Another Voice in the Clamor: My Response to the Traditional Statement Pastor Jake Porter 1 First Baptist Church of Mont Belvieu, Texas

Transcription

1 Another Voice in the Clamor: My Response to the Traditional Statement Pastor Jake Porter 1 First Baptist Church of Mont Belvieu, Texas Over the last several years, a dialogue has taken place within the Southern Baptist family as we have all sought to understand better the wonders of the salvation God offers to us by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. As an increasing number of Southern Baptists are identifying themselves as Calvinists or Reformed in their understanding of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), the dialogue has become more heated. Some on both sides have turned what should be a serious but amiable family talk into a divisive and malicious debate. The recent presentation by a number of Southern Baptist leaders of a document titled A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God s Plan of Salvation 2 has thrown fuel on this fire. Many on both sides of the issue have taken to the blogs, Baptist papers, and pulpits to have their say. With so many who are far more capable than I engaging in the discussion, my first reaction was to sit it out. However, within our church we are seeing the outworking of this convention-wide controversy at a micro-level. As the pastor, entrusted by God and called by the congregation to declare the whole counsel of God and to defend the word of truth, it s my responsibility to add my voice to the clamor. As I have read through the Traditional Statement several times now, I ve had a number of reactions. I ll admit a range of thoughts and emotions from frustration and confusion to sorrow and surprise. After sorting through my own response to the statement, I see four questions that deserve an answer: 1. What agreement between the Traditional and the Calvinistic Southern Baptists can be found within the statement? 2. What concerns would a Calvinistic Southern Baptist have with the statement? 3. What is the context for this statement? 4. How should Calvinistic Southern Baptists respond? I ve organized my response around these questions. Before continuing, allow me to make clear that my goal here is not to persuade everyone reading to hold my positions. My goal is merely to address the issues and concerns raised by this statement. 1 I have done my best to cite all my sources. Much of the information presented I have been collecting for several years and have just put together in this document. It is entirely possible that there are portions, particularly in the historical section, from sources that I copied into personal notes and can t recall the exact citation. If anyone finds that to be the case, please contact me so that I can give credit where credit is due. My address is pastorjake@fbcmb.org. 2 a-statement-of-the-traditional-southernbaptist-understanding-of-god s-plan-of-salvation / Another voice in the clamor J. Porter 1

2 What agreement between the Traditional and the Calvinistic Southern Baptists can be found within the statement? I agree that this group of men have a right to express their beliefs. I am happy that they are not insisting that every Southern Baptist affirm the soteriological statement below in order to have a place in the Southern Baptist family. I also agree with the opening sentence, which states that every generation must articulate the truths of its faith with particular attention to the issues that are impacting contemporary mission and ministry. Throughout the ten articles, Calvinistic Southern Baptists would find areas of agreement. For example, I could sign on entirely with Article Nine: The Security of the Believer and Article Ten: The Great Commission. Rather than name these points of agreement here, however, I will point them out later as I walk through the ten articles. I rejoice, above all, that we both agree on the most important matter: the penal substitutionary death of Jesus Christ is the only hope for the salvation of sinners, and we must be about the work of taking the good news of his death and resurrection to all the nations. I pray whatever dialogue takes place within our Southern Baptist family will not distract us from this most important task. I would also agree with the general thesis that the majority of Southern Baptists are not Calvinists. That is certainly true. And they are mostly correct in saying that their Traditional Southern Baptist soteriology is articulated in a general way in the Baptist Faith and Message (those areas of conflict I will point out below). Setting aside these apparent contradictions, which I m assuming I am misunderstanding, those who hold this traditional view are well within Southern Baptist orthodoxy. What concerns would a Calvinistic Southern Baptist have with the statement? Sadly, I have many problems with this statement. The first time I read through this statement, I was utterly dumbfounded. The vision of our Baptist heritage presented, the imprecise and historically problematic theological language employed, and the sweeping and unfounded claims about Southern Baptist Calvinists left me convinced that the story would be retracted as some sort of mistake. I know some of the signers of this document, and many of them I hold in high esteem. They are scholars and pastors who have given their lives to the gospel of Christ. So I was astounded that these men would make such claims. I m left to assume that on some historical matters they are simply uninformed and that on some theological issues I simply can t understand what they are saying. Again, I love these men and am grateful for them. But I m just left scratching my head when I read through this statement. I ve organized my issues into three broad categories: (1) language and argument problems; (2) historical problems; and (3) theological problems. Another voice in the clamor J. Porter 2

