A Commentary
by Dr. David Hankins
on Article 1: The Gospel, from
“A Statement of the Traditional
Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation”
Article One: The Gospel
We affirm that the Gospel is the good news that God has made a way of salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ for any person. This is in keeping with God’s desire for every person to be saved.
We deny that only a select few are capable of responding to the Gospel while the rest are predestined to an eternity in hell.
Genesis 3:15; Psalm 2:1-12; Ezekiel 18:23, 32; Luke 19.10; Luke 24:45-49; John 1:1-18, 3:16; Romans 1:1-6, 5:8; 8:34; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Galatians 4:4-7; Colossians 1:21-23; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; Hebrews 1:1-3; 4:14-16; 2 Peter 3:9
I expect no objections to Article One for its centering the Gospel in the person and work of Jesus. But the further point of this affirmation and denial is that the salvation proclaimed by this Gospel, though not finally received by all, is in fact available to all. The Scriptures cited support this declaration and argue against the assertions that only some sinners (those elected by God in eternity past) have the opportunity to respond affirmatively to the preaching of the gospel. Below, I cite two noted Baptist Calvinists of the past with differing opinions on the question.
James P. Boyce, the oft cited Founder of Southern Seminary, says, regarding the Decree of Reprobation in his Abstract of Theology:
… that God, in eternity, when he elected some, did likewise not elect others; that as resulting from this non-election, but not as efficiently caused by it, he passes by these in the bestowment of the special favors shown to the Elect, and , as in like manner yet further resulting, condemns men because of sin to everlasting destruction, and while they are in the state of sin and condemnation, he effects or permits the hardening of their hearts, so that his truth is not appreciated, but actually rejected (p. 356. See also his comments regarding the ineffectiveness of the preaching of the Gospel on the non-elect, pp. 367-373, op. cit.).
He asserts, “The choice of some and not of the whole, involves the non-election and thus the rejection of others” (p. 358, op. cit.). In eternity past, God decreed election based on His good pleasure and rejection based on His good pleasure. This decree of reprobation is also called double predestination.
It is my opinion that Boyce would not concur with Article One, particularly the denial. He would affirm the position that God pre-temporally elected certain individuals for eternal life which makes their faith response inevitable while not electing all others which makes their faith response impossible. He deflects objections to this view with an appeal to the sovereignty and justice of God.
Charles Spurgeon, a self-described Calvinist and hero to most Southern Baptists including me, goes to great lengths to separate the decree to elect and the decree to pass by (or reject). His sermon on Romans 9:13 begins: “Do not imagine for an instant that I pretend to be able thoroughly to elucidate the great mysteries of predestination” (The Treasury of the Bible, Vol. 7, p. 89). He affirms that the Bible teaches “that some men are chosen, other men are left,” then basically argues that God’s decision to elect some is alone causative for their salvation but God’s decision not to elect others is not in any way causative for their condemnation.
Do you believe that God created man and arbitrarily, sovereignly-it is the same thing-created that man with no other intention, than that of damning him? . . . Well, if you can believe it, I pity you, that is all I can say: you deserve pity, that you should think so meanly of God, whose mercy endureth forever. You are quite right when you say the reason why God loves a man, is because God does do so; there is no reason in the man. But do not give the same reason as to why God hates a man. If God deals with any man severely, it is because that man deserves all he gets…God had nothing to do with his condemnation…Justice is that which damns a man; it is mercy, it is free grace, that saves; sovereignty holds the scale of love; it is justice that holds the other scale. Who can put that into the hand of sovereignty? That were to libel God and dishonor him (pp. 92-93, op. cit.). . . . “All Glory to God in salvation; all the blame to men in damnation” (p. 93).
Spurgeon seems to be conflicted as to whether any sinner could be saved. He says on one hand, “Though I believe to a degree the Spirit works in the hearts of all who hear…I am sure he works in some so powerfully, that they can no longer resist him” (p. 90, op. cit). Then, he avers, “Oh, sinners, if you perish, upon your own head must be your doom” (p. 94, op. cit.). He concludes that it is not possible or necessary to reconcile the two arguments. He deflects objections to his view with an appeal to mystery.
I have personally dialogued with contemporary Southern Baptist Calvinists who agree with Boyce (double predestination) and those who agree with Spurgeon (single predestination). It would help matters in our current debate if our Calvinist friends would speak plainly on this matter. I believe Boyce’s view is unscriptural. I believe Spurgeon’s view is internally inconsistent.
