A Commentary on Article Eight of “A Statement of Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation ”

June 26, 2012

SBC Today mistakenly posted an earlier version of Dr. Hunter’s article. Now posted is his completed article. We apologize for our inadvertent mistake.

–The Contributing Editors of SBC Today

By Braxton Hunter, PhD, Professor of Philosophy and Apologetics at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary in Newburgh, Indiana, and former President of the Conference of Southern Baptist Evangelists

Article Eight: The Free Will of Man

We affirm that God, as an expression of His sovereignty, endows each person with actual free will (the ability to choose between two options), which must be exercised in accepting or rejecting God’s gracious call to salvation by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel.

We deny that the decision of faith is an act of God rather than a response of the person. We deny that there is an “effectual call” for certain people that is different from a “general call” to any person who hears and understands the Gospel.

(Genesis 1:26-28; Numbers 21:8-9; Deuteronomy 30:19; Joshua 24:15; 1 Samuel 8:1-22; 2 Samuel 24:13-14; Esther 3:12-14; Matthew 7:13-14; 11:20-24; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 9:23-24; 13:34; 15:17-20; Romans 10:9-10; Titus 2:12; Revelation 22:17)

Of the utmost importance for discussions relevant to the entirety of the document in question is what is meant by the authors when they use the term “free will.” It is not uncommon for laymen and theologians alike to misunderstand the terminology and philosophical implications of this central subject. As is the case with so many of the elements comprising a proper biblical worldview, one cannot merely rely on the vernacular of the 21st century to grasp the concepts with which thinkers have grappled throughout the ages. Moreover, in an effort to limit one’s own bias, it is prudent to step outside of the understanding of free will that has been fostered by his preferred doctrinal stance. It is also not enough to settle this issue by merely defining terms. The truth of man’s free will and the reality of God’s sovereignty are in symphony with one another in Article 8. The charge that non-Calvinists deny, limit, or reduce the sovereignty of God has been answered. Indeed, if the intention of Article 8’s affirmation is properly understood, the charge has been laid to rest.

Commentaries on previous articles have briefly addressed the question of what free will actually is; yet here we will flesh it out in greater detail. Typically, Calvinists deny that they are what philosophers refer to as “hard-determinists.” On this view, most common among philosophical naturalists, free will is merely illusory. One may experience the various events and actions of his life as though they represent genuine choices; however, this is a byproduct of living in a closed system of cause and effect. No choice, of any kind, actually exists. Conversely, many non-Calvinists hold to what is known as “libertarian free will.” According to this model, man has, as a special gift from God, the ability to transcend cause and effect and actually make real decisions. These decisions may be influenced by outside factors, but not to the point of coercion. “Libertarian free will” is consistent with the language of Article 8 in the phrase “actual free will (the ability to choose between two options).”

Nevertheless, it is not our position that man can freely ascend to God without the offer and work of “the Holy Spirit through the Gospel.” Rather, this offer and work is available to all. The denial “that the decision of faith is an act of God rather than a response of the person,” means that although God is responsible for the salvific work and offer, man is responsible for receiving or rejecting the gift.

What is often considered to be a middle ground position between these two understandings is known as “compatibilism.” Overwhelmingly, Calvinists understand human freedom in this light. In compatibilism, man is free to do whatever he wants, but not free to want whatever he wants. That is to say, man has freedom to exercise his will in accordance with his desires, but he has no control over those desires. Since man cannot manipulate those desires, and man is not naturally inclined toward God, the compatibilist Christian maintains that man will never freely respond to God on his own. However, it is often maintained by Calvinists that, “There is a mysterious wonder in this truth that the sovereign God effectually brings persons to salvation in perfect harmony with their free will and response to the gospel.” [1]

What is troubling for many non-Calvinists, is that there is no observable, practical difference between determinism and compatibilism. To say that man is free to do what he wants, but not free to want what he wants, is to say that man is not genuinely free to make undetermined choices. It is for precisely this reason that compatibilism is often referred to as “soft-determinism.” On these grounds, William Lane Craig asserts, “Determinists reconcile universal, divine, causal determinism with human freedom by re-interpreting freedom in compatibilist terms. Compatibilism entails determinism, so there’s no mystery here. The problem is that adopting compatibilism achieves reconciliation only at the expense of denying what various Scriptural texts seem clearly to affirm: genuine indeterminacy and contingency. [2]