3 Language and Argument Problems I take issue with many of the terms used in the statement, as well as several of the arguments, both explicit and implicit, made by its authors. They immediately identify the issue they seek to address as the rise of a movement called New Calvinism. I understand that the phrase New Calvinism did not originate with the authors of this document. I think it first appeared when Time magazine identified the New Calvinism as one of the top ten influences changing our nation. Regardless of where it began, I find it unhelpful and unfortunate that it was used in this statement. The only thing new about New Calvinism is the number of people who hold the view over the last generation. The doctrines are not new. They were held by most of the Southern Baptist Convention s founders. In fact, the core of this theology was also held by most Protestants at our nation s founding and by most of the Reformers. It is found in the writing of Saint Augustine. This is not a new theology, except perhaps in the experience of those concerned about it. I also find the use of the term traditional to be strange. How does one define what is traditional? Where are the boundaries set? Is tradition based upon the current majority s view? I think we d agree that is not the case, otherwise contemporary worship music would be the new traditional. Is tradition the oldest form of something? That s certainly not the way the term is used in the statement. The preamble of the statement admits that prior to the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message, some earlier Baptist confessions were Calvinistic. That is technically true. It also seems to be presenting the truth in the way most convenient for their argument. As will be discussed below, the oldest form of being a Southern Baptist is far, far more Calvinistic than what is present in this statement. So it appears that by traditional, what they mean is something like what I ve been exposed to up until recently. I also resent the accusation that Calvinists are plotting a hostile take-over of the denomination, and that when that happens, SBC missions will be shut down for good. They write that these New Calvinists have the goal of making Calvinism the central Southern Baptist position on God s plan of salvation. I know lots and lots and lots of Southern Baptist Calvinists dozens upon dozens. I do not know of a single one who sits around wringing his hands and scheming ways of imposing Calvinism on the SBC. The accusation is absurd. These brothers and sisters stand on their convictions, just as the authors of this statement do. They also share their faith, win people to Christ, baptize new converts, plant churches, teach Bible studies, participate in ministries of mercy, and take the gospel to the unreached. Every Calvinist Southern Baptist I know is far too busy with his hand to the plow to be dreaming of Calvinist exclusivity in the SBC. Their desire to convince others of their position is no different that the same desire within the authors of this statement, and perhaps less so! Another voice in the clamor J. Porter 3

4 Such accusations are divisive. In fact, division is written into this document: Traditional Southern Baptist soteriology is grounded in the conviction that every person can and must be saved by a personal and free decision to respond to the Gospel by trusting in Christ Jesus alone as Savior and Lord. Without ascribing to Calvinism, Southern Baptists have reached around the world with the Gospel message of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. These words set Calvinist outside the Southern Baptist identity. It sounds as if the authors are saying that Southern Baptists, who have tolerated some Calvinists among them, have been successful in missions. Without ascribing to Calvinism? What a hurtful, divisive way to talk about the God-glorifying missions enterprise of our convention. And it is simply not true. Many have ascribed to Calvinism and served as Southern Baptist missionaries. I received an from one such brother in India just this morning. My heart breaks and I feel anger rise up within me as I think of how such a statement denigrates his labors for the Lord. I simply must believe that the authors of this document don t really mean these things. I hope and pray that they just weren t careful enough in thinking through the implications of these words. And I have confidence they will clear up these matters for the sake of our Lord s name and his people s unity. Another language issue is the emphasis on the human freedom, an emphasis made without any clarification on how they understand freedom. Again and again, the writers speak of a person s free decision, free will, and free response. The problem is that human freedom is a very complex concept, and in a doctrinal statement, especially, it requires nuance and clarification. The statement makes no attempt to do so. When I address Article Eight below, I will discuss this problem in greater detail. Finally, while I understand the desire to move beyond Calvinism as a reference point for Baptist soteriology, as the preamble states, that is a utopian dream. The desire to avoid labels, while well-meaning, is naïve. Without labels, it is impossible to understand or communicate. The words you are reading right now are labels, symbolic representatives of a reality. These are necessary for us to communicate. The term Calvinist is unfortunate for several reasons. First, it comes with a lot of baggage and assumptions and misunderstandings. But so does the term Baptist. Many people think Baptist are cold, hard people, that we hate fun and condemn everyone to hell. That s not who we are. But that doesn t mean we should dump the label Baptist. A second reason the label of Calvinism is unfortunate is because the body of doctrine to which that word refers did not originate in John Calvin. He picked up the work of Luther, who picked up the work of Augustine. And all of these men were searching the writings of Paul and seeking to follow Christ. Another voice in the clamor J. Porter 4

