We need Aptist theologians who understand the founding theology of our origins and how it works – and not old Rome’s Molinism/Amyraldism effort to diffuse the Sovereign Grace Time Bomb tht is due to explode again, producing the Third Great Awakening and finally putting an end to the reign of the present day puppet masters who run the world.
Well, I’m shocked by Dr. Lemke’s response to those of us who ask how he and the other authors of Whosoever Will differ from Arminianism. Surely he knows that “Arminianism” does not mean “everything Arminius and individual Arminians or Arminian churches believed.” Arminianism is, as I have shown in Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, a particular view of soteriology. It does not include any particular view of the atonement or the security of the believer. Ironically, a person who is clearly a Baptist could use Lemke’s method here and argue he is not a Baptist because he doesn’t agree with everything all Baptists have believed. Arminianism is not a monolithic concept; there are and always have been varieties of Arminians on secondary issues not crucial to Arminianism which is simply affirmation of total depravity, conditional election, universal atonement and resistible (prevenient) grace within a Protestant framework of belief. To say one is not Arminian because “some” Arminians believe such-and-such is a fallacy. It’s like saying one is not a Protestant because some Protestants believe such-and-such (that one does not believe).
Dr. Lemke,
Thanks so much for your post! Have you seen this:
http://www.calvinistsandarminians.com
It presents two ecumenical statements on providence in soteriology. I have yet to find a Classical Arminian or Calvinist who doesn’t agree with the statements. They’re an attempt to codify the “undisputed essentials.” One is kataphatic and the other is apophatic.
I really like them (but I’m a bit biased…)
Thanks again!
When discussing Calvinism and Arminianism, it is soteriology which is the defining issue. Calvinism and Arminian debate attempts no designation of someone as a pre-millennialist or a paedo-baptist.
If we want to further delineate a person’s theology, we have to start adding modifiers: “I’m a pre-millennial, pre-trib, inerrantist, paedo-baptist, contemporary liturgical Arminian”
or
“I’m a congregational, Byzantine text prioritist, Pentecostal, feetwashing Calvinist.”
Dr Lemke,
In reference to your earlier comment to me, certainly there are more than two positions within the Arminian/Calvinist continuum dealing with soteriology. In fact, there are six positions–three that are majority Arminian and three that are majority Calvinist. Those on the majority Arminian side are all basically Arminian and rightly called Arminian, and those on the majority Calvinist side are Calvinistic and rightly called Calvinist. So, there are two basic positions with some variety in these two. Should we have a different name for each of the six?
Perhaps that would be helpful and more precise, but Baptist will not do for any of the positions. As has been pointed out, there are Baptists all along the A/C continuum. Therefore, “I’m not a Calvinist or Arminian but a Baptist” is a category error. Just because one is a Calvinist or Arminian soteriologically-speaking doesn’t mean that they cannot be a Baptist.
Neither will Majoritarian Baptist or even Majoritarian Southern Baptist do. This language is rather imprecise because as you said in a previous comment in this thread, “the majoritarian Baptist perspective ranges from 1 point Arminian/4 point Calvinist to 4 point Arminian/1 point Calvinist.” That’s four positions under your label. Since 5-point Arminianism is excluded outright by the BF&M, it seems that you and your cohort’s goal is to single out 5-point Calvinism and to make yourselves look “more Baptist” that the 5-point Calvinist Baptists. The adjective “majoritarian” turns the label into a polemical tool.
Furthermore, I believe that the term Majoritarian Baptist relies on the fallacy of irrelevant appeal to popularity. As a debate tool, this appeal implies that a position must be true simply because it’s widely held, but this appeal is a fallacy because popular opinion can be, and quite often is, mistaken. I’m not saying your position is wrong. I’m simply saying the “majoritarian” label relies fallacious reasoning.
I am terribly surprised and disappointed that such a notable academic as Dr. Lemke would misrepresent and garble what should be a rather edifying discussion of the common ground and differences that classical Arminians and general Baptists share and differ over. This post and Dr. Lemke’s reasoning are so riddled with fallacious rhetoric I hardly know where to begin.
Arianism is not an Arminian doctrine nor discussed within any aspect or pale of Arminian thought. Oneness Pentecostals are Pelagian and not Arminian. Open Theism is a false charge of high Calvinists against both Reformed Arminians and general Baptists. It is appalling to have this scurrilous charge made by one whose own tradition has been unfairly accused of such. Atonement theories vary among adherents of all sects but more important to this particular note is that most Arminians subscribe to a substitutionary atonement. The sin nature argument continues in many quarters, usually over semantics or nomenclature, however there is no difference of opinion between classical Arminians and Southern Baptists regarding the fallen condition of mankind. Continuing down the line of misrepresentations, I believe it is reasonable to state that no classical Arminian would deny the eternal security of the believer. I emphasize believer because I have never met a lover of the LORD who lacked anything regarding his security in the LORD.
Liturgy and polity have absolutely nothing to do with the soteriological affinity between Southern Baptists and classical Arminians. For that matter, there are liturgical and polity differences among the various Baptist and Arminian churches. This objection is a confused hodge podge of denominational dogma that does nothing to distinguish Southern Baptists from their other Arminian brethren including other Baptists not affiliated with the SBC. Assuming the washing of feet to be the third referenced ordinance, to which the SBC does not practice, again, how is this in any way connected to the soteriology of Arminian and Baptist theology?