Since Scripture so frequently gives the impression that man is not only free, but responsible, the text seems to support some version of libertarian freedom. If this were not the case, then a number of biblical passages (such as those documented in the statement) become awkward. If man is bound by his will to only choose according to his sinful desires, then he simply cannot choose godliness. Worse still, he is punished for choosing “A” rather than “C” when, in fact, only “A, B, and D” were available to him. Such a proposal strikes the thinker as absurd. One might retort that this is precisely the beauty of Calvinism. God breaks in and draws the lost individual out of the bondage of his will and into a grace that is, quite literally, irresistible. This does not resolve the problem.

First, while this does sound quite pleasing with respect to the new believer, it does not avoid the logically awkward situation of the sinner being punished for choosing one of his only sinful options, “A.” In, for example, Luke 12:4 and Mark 9:42-49, Jesus himself is found warning individuals of what will happen if they remain at enmity with God. He stresses the nature and reality of hell to serve as a clear motivation and clarion call to redemption. In the well-known Matthew 23:37-39 passage, Jesus explains that peace could have been had on the part of the unbelievers he references if only they would come to God, but he says of them, “you were not willing.” While, many Calvinists are quick to point out that salvation may not have been in view here, the call to make a libertarian choice in submission to the Father surely is. If compatibilism is true, then there is no way that these stiffnecked people could have chosen “C”; thus, the passionate declaration of Christ would have been misdirected. But, what about proof texts for compatibilism?

Ephesians 1:11 explains, “In Him we were also made His inheritance, predestined according to the purpose of the One who works out everything in agreement with the decision of His will.” – Non-Calvinist Southern Baptists have always agreed that God “works out everything in agreement with the decision of his will.” What the passage does not say is precisely how this predestination occurs. Is it with respect to the conformity to the image of God’s Son, for those who God knows will be saved? Is it with respect to the church in general, as N.T. Wright has said? Is it predestination as the Molinist understands it? Each of these is a possible understanding of predestination that has been held by strong Southern Baptists throughout the decades. Thus, this verse is hardly a demonstration of compatibilism.

John 8:34 declares, “Jesus responded, ‘I assure you: Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.’” – Indeed, the man in prison shackles may still see the authorities through the bars and beg for mercy. Moreover, all of us experience the addicting power of sin in this world. Yet, to say that man cannot cry out in repentance is going beyond the text and into eisegesis. In context, this was said in response to the Jews who were claiming that they were not enslaved by any other earthly authority. Jesus was demonstrating that we are still plagued with sin.

John 6:44 explains, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.” — This hearkens back to the ongoing debate regarding limited atonement. Non-Calvinist Southern Baptists hold that the Savior knocks on the heart’s door of the lost of this world. This is not limited to a chosen few. Moreover, it may even be the case, in context, that when Jesus goes on to say, “Everyone who has listened to and learned from the Father comes to Me,” that he is referring to the God-fearing Jews who were open to God’s message through Jesus and became some of his earthly disciples. Either way, this is not a declaration of compatibilism.

Secondly, the result of this problematic understanding of biblical freedom is compounded by the questionable separation of the “general” and “effectual” calls of God. Article 8 denies this distinction because many non-Calvinists read scripture with a “libertarian” view of free will. This is not to say that they assume libertarian free will a priori. Instead, they see it as the view of the biblical authors for the reasons detailed above. Furthermore, the purpose of the general call is hard to locate on any other view. If the effectual call goes out to only the elect, and only the elect can respond to it, then what of the general call? Two possible reasons for the general call come into view. It could be that the general call is merely the byproduct of the preaching of the word for the elect. In attempting to spread the gospel so that the elect might respond, the message spills over into the ears of the unelect. They hear, but cannot respond to the message. After all, Calvinists agree that they should evangelize every person because of our ignorance of who is and is not elect. Still, on this view, the general call did not even actually go out to every man. It went out to the elect and was heard by others. Perhaps, the general call exists so that the guilt of those who do not respond to it is made even more apparent. However, if this is the case, we must loop back to the problem previously mentioned. They are still being punished for choosing “A” rather than “C,” when “C” was not available to them. Either way, what is the purpose of the general call? The division seems to be a strange byproduct of a compatibilistic view of biblical freedom. Such a division is not necessary for those who see biblical freedom as libertarian, and thus it is denied in the statement.

