Neither Calvinists nor Arminians but Baptists, 2/3

May 1, 2014

If you missed part 1, click HERE.

Neither Calvinists

Let us address the negative side of this position statement, “We are neither Calvinists nor Arminians.” The book itself outlines many reasons why we are not Calvinists, but three of those bear repeating in light of our own priorities. First, we do not believe that Dortian Calvinism properly represents the gospel of Jesus Christ in its simplicity and profundity according to the Bible. We are uncomfortable with Dortian Calvinism because we believe its rigid structure is imposed upon Scripture and that it does not allow Scripture to form theology. As philosopher Steve Lemke queried about the Calvinist belief in irresistible grace, “Is Scripture being shaped to make it agree with one’s theological system, or is one’s theological system being shaped according to Scripture?” (127). Malcolm Yarnell was similarly concerned that an exemplary Reformed theologian’s methodological approaches to Scripture “reflect a thoroughgoing rationalism that is prior to and formative for his treatment of Scripture” (The Formation of Christian Doctrine, 50).

Second, we are not Calvinists because we do not believe certain Calvinist doctrines can be found in a gospel-ruled, canonical reading of Scripture. This is why the authors of Whosoever Will repeatedly refer to the plain sense of scriptural passages according to the grammatical and historical context. From the detailed expository approach to John 3:16 by Jerry Vines (Whosoever Will, ch. 1), to the commonsense contextual reading of Ephesians 2:1ff by Paige Patterson (ch. 2), to the canonical approach to defining biblical language utilized by both David Allen (78–83) and Steve Lemke (117–29), the authors repeatedly demonstrate a necessary return to Scripture. Scripture is sufficient for the substance and structure of our preaching, and though we seek to address those living in contemporary cultural contexts, we call our listeners to begin with hearing the Bible in its own context and end with contemporary personal submission to that Word. As a result, most of us are convinced, against Dortian Calvinism, that Scripture does not teach that man is totally unable to respond to the call of God to believe, or that grace does violence to the human will, or that Jesus Christ’s death failed to propitiate for the sins of “the whole world” (1 John 2:2).

Third, we are not Calvinists because we are genuinely concerned about the impact of Dortian Calvinism upon evangelism. As David Allen asserted, “Christians must evangelize because God wills all men to be saved and has made atonement for all men, thus removing the legal barriers that necessitate their condemnation” (97). How could God offer salvation to all people with integrity if Jesus did not die for all (2 Corinthians 5:20)? Since the Calvinist doctrine of limited or particular atonement “provides an insufficient motive for evangelism by undercutting the well-meant gospel offer” by God to all men, as well as by us to all men, Southern Baptists should reject five-point Calvinism (107). We decry the efforts of Calvinist professors of limited atonement who argue the evangelistic altar call is unbiblical or that it somehow represents an attempt by those who deliver altar calls to “manipulate the sovereignty of God” (101). We are motivated to offer the gospel to all, and to invite all to respond, even in a public fashion, because Christ died for all.

Moreover, as the evangelistic preacher Jerry Vines argued, the crisis behind our understanding of Christ’s offer of “whosoever will” comes down to the type of God we are worshipping: “It is the design of the sovereign God to make the salvation of all people possible and to secure the salvation of all who believe. What kind of God would not make salvation possible for all?” (25). We do not ask such questions in order to score rhetorical points against our Calvinist Baptist brethren, but because we believe that the God revealed in Scripture is a God who loves all men, desires their salvation, and has made salvation possible for all by Christ’s death for all.

We say such things because we perceive grace when we hear the gospel verbally and enthusiastically offered to all men freely through personal repentance toward God and faith in Christ. With the first Baptist pastor in England, we believe that Christ died for all men. This is a “comfortable doctrine,” because “every poor soul may know that there is salvation for him by Christ and that Christ hath shed His blood for him, that believing in Him he may be saved, and that God wants not the death of him, but that he should repent and live” (Thomas Helwys, A Short and Plain Proof by the Word, 1611). This is our passion: that every sinner, without qualification, may hear the gospel of Jesus Christ, believe in Him and be saved! With regard to this God, who loves all people, we can agree with Roger Olson, who claims that Arminians “are in love with God’s goodness and unwilling to sacrifice that on the altar of divine determinism.”