5 Some say using the label Calvinist make us idolaters, followers of men rather than followers of Jesus. This is absurd. The reality of our world is that it is insufficient to merely say, I follow Jesus. What do we mean by follow? Who do we mean by Jesus? Do we mean those words the same way that a Mormon does? Do we follow Jesus in the same way as an atheist who likes the idea of the Golden Rule? We must have ways of talking about specifics. One option would be to always say everything we mean. This is impossible, and even if it were possible, it would take forever. Instead, we use labels. So I can say, I m a Christian. When asked what kind I can reply, I m a Baptist. Does the use of this label imply that I put the doctrine of baptism before Christ? Of course not. The ideas tied up in the Calvinist-Arminian dialogue are not going away. It is highly unlikely that we will resolve among all Bible-believing Christians exactly how God predestines, elects, calls, and keeps his people. The effort to move beyond these categories means we either expect to resolve the tension once and for all or plan to ignore those questions and not consider them as we build our theology. We can dump the terms Calvinist and Arminian, but the meanings behind them will remain. I m happy to use different terminology, if that would make others more willing to enter the dialogue. But in the end, a label is just a label. Aren t those self-declared Traditional Southern Baptist simply creating a new label? In this document, for the sake of convenience and clarity, I will refer to myself as a Calvinist. This does not at all mean that I am a follower of John Calvin. I m not. I find that he was a wise and godly man from whom I can learn much about my Savior, but I am not devoted to Calvin and disagree with him on many subjects (baptism, church government, relationship of the church and the state, etc.). There is a reason why Protestant theologians around the world for centuries now have written about and discussed theology using the Calvinist-Arminian framework: the issues behind the words are real. And avoiding the words is no escape from those questions. Baptist Origins in England Historical Problems Most historians agree that the first Baptist church was established in 1609 under the leadership of John Smyth. His church held to a general view of the atonement (thus they are called General Baptists), as well as baptism by sprinkling, while they denied the security of the believer and the doctrine of original sin. 3 Particular Baptists (those holding to the Calvinist doctrine of particular redemption) came on the scene in the 1630s, when a Separatist church saw the necessity of believer s baptism in the Scriptures. The earliest Baptist church we know of that practiced 3 John Smyth, Short Confession of Faith in XX Articles, Another voice in the clamor J. Porter 5

6 believer s baptism by immersion was a Particular Baptist church in Particular Baptists came to far outnumber General Baptists in England. 4 Baptist historian H. Leon McBeth writes: Historians have tended to give more space to John Smyth and the General Baptists than to Richard Blunt or William Kiffin and the origin of the Particular Baptists... This historical imbalance must be corrected. Though Particular Baptists started later and grew more slowly, modern Baptists draw more of their beliefs and practices from them. 5 These churches began to write formal confessions in order to fight accusations and misrepresentations of what they believe. You can find online the texts of The London Confession (1644) 6 and The Somerset Confession (1656), 7 both of which were Calvinistic documents. One of the most important and influential early Baptist statements of faith was The Second London Confession (1677 and 1688). 8 Because so many later Baptist documents were based on this one, reading portions of it could be helpful: Ch. 3, Art. 3 - By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory some men and angels are predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life, through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice. Ch. 3, Art. 4 - These angels and men thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly, and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain, and definite, that it cannot be either increased, or diminished. Ch. 3, Art. 5 - Those of mankind that are predestinated to life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving him thereunto. Ch. 8, Art. 8 - To all those for whom Christ hath obtained eternal redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same, making intercession for them; uniting them to himself by his Spirit, revealing unto them, in and by his Word, the mystery of salvation, persuading them to believe and obey, governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit, and overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, in such manner and ways as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation; and all of free and absolute grace, 4 H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness, (1987, Nashville: Broadman Press), McBeth, William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1969 revised edition), Lumpkin, Lumpkin, 241. Another voice in the clamor J. Porter 6