So, which is true: Is salvation available to any sinner who hears the gospel or only to some sinners (the Elect) who hear the gospel? The Article above asserts the former. The New Hampshire Confession of Faith (which I would word differently in some of its articles) reads in Article 6:
We believe that the blessings of salvation are made free to all by the gospel; that it is the immediate duty of all to accept them by a cordial, penitent, and obedient faith; and that nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner on earth but his own inherent depravity and voluntary rejection of the gospel; which rejection involves him in an aggravated condemnation.
We affirm that the Gospel is the good news that God has made a way of salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ for any person.
Why one person hears the gospel and comes to faith, and another does not, cannot be answered by us.
The death and forgiveness of sins in Christ Jesus was “for the whole world” (unlike the belief of many Calvinists who ignore those Scriptures).
But not all will come to a living faith to believe that fact. Therein lies the mystery that no one down here can explain.
Absolutely. And Calvinists don’t claim to know who’s who or which is which, but the other side seems to believe they do.
I can’t figure it out, other than perhaps they’re trying to divert everyone’s attention away from the name-change committee report.
Dr. Hankins,
You said: “He would affirm the position that God pre-temporally elected certain individuals for eternal life which makes their faith response inevitable while not electing all others which makes their faith response impossible.”
This is accurate insofar as you are not communicating that God is somehow restraining man from responding in faith. The wording of “impossible” is not the most helpful since it conveys, at least to me, a sense that man has been done an injustice or is being actively restrained from believing and thus being saved. This is not the view of Boyce on reprobation.
Also, the NHCF does not conflict with Boyce’s doctrine of reprobation as God is not responsible for man’s own failure to believe.
Dr. Hankins,
First, thank you for pointing out this work by Boyce. There are so many books out there, I remain unfamiliar with more than a fraction of the good ones. I was able to pick this one up in Logos and it looks like it will be very helpful. I already very much appreciate this chapter on Reprobation.
In that, I confess that I am not familiar with this work. I’m reading just parts of it, so I’m certainly no expert. But I do believe you have misunderstood Boyce, as I’ll note below.
“He would affirm the position that God pre-temporally elected certain individuals for eternal life which makes their faith response inevitable while not electing all others which makes their faith response impossible.”
I believe your conclusion isn’t accurate, as clarified by Boyce in a parenthetical note a short time later:
“But even here it is not to be overlooked that rejection was not from God’s favour, not from salvation, not from hope of mercy. Rejection has nothing to do with any of these. The loss of these results from sin.” (361)
In other words, people do not lose favor, salvation, or hope of mercy because they are not elect, they lose these because they sin. The fact that an individual is dead and lost in his sin is not because God chose not to elect him, it is because he has sinned. If you were to ask Boyce, “Why do people go to Hell?” then based on his comment above I believe he would say, “Because they have sinned against a holy God.” Ask him next, “Why are they unable to respond to the gospel?” he would say, “Because they have sinned and are dead in their sins and trespasses.”
I don’t think his parenthetic note was even necessary, though it was helpful. I think the section you quote should make his position clear when he says that God “condemns men because of sin to everlasting destruction, and while they are in the state of sin and condemnation, he effects of permits the hardening of their hearts…” Tie this together with what he says at the start – that God “passes by these [the non-elect] in the bestowment of the special favors shown to the Elect”. One might conclude, as you have, that Boyce believed God caused the rejection, the inability to respond in faith, but note that Boyce makes a distinction: “as resulting from this non-election, but not as efficiently caused by it”. The result of this non-election is that God does not bestow special blessings on the non-elect. But the efficient cause of their not receiving special blessings is the fact that they are sinners.
Why is it that people will not respond in faith? It is not because they are not elect, it is because they are sinners who love their sin. On the flip side, the only reason why anyone responds is because of the grace of God, breaking the power of sin, giving sight to the blind, and bringing life to the dead.