As for common proof texts related to the division of the effectual and general calls, these passages (such as Romans 8:29-30), when properly exegeted, do not require readers to fall into a framework which may be wrought with the philosophical problems mentioned. As Dr. Yarnell points out in his article, various Southern Baptists have maintained various Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic interpretations of biblical election. Is the Calvinistic explanation of such texts the only possible understanding? Does it represent a position that can be demonstrated with overwhelming certainty by Southern Baptists? Surely not. When combined with the problematic and philosophically awkward items that would follow from a compatibilistic view, non-Calvinists are justified in rejecting such a notion in favor of one which avoids these pitfalls.

Ultimately, God is sovereign over man in that he is in control and could have acted otherwise. As the affirmation clarifies, man has libertarian free will because it was endowed to him by God, “as an expression of His sovereignty.”

[1] Daniel Akin, “How to be a Slave,” http://www.danielakin.com/wp-content/uploads/old/Resource_595/Jude%201.2%20Happy%20To%20
, (accessed June 11, 2012).

[2] William Lane Craig, “Molinism vs. Calvinism,” http://www.reasonablefaith.org/molinism-vs-calvinism (accessed June 11, 2012).

Today’s Discussion Topic:
Article 8: The Free Will of Man
in “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist
Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation

A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of the Plan of Salvation,” authored by Eric Hankins and others, has drawn strong interest in many social media and news outlets. The statement and the discussion of it have been accessed over 60,000 times and over 120,000 pageviews in SBC Today the last few weeks, and have evoked thousands of comments. At this point, over 800 persons have signed the document, including some key leaders from every level of Southern Baptist life. You cansign it also by following these directions.

To structure the discussion, we are focusing the comments on the affirmation and denial statement of one article of the statement at a time. Today’s discussion will address the Southern Baptist doctrines of grace in Article 8: The Free Will of Man. Keep in mind that each of the affirmations and denials in the articles complement each other, just as they do in the Together for the Gospel statement signed and/or affirmed by some Southern Baptist leaders who embrace Reformed views.

Please confine your comments to the article being discussed each day, not general comments about the statement. If you want to comment on other things, follow the links to other discussion threads:

Thank you for your comments on these theological issues!

– The Editors of SBC Today

Click this link to see the full statement of “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation”
Right click to download
A Statement of Traditional Southern Baptist Soteriology SBC Today.pdf
Click this link to see the list of signers of “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation”
We welcome the signatures of all Southern Baptists who would affirm this statement.If you would like to add your name in affirmation of the statement, please emailsbctoday@gmail.com, with the following:

Your Name, Ministry Position, Organization/Church, City, State

For example:
John Doe, Pastor (or Associate Pastor, Youth Minister, Deacon, member, etc.), 
First Baptist Church, Anytown, TX
Joe Doe, Professor (or DOM, Evangelist, etc.), Seminary/College/Association, 
Anytown, NC

We will be glad to add your name to this list of those affirming the statement!

Discussion of Article Eight: The Free Will of Man in “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation”

Note: As we discuss each article of the statement, today’s comments should focus on the affirmation and denial in Article 8. Please limit your comments here to Article 8.

Read Next

Today’s Discussion Topic:
Article 9: The Security of the Believer
in “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist
Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation”

“A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation,” authored by Eric Hankins and others, has drawn strong interest in many social media and news outlets. The statement and the discussion of it have been accessed over 60,000 times and over 150,000 pageviews in SBC Today the last few weeks, and have evoked ...