7 without any condition foreseen in them to procure it. Ch. 9, Art. 3 - Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. Ch. 9, Art. 4 - When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he doth not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil. Ch. 10, Art. 1 Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace. Ch. 10, Art. 2 - This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead. Ch. 10, Art. 4 - Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess. Ch. 14, Art. 1 - The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word... Baptists in Early America Both General and Particular Baptists sought religious refuge in America. Though the first Baptist church in America was a Particular Baptist church (founded by Roger Williams at Providence, Rhode Island, in 1639), the General Baptists were the most successful in Another voice in the clamor J. Porter 7

8 planting churches in the New England Colonies. 9 However, in the Middle Colonies and in the South, Particular Baptists led the way. This is reflected in the statements of faith of the first three Baptist associations established in America. The Philadelphia Confession of the Philadelphia Baptist Association was nearly an identical reprint of the 1677 London Baptist Confession (see above). It affirmed particular redemption, unconditional election, and the Calvinist understanding of foreknowledge. The Philadelphia Association sent nearly all the Baptist missionaries into the South, planting what came to be known as Regular Baptist churches (the name by which Calvinistic Baptists eventually were known). 10 The Charleston Association was the first Baptist association in the South. In 1767, this association of churches adopted as their statement of faith the Philadelphia Association s reprinting of the Second London Confession (see above). 11 The Sandy Creek Association was born out of the Separate Baptist movement that began during the Great Awakening. They grew at an exponential rate in the South. The first Separate Baptist church was established in 1755 by Shubal Stearns and Daniel Marshall in Sandy Creek, North Carolina. Originally one church of sixteen members, within three years it had grown to three churches of over 900 members. Over the next seventeen years, it started 42 more churches and sent out 125 ministers. 12 While the Sandy Creek Association had an aversion to statements of faith in its early days, we know from their church documents that they held to a Calvinistic understanding of salvation. The first covenant of Sandy Creek Baptist Church states:...holding believers baptism; laying on of hands; particular election of grace by predestination of God in Christ; effectual calling by the Holy Ghost In 1816, the Sandy Creek Association published its first Articles of Faith. Among them, we read: Art 4 - We believe in election from eternity, effectual calling by the Holy Spirit of God, and justification in his sight only by the imputation of Christ s righteousness. And we believe that they who are thus elected, effectually called, and justified, will persevere through grace to the end, that none of them may be lost McBeth, Lumpkin, McBeth, McBeth, George Washington Paschal, History of North Carolina Baptists (Raleigh: The General Board of North Carolina Baptist State Convention, 1930), 1:401. Also, McBeth, Baptist Heritage, Purefoy, A History of the Sandy Creek Baptist Association (New York: Arno Press, 1980 reprint edition, first published New York: Sheldon & Co., 1859), Another voice in the clamor J. Porter 8

9 Additionally, three of the leading Separate Baptist pastors (Shubal Stearns, Richard Furman, and Isaac Backus) were Calvinists. Backus wrote in 1797, shortly before his death: The enmity which men have discovered against the sovereignty of the grace of God as revealed in Holy Scriptures hath now prevailed so far that every art is made use of to put other senses upon the words of revelation which than God intended therein. He said to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, Rom. 9: This was the doctrine that God made use of in all the reformation that wrought in Germany, England and Scotland after the year 1517; and by the same doctrine he wrought all the reformation that has been in our day, both in Europe and America. 15 The Baptist Convention of New Hampshire wrote the New Hampshire Confession in It was widely used by Baptist churches during the nineteenth century due to its publication in J. Newton Brown s The Baptist Church Manual. This document became the blue print for the later Baptist Faith and Message of the Southern Baptist Convention. The document is Calvinistic in its theology, including articulating regeneration as the cause and not the effect of repentance and faith, as well as unconditional election and 16 irresistible grace. It reads in part: Of Grace in Regeneration - We believe that, in order to be saved, sinners must be regenerated, or born again; that regeneration consists in giving a holy disposition to the mind; that it is effected in a manner above our comprehension by the power of the Holy Spirit, in connection with divine truth, so as to secure our voluntary obedience to the gospel; and that its proper evidence appears in the holy fruits of repentance, and faith, and newness of life. Of Repentance and Faith - We believe that Repentance and Faith are sacred duties, and also inseparable graces, wrought in our souls by the regenerating Spirit of God Of God's Purpose of Grace - We believe that Election is the eternal purpose of God, according to which he graciously regenerates, sanctifies, and saves sinners; that being perfectly consistent with the free agency of man, it comprehends all the means in connection with the end; that it is a most glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, being infinitely free, wise, holy, and unchangeable; that it utterly excludes boasting, and promotes humility, love, prayer, praise, trust in God, and active imitation of his free mercy; that it encourages the use of means in the highest degree; that it may be ascertained by its effects in all who truly believe the gospel; that it is the foundation of Christian assurance; and that to ascertain it with 15 Alvah Hovey, A Memoir of the Life and Times of Isaac Backus, (1858; Harrisonburg: Gano Books, 1991), 356; quoted in Iain H. Murray, Revival & Revivalism: The Making and Marring of American Evangelicalism ; (Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1994), Lumpkin, 360. Another voice in the clamor J. Porter 9