This brings me to the pertinent issue in this matter. Dr. Lemke has made denominational differences the litmus test of his soteriological affinity. By doing so, he has elevated his SBC denomination to represent an alternative soteriological view of Christ’s redemptive work. Examining the components of the Southern Baptist perspective leads to a different conclusion. There is not any significant difference to be noted between the theological positions regarding Christ’s redemptive work held by a Southern Baptist and that held by myself in a reformed Arminian non-denominational church. Each of us participate in different and individually unique local congregations yet each of us share in a soteriology identified in the writings of James Arminius in opposition to that of the high Calvinism of his day. Rather than the SBC being an alternative perspective of Christ’s work, it is instead a denomination within Protestant or Evangelical Christianity. The same is true of my own. With regard to those other denominations or sects noted in his objections, Lemke as an academic should be aware of how organic church growth results in shared doctrine and doctrine unique to particular sects. That organic nature of doctrine also results in Southern Baptists sharing beliefs with Open Theists. Would it be reasonable to reject Southern Baptists because they share beliefs with Open Theists or, heaven forbid, Oneness Pentecostals?
Denominations subscribe to a higher theological perspective of some sort. Within Protestant, Evangelical Christianity (excluding the cultic sects and heretics) the redemptive work of Christ, the very foundation of Christian thought, has been identified by the differentiation between Calvinism, Arminianism and the Lutherans, specifically over the divide of the Calvinist acronym TULIP. I do not believe there is a separate Reformation tradition of Southern Baptist Convention that can be identified on a par with the theologies of the Protestant Reformation from which we all must give thanks. Believing that, I think it is a terrible mistake to distance oneself from appropriate brethren and common identification in order to avoid the slander of schismatics, namely the Calvinists who besmirch everything non-Calvinist. It is past time to put denominational exclusivism behind sound theology and soteriology. In these two, there isn’t a hair of difference between us.
Ben,
I would acknowledge that “majoritarian Baptist” may not be an ideal term. The problem is that my main concern (and hence why I raise the issue of the fallacy of false alternatives) is attempting to be more theologically precise. I say “more theologically precise” because, as Dr. Olson, you, and others have pointed out, there are not simply two views out there (I rejoice that the conversation is beginning to acknowledge the fallacy of false alternatives!), but there are narrow ranges or traditions of broad agreement. What I hope to accomplish is to be as precise as possible within a confession in which there is some flexibility.
What other descriptor might be considered? As I have shown, Arminian is not an accurate label. Neither is Calvinism, even among Baptists who profess to be so. We have some who are Arminianistic or Calvinistic, but they are actually not fully Arminians or Calvinists (I’m sorry that shocks Dr. Olson, whom I deeply respect, but Arminianism is more than a soteriology, and that label just never has and never will fit most Southern Baptists — and yes, I really did believe that the views held by Arminius and his followers constituted Arminianism). I cannot say “Southern Baptist” because there is such a diversity of belief within our fellowship that it would not be really precise as a descriptor. The nomenclature of “Traditional Baptist” is controversial, leading to a debate about Baptist origins, and it suggests that the issue is being decided by tradition rather than Scripture. I would love to use “Mainstream Baptist,” but that has some unique connotations among our fellowship because of a group formed during the Conservative Resurgence. So, based upon the statistical evidence that 90 percent of Southern Baptists were not five point Calvinists, we settled on “majoritarian Baptist” as a name. Would “overwhelmingly majoritarian Baptist” be better? We would be open to suggestions about some other and better nomenclature, if it offers the sort of greater precision we are seeking.
By the way, I am glad that my post has provided you the impetus to go look up more logical fallacies. I hope that proves to be helpful to you (:-).
Dr. Lemke,
What about the term … Grassroots Southern Baptist … or…The Grassroot Majority of Southern Baptists??? Just thinking out loud.
Dr. Lemke compared The Baptist Faith and Message was compared with an undefined Arminianism. I wonder if the Baptist Faith and Message were compared with a defining, historic Arminian Baptist statement of faith such as the Standard Confession of 1660, whether the outcome would be much different.
http://www.baptistcenter.com/baptist_confessions/particular_baptist/Standard_Confession.html
The sole point of contention would be, I think, Art. XVIII:
XVIII. That such who are true Believers, even Branches in Christ the Vine, (and that in his account, whom he exhorts to a bide in him, John 15. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.) or such who have charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of Faith unfeigned, 1 Tim. 1. 5. may nevertheless for want of watchfulness, swerve and I turn aside from the same, vers. 6, 7. and become as withered Branches, cast into the fire and burned, John. 15. 6. But such who add un to their Faith Vertue, and unto .Vertue Knowledge, and unto Know ledge Temperance, &c. 2 Pet. 1 5, 6, 7. such shall never fall, vers. 8, 9, 10. ‘tis impossible for all the false Christs, and false Prophets, that are, and are to come, to deceive such, for they are kept by the pa I wer of God, through Faith unto Salvation, 1 Pet. 1. 5.
I agree with an earlier comment: we’ve been presented with false alternatives, calvinism and arminianism respectively, because they represent the continuation of the polarities that have defined the Western theological dialogue since the time of Augustine and Pelagius. We still assume these redundant and oftentimes useless categories whenever we think theologically. This is disastrous. It either forces us to accept one or the other system or something in between (which draws from both). The church needs to think and pray itself through the Bible with a fresh mind as we continue to study the sources, also with a fresh mind. We have relied far too much on the Western Christian heritage and far too little on the Bible itself and its sources. It has taken myself years to realize this truth.