Nor Arminians

And, yet, neither are we happy to receive the name of “Arminian.” Although we respect Professor Olson’s scholarship and passion for God’s love, we disagree with his assessment of where we are. Our understanding from the five Arminian articles of 1610 is that classical Arminians are unsure as to whether Christians may lose their salvation. As the Remonstrants’ fifth article states, they did not reach a conclusion regarding the perseverance of the saints “cum plerophoria animi nostri”, with full assurance in their minds (Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, III, 549). On the other hand, unlike classical Arminians, we are absolutely sure that Scripture teaches that a born-again Christian will be saved. This is why our Baptist Faith and Message affirms, without equivocation, “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” (art. V, “God’s Purpose of Grace”). Some have referred to Southern Baptists as moderate Calvinists, because our confession clearly affirms this one point addressed by the heads under contention between Calvinists and Arminians. In our churches, this belief is more popularly identified as “once saved, always saved.” On this point, confessional Southern Baptists may never be said to be Arminian, and we are indeed confessional Southern Baptists.

We could also raise other concerns about Arminianism. Among those would be concerns about the tendency of some Arminians to fall into the trap of Open Theism, a doctrine with which we are in adamant disagreement. In response, we would point out that, according to the Baptist Faith and Message, “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” (art. II, “God”). The specter of Open Theism arises when we begin to speculate with regard to the doctrine of human free will and proceed to oppose human free will stridently against divine sovereignty. Ken Keathley (Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach) and Jeremy Evans (Whosoever Will, ch. 10) have provided some crisp theological reasons for where we might be headed with regard to these issues.

As mission-minded and evangelistic Baptists, we are uncomfortable with moving too far beyond scriptural revelation into speculative theological models. Jerry Vines referred to “simple biblicism” in his sermon and this describes where we have additional difficulties. Arminians and Calvinists too often seem to be involved in a harsh intramural discussion that begins with a few scriptural texts and then transitions too quickly toward theological speculation. This propensity to move beyond the biblical text is where we see the problems of both Hyper-Calvinism and Open Theism arising. Over against these efforts, we prefer to set aside distracting theological speculation and focus on teaching the gospel clearly and compellingly to our students and churches, both modeling and encouraging the development of personal and professional lives that keep gospel proclamation at the center of our and their efforts.

Moreover, please note that we see many things to appreciate in Calvinism, important things that keep us in fellowship with our Calvinist Baptist brethren. As Paige Patterson pointed out several years ago, there are six reasons why non-Calvinist Baptists fellowship with Calvinist Baptists. We reproduce those here for your benefit, with the caveat that even more things that keep Calvinist and non-Calvinist Baptists together could be listed:

Calvinists, Patterson said: “usually lead very pious lives”; believe theology is important; generally are “very clear about the dangers involved in the charismatic movement”; “understand the purpose of everything is to glorify God”; “never question the inerrancy of Scripture or the substitutionary atonement of Christ”; and “are crystal clear about the fact that salvation is by grace alone” (Baptist Press, 13 June 2006).

Therefore, our claims that we are neither fully Calvinists nor fully Arminians are deeply held and do not arise because of political reasons but issue forth from genuine theological convictions that have ecclesiological ramifications.
====================================
Part III, tomorrow.
At the conclusion of Part III will be a link to download the entire document,
“Neither Calvinists nor Arminians but Baptists.”

=============================================================

White Paper 36
Published by the Center for Theological Research
at www.BaptistTheology.org
© 2010 BaptistTheology.org

Permissions: The purpose of this material is to serve the churches. Please feel free to distribute as widely as possible. We ask that you maintain the integrity of the document and the author’s wording by not making any alterations. For special requests please contact the editorial board for the White Papers for approval at ctr@swbts.edu.