10 regard to ourselves demands and deserves the utmost diligence. Origins of the Southern Baptist Convention The Southern Baptist Convention was formed in May, 1845, in Augusta, Georgia. All of the 293 delegates were from churches that belonged to the Philadelphia Association, the Charleston Association, or the Sandy Creek Association, all of which were Calvinist in their theology. William B. Johnson, the architect and first president of the Southern Baptist Convention, preached a sermon entitled Love Characteristic of the Deity, in which he promoted the Calvinist understanding of Christ s particular redemption (limited atonement), effectual calling (irresistible grace), and unconditional election. 17 Patrick Hues Mell, one of the delegates at the founding and a man who went on to serve as president of the convention for seventeen years, wrote Predestination and the Saints Perseverance Stated and Defended. 18 This work, published by The Southern Baptist Publication Society in 1851, did not argue against Calvinism, but actually defended the doctrines of grace (all five points of Calvinism). Mell s concern was that some Baptists were inching toward a more Arminian understanding of salvation. About Mell s ministry, one member of his church wrote: When first called to take charge of the church Dr. Mell found it in a sad state of confusion. He said a number of the members were drifting off into Arminianism. He loved the truth too well to blow hot and cold with the same breath. It was a Baptist church and it must have doctrines peculiar to that denomination preached to it. And with that boldness, clearness, and vigor of speech that marked him, he preached to them the doctrines of predestination, election, free-grace, etc. He said it was always his business to preach the truth as he found it in God's Word, and then leave the matter there, feeling that God would take care of the results. 19 John Dagg was the first Southern Baptist to write a systematic theology textbook, published by The Southern Baptist Publication Society in He explicitly held to a robust Calvinistic theology: The discriminating grace which God bestows, is not on the ground of faith and obedience previously existing, but for a reason known only to God himself. This Mell, A Southern Baptist Looks at Predestination (Cape Coral, FL: Christian Gospel Foundation, n.d.), 15. This is a reprint of the original work which was entitled, Predestination and the Saints Perseverance State and Defended (Charleston: The Southern Baptist Publication Society, 1851). The material in this book first appeared as a series of articles in the Christian Index, the Baptist paper of Georgia. Available online at 19 P. H. Mell, Jr., Life of Patrick Hues Mell (Louisville: Baptist Book Concern, 1895), Another voice in the clamor J. Porter 10