You mentioned his discussion on the preaching of the gospel to the non-elect. I haven’t had time to read that yet, but glancing through it I immediately notice this:
“The gospel is, therefore, commanded to be proclaimed to every creature, inasmuch as there is in the work of Christ a means of redemption for every one. This is the external call of the Gospel. This proclamation, however, meets with no success because of the wilful sinfulness of man, although, in itself, it has all the elements which should secure its acceptance.” (367)
So – the gospel must be preached to everyone (Boyce was no hyper-Calvinist); it must be preached to everyone because there is in the work of Christ the means of saving every person (since Christ’s work *could* save everyone, the offer is fairly made to everyone); but on its own the proclamation of the gospel will not succeed, not because God prevents people from receiving it, but because of the willful sinfulness of man. In this, Boyce is even asserting free will: man exercises his will when the gospel is offered to him, yet man will always reject the gospel, even though in the gospel is the means to secure the salvation of every person.
On Spurgeon, I’m not sure what you are pointing out. At least with the parts you quoted, Spurgeon and Boyce appear to be saying the same thing: God chose to elect some, God chose to not elect others. They might diverge in how they describe what it means for God not to elect others, but they are still essentially saying the same thing. As Boyce said, so says Spurgeon: people are condemned not because they are not elect, but because they are sinners. People are saved not because they retain the ability to do some small measure of good, but because God in his mercy has elected them and saved them.
All that to say:
“Is salvation available to any sinner who hears the gospel or only to some sinners (the Elect) who hear the gospel?”
Yes, salvation is available to any sinner who hears the gospel (and I could agree with what you quote from the New Hampshire Confession, though I would like to clarify a point or two), a truth affirmed by both Boyce and Spurgeon, yet will always be rejected because the sinner will always freely choose his sin. Thanks be to God that he overrides the willful desire of my sinful heart and brings me to life, else I would still be dead and lost and an enemy of God.
Dr. David Hankins,
Very good article.
I believe the huge majority of Baptists agree with the statement:
“We deny that only a select few are capable of responding to the Gospel while the rest are predestined to an eternity in hell.”
David R. Brumbelow
Every major doctine in the Bible has a corresponding paradox which cannot be resolved by the finite mind of man. We will never be able to unscrew the inscrutible. The paradox is clear: God is in charge, but we are responsible. Salvation is available to every sinner who hears the Gospel in the sense of it being offered, but it is not available in the sense of it being effecatious. We must remember, the Gospel is not only used by God to produces salvation, but also condemnation; and both for His glory. Some men are vessels of grace, and others are vessels of wrath. The problem is that as sinners we tend to have a lop-sided and distorted view of who God is. We sometimes think the God is like us, and somehow He has our sense of fairness or justice or love. The existence of sin, sinners, and the expression of God’s attributes of judgement, wrath, justice, and condemnation, are all necessary in order for God to put His glory on display in the fullest measure. Salvation and condemation are not primarily about us, but are primarily about God and His glory.
“We deny that only a select few are capable of responding to the Gospel while the rest are predestined to an eternity in hell.”
No Calvinist I know of believes “that only a select few are capable of responding to the Gospel”. The fact is Calvinism teaches no one is capable of responding to the Gospel without the Grace of God enabling them through the convicting and regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. The statement implies there is something inside the elect that makes them capable. Nothing could be further from the truth and shows a lack of understanding of the Calvinist view of effectual calling.
Chris and Jeff,
Allow me to respond to your thoughtful comments concerning the issue of preaching the gospel to the non-elect. Chris, you quote Boyce’s comment that the gospel is commanded to be proclaimed to every creature, “inasmuch s there is in the work of Christ a means of redemption for every one.” Jeff, your statement is that “Salvation is available to every sinner who hears the gospel in the sense of it being offered, but it is not available in the sense of it being efficacious.”
Boyce is here stating his belief that Christ’s death actually satisfied for the sins of all people, not just the elect. Boyce’s statement here should not be surprising given his comments about the extent of the atonement on pages 339-40 of his Abstract of Systematic Theology. Chris, you then go on to state the gospel “must be preached to everyone because there is in the work of Christ the means of saving every person (since Christ’s work *could* save everyone, the offer is fairly made to everyone)….” But the only way Christ work “could save everyone” is if he died for the sins of everyone. Otherwise, there is no provision made for the non-elect to be saved. It does not matter at that point whether His death was intrinsically sufficient for their sins (it obviously is as all agree). The question is whether it is extrinsically sufficient, that is, actually sufficient to pay for the sins of the world. Unless his death actually paid for their sins, removing the legal obstacles so they could be reconciled to God, there is no possible means for their salvation when it is offered through preaching.