Malcolm B. Yarnell III, Director
The Center for Theological Research Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Fort Worth, Texas

Leave a Comment:

All fields with “*” are required

 characters available

Bob Cleveland

“Third, we are not Calvinists because we are genuinely concerned about the impact of Dortian Calvinism upon evangelism.”

That statement is so far off the mark as to be laughable. Or would be, were it no tragic.

As I have said many times, the worst thing about Calvinism is what Baptists say about it.

    Johnathan Pritchett

    Off the mark in what way Bob? Are you saying they are actually not concerned about the impact of Dortian Calvinism upon evangelism? Thus accusing them of presenting falsehood?

    Or, are you saying they shouldn’t be concerned about what they are genuinely concerned about? If this is the case, then why should they not be concerned? That some Baptist Calvinists are evangelistic doesn’t mean that all Calvinists are, or even have been since the Synod.

    Indeed, in order to have any credibility within our Southern Baptist denomination, Baptist Calvinists must at least give lip service to evangelism and missions.

    There are certainly some Baptist Calvinists who indeed passionate about evangelism and missions. But still, some passionate Calvinists who subscribe to Dortian Calvinism and Dortian Calvinism are not the same thing, and their concern is for the latter, not the former.

    Do they have any reason for this concern? Absolutely. Strictly Reformed denominations in the US, as with Europe before us, have either shrank dramatically, or devolved into liberalism.

    Independent Reformed churches fill the spectrum of dying to growing, small to large, but that we can point to some particulars doesn’t overturn the general trend that the majority are dead or dying, and a tiny minority are growing. It is a sign of decadence and ignorance that one would point to a particular example to nullify general trend, especially a trend with historic precedent. People used to look at a particular, something like Mars Hill, as a good bellwether in the US, and say “see, Reformed movement is on the march. But even that too is imploding, and most loosely-affiliated or non-affiliated Reformed churches in the US are not a big Mars Hill type church anyway.

    As for the SBC, the general declines have hit us too. It is interesting to note that the decline in the SBC isn’t simply a “sign of the times” of the decline in religion in the West, particularly in the US. Rather, it neatly coincides with the increase in Calvinism in the SBC. Causation? No. Correlation? Most certainly.

    Europe was dominated by Reformed churches, and look how secular it became and how fast it happened. We see it here too. When secularism swallowed up Christianity in Europe, no one was infighting about alter calls and sinner’s prayers and so forth while the decline happened. Christianity, nay, a predominately Reformed Christianity simply shrank, and secularism won out in the end. Why?

    Either A. God purposely, actively, meticulously, and intentionally decreed it to be that way and zero amount of Evangelism would have mattered anyway because God put this saving by grace through faith in Jesus Gospel business of the Bible on hold.

    Or, B. These Reformed churches stopped preaching the Gospel, abandoned evangelism, caved into societal pressure, and collapsed into liberalism and decline like mainline Reformed traditions here in the US are doing now.

    They are not inventing concern here. There is genuine concern with historical, and RECENT historical precedent for that matter, for their genuine concern.

    Plus, its just bad, demonstrably flawed doctrine anyway.

    In any case, as many like Ron Hale and others have pointed out repeatedly here at SBC Today, the worst thing about Calvinism is what Calvinists themselves have said about it.

    Norm Miller

    How is that statement off the mark, Bob? Please explain how it is you can determine why personal observations are off the mark. Now, if those who say they “are not Calvinists because … Dortian Calvinism upon evangelism,” are mistaken about Dortian Calvinism, then please feel free to demonstrate from source material why their observation is askew. Your pronouncement that it is either laughable or tragic is irresponsible without documentation. Please, feel free to offer a contrary opinion with documentation.

    In the meantime, here are a couple of quotes by Calvin that Baptists sometimes say, and they have been challenged here at the blog. But, they are Calvin’s words. If you want to read something really tragic, then here you go:

    Calvin Institutes 21:3:5&7
    5. “By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.”

    7. “We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction.”

Leave a Comment:

All fields with “*” are required

 characters available