11 unrevealed reason, and not foreseen faith and obedience, is the ground of election. 20 According to God s secret will, or will of purpose, redemption is secured by the death of Christ to all the elect; according to his revealed will, it is secured to those only who believe. 21 When the Southern Baptist Convention decided to form a seminary in the late 1850s, James P. Boyce, founder of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, called upon fellow Southern Baptist theologian Basil Manly, Jr. to draw up the Abstract of Principles. 22 A committee, which included other Southern Baptist leaders such as Boyce and John Broadus, refined the twenty articles drawn up by Manly. In 1858, his document was the first statement of faith adopted by the convention. No other statement of faith was written or adopted by the SBC until the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message. For the first half of the SBC s existence, then, its official doctrinal statement advocated, at minimum, three-point Calvinism. The Abstract of Principles supports unconditional election, man s condemnation as a result of Adam s fall, and regeneration as the forerunner of repentance and faith. According to the Traditional Statement, then, our convention s oldest and longest-standing statement of faith expresses a view of salvation that is not traditional and is outside the Southern Baptist mainstream. John A. Broadus, indisputably one of the greatest statesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention in the nineteeth-century, published the following in the Western Recorder in 1891 after traveling through Switzerland and seeing the Alps: The people who sneer at what is called Calvinism might as well sneer at Mont Blanc. We are not in the least bound to defend all of Calvin's options or actions, but I do not see how anyone who really understands the Greek of the Apostle Paul or the Latin of Calvin and Turretin can fail to see that these latter did but interpret and formulate substantially what the former teaches... Whatever the inspired writers meant to teach is authoritative, the truth of God. 23 In 1899, E. D. Dargan, a professor at Southern Seminary, wrote The Doctrines of Our Faith, published by the Southern Baptist Convention s Sunday School Board. 24 Its purpose was to teach young Baptists basic doctrine. He wrote explicitly of unconditional election and the Calvinist understanding of foreknowledge: When does God make his choice? After the man has settled it by choosing God? This makes man superior. Along with the man's decision? This makes God dependent. No; God chooses beforehand, before the foundation of the world. 20 John L. Dagg, Manual of Theology, (Harrisonburg, VA: Gano Books, n.d.), 312. Originally printed by The Southern Baptist Publication Society, Dagg, Life and Letters of John A. Broadus, (Harrisonburg: Gano Books, 1987 reprint edition, copyright American Baptist Publication Society, 1901), Another voice in the clamor J. Porter 11

12 (Eph. 1:4.) (b) Are there any conditions to God's choice? Does he choose because he foresees that a man will repent or on the condition of faith? No; in choosing to save men God is God, sovereign, free, untrammeled, gracious, acting on his own initiative. Dargan also wrote in the same work: And, in connection with a large body of evangelical Christians, nearly all Baptists believe what are usually termed the "doctrines of grace," the absolute sovereignty and foreknowledge of God; his eternal and unchangeable purposes or decrees; that salvation in its beginning, continuance and completion, is God's free gift; that, in Christ, we are elected or chosen, personally or individually, from eternity, saved and called out from the world, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, through the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth; that we are kept by His power from falling away, and will be presented faultless before the presence of His glory. Read Rom. 8, 9, 10, 11; Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4, 5; Eph. 2:1-10; 1 Pet. 1:2-5; Jude 24; Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:5. The generally strong Calvinistic consensus within the Southern Baptist Convention began to change around the time E. Y. Mullins became the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Though a graduate of the school, Mullins had become a northern Baptist minister and had been outside Southern Baptist life for several years when he became Southern s president in Mullins was an effective leader of the Southern Baptists, helping form both the Executive Committee and the Cooperative Program. He served as the convention president from , was instrumental in the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message, and he was one of the founders of the Baptist World Alliance. 26 Mullins also began to redefine terminology in Baptist theology, including election. He believed that God elected certain persons to salvation because of their potential influence on other people, while continuing to deny that election is based on a foreseen faith decision. 27 Mullins also took a page from the theological liberalism of the day, moving the starting point for theology from divine revelation to personal religious experience. Mullins redefined the Baptist doctrine of the priesthood of all believers (plural) to the priesthood of the believer (singular), elevating the individual above the faith community as a source of authority. He also refused to affirm the Bible as divine revelation, but instead called it only a record of revelation. 28 These nuanced changes began the slide toward theological liberalism that eventually plagued our seminaries and required the Conservative Resurgence in the last part of the twentieth century E.Y. Mullins, The Axioms of Religion, (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997 reprint edition), 26 Mullins, Mullins, Mullins, 13. Another voice in the clamor J. Porter 12

13 It is no coincidence that the move away from Calvinism occurred with the move toward theological liberalism. I m not saying that all non-calvinists are liberals. But the Calvinist influence did help to safeguard the conservative theology of the SBC. That is why after the Conservative Resurgence in the last decades of the twentieth century, Calvinism began to reemerge in the SBC (though it had never fully disappeared). As the denomination s seminaries returned to a greater emphasis on the Scriptures, the number of professors and students who held a more Reformed or Calvinist theology increased. The current Baptist Faith and Message is written in a way that allows for varying degrees of Calvinistic theology within our denomination. Those who hold to all the doctrines of grace have no issue with the Baptist Faith and Message. Upon close reading, the document is actually far more Calvinistic than most people realize, teaching that regeneration occurs prior to repentance and faith, a point seemingly denied in the Traditional Statement : Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace. 29 Not all Southern Baptists hold to Calvinism today. In fact, a majority do not. However, this has not been the norm for most of our 170 year history, or the history of Baptists for the last 400 years. If the Traditional Statement gets to define who is a traditional Southern Baptist, that would exclude: Basil Manly, Sr., an architect of the SBC s formation W. B. Johnson, first SBC president R. B. C. Howell, second SBC president Richard Fuller, third SBC president J. P. Boyce, founder of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary J. L. Dagg, first Southern Baptist to write a systematic theology Patrick Hues Mell, the fourth president of the SBC, who served for 17 years John Broadus, the Southern Baptist statesman The list could go on and on. Though rare, Calvinistic Baptists were a part of the SBC in the twentieth century, as well. The great W. A. Criswell was a four-point Calvinist, rejecting particular redemption. By the definition of a traditional Southern Baptist in this statement, Dr. Criswell would be on the outside! What about Calvinism and Missions? One of the sad misconceptions about Calvinism is that it is opposed to missions and evangelism. This is patently, undeniably false. A cursory glance at the history of the 29 [Emphasis mine.] Another voice in the clamor J. Porter 13

14 modern-day missions movement proves this point. William Carey, father of modern missions, was a Particular Baptist, as was Andrew Fuller. Jonathan Edwards, mightily used in the Great Awakening, was a Calvinist. David Brainerd, Adoniram Judson, Luther Rice, George Whitefield all were Calvinists. C. H. Spurgeon, the great Baptist soulwinning preacher, was a five-point Calvinist, even hosting conferences on the doctrines of grace at his church. Converted under the ministry of John Broadus, the treasured SBC missionary Lottie Moon was a Calvinist. More recently, the current president of Southern Seminary, Al Mohler, a Calvinist, founded the Billy Graham School of Missions, Evangelism, and Church Growth. So let us be done with baseless notion that robust, biblical Calvinism kills missions. Theological Problems Here we get to the meat of the matter. History and heritage is a wonderful gift, but the final authority in matters of faith and practice is the Bible. While the Traditional Statement contains pockets of theology with which Calvinistic Baptists would agree, and while there are places where I can understand what the authors are trying to say even though I don t agree, much of it I found to be muddled with imprecise and confusing language. Additionally, while a list of scriptures is provided at the end of each article, I m not always sure how they support the statement, not to mention how certain passages that would contradict their points are left out. In this section, my objective is not to give a full defense of the Calvinistic understanding of these doctrines, but to critique the formulations given in the statement. I ll consider the articles one at a time. Article One: The Gospel I completely agree with the affirmation of this article. Truly, the gospel is the message of Jesus salvation and is available to all people who will confess their faith in Jesus. It is obvious to me that what the authors of this statement are attempting to refute is the doctrines of unconditional election and total depravity. They deny that only a select few are capable of responding to the gospel while the rest are predestined to an eternity in hell. My problem with this statement is that it leaves so many questions unanswered. They cite those verses that speak of God s desire for all to be saved, but they do not seek to give a complementing explanation for passages that should prevent us from too simplistic an understanding. I will wait to further address their stance of man s depravity and God s election until we come to the articles on those doctrines. Article Two: The Sinfulness of Man We can agree that every person inherits a sinful nature and that every person will sin. The area of disagreement concerns the effects of the sinful nature. I am particularly troubled by the denial that the sin nature we inherit from Adam resulted in the incapacitation of any person s free will and by the statement that each person s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God. Another voice in the clamor J. Porter 14

15 What is meant by this denial of incapacitation? Are they saying that sinful man has the moral ability to choose not to sin before receiving the saving grace of God? This position would place them against Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Edwards in their understanding of the effects of sin on human nature. If sin does not render a type of incapacity for righteousness, how are we to understand the many biblical references to being a slave to sin and being freed from sin? 30 How are we to make sense of Paul s declarations that the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Romans 8:7-8)? What about Jesus declaration that it is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all (John 6:63)? And if we are not under God s wrath because of our sinful natures but only on account of our personal acts of sin, how are we to understand Paul s claim