Jeff, If you mean to say, as I presume you do, that salvation is available to the non-elect on the basis of it being offered, but that it will not be efficacious because they do not exercise faith, then the second half of your statement is true, but the first half is false if you are taking the position of limited atonement. The reason for this is obvious: Christ did not die for the sins of the non-elect, so it is impossible that there is a means of salvation available to them. There is no provision for their sins according to limited atonement. They are being invited to the Master’s banquet table where no chair, table setting and food has actually been provided for them. This implicates and impugns the character of God in the making of the offer of salvation to the non-elect from a limited atonement construct, because in fact there is no provision of salvation to offer.
Dr. Hankins and Dr. Allen and whoever else,
Does it matter to you whether or not salvation is available to all people? Since you love to dabble in the theoretical and possible, answer this question:
Would it affect your worship of God if salvation was not “available to any sinner who hears the gospel?”
You’re either a universalist, an open theist, or believe that God knowingly allows people to go to hell, which in “logical” terms is just as good as sending them there. So why so much emphasis on “potential” salvation and not “actual” salvation? It sounds like you’re questioning the character of God. Would you echo Dr. Olsen’s “moral monster” comments?
Jay,
Yes, it matters to me whether salvation is available to all people or not because what the Bible teaches matters to me. The Scripture is clear: God desires the salvation of all people and salvation is available to all people because Christ died for the sins of all people. I don’t see how this is “dabbling in the theoretical.”
In answer to your question, it would indeed affect my worship of God if salvation were not available to any sinner who hears the gospel because God has said in Scripture that it is so available. As I have argued in my article on “Article 3,” God Himself is offering salvation to all and if it is not available, which it is not if limited atonement is true, then God’s character is at stake. By the way, speaking of “dabbling in the theoretical,” I take it you must not have read many 17th century Calvinist writers. Some of them spent an inordinate amount of time “dabbling in the theoretical.”
How you can conclude Dr. Hankins and I are possibly universalists or open theists is beyond me. God certainly does knowingly allow people to go to hell and in one sense does indeed “send” them there. I place no more emphasis on “potential” salvation than “actual” salvation because I think the Bible speaks of both. Even for the unbelieving elect, from a Calvinist perspective, salvation is a potential matter until they believe. They are still under the wrath of God until they do believe according to Ephesians 2:1-3. A moderate Calvinist who rejects limited atonement believes that the non-elect could potentially be saved, if they were to believe, since an atonement has been made for their sins. But since moderate Calvinists are committed to unconditional election, they also believe that the non-elect will not believe because they cannot believe unless God regenerates them via irresistible grace. They have, a la Edwards, the natural ability to believe, but not the moral ability to believe. God does not grant saving grace for the non-elect, according to the Calvinist system.
Instead of questioning the character of God, I’m attempting to defend it from a doctrine some Calvinists hold which in my estimation entails a questioning of God’s character. Limited atonement raises questions about God’s Omnibenevolence and the issue of his integrity in making the offer of salvation to people for whom no atonement has been made (2 Corinthians 5:19-21).
Southern Baptists have always affirmed that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. When God created the world, He knew, by name, those who would be saved (the elect) and those who would not be saved (the reprobate). Through the preaching of the gospel, the elect are drawn to Christ and none will be lost while all the reprobate will be repelled by the cross and none will be saved. The preaching of the gospel draws the elect to salvation and prepares the reprobate for judgment.
The statement, “We deny that only a select few are capable of responding to the Gospel while the rest are predestined to an eternity in hell,” makes no sense. It should read, “We deny that a person is capable of responding to the Gospel without the grace of God or that a person can be saved through their own efforts.” That would reflect accurately that which Southern Baptists have always believed.
It is true that salvation is available to every sinner who hears the gospel. As Paul explained, that sinner sees the gospel either as a stumbling block or as foolishness. Except God had intervened to draw some to Christ, none could be saved. That is what Southern Baptists know from their study of the Scriptures and from personal experience.
Calvinists are quite clear on what we believe. WE believe just like Paul:” He has mercy on who He will have mercy on,and hardens who He will harden.”Romans 9. Nothing hard to understand. It’s very easy to understand. That’s why men react violently against it.Your theology is that all that hear the gospel can come and believe. Jesus disagrees in John 6. It’s not fair. If it was,you would be going to hell.
Link to a great article
http://betweentwoditches.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/reclaiming-southern-baptist-soteriology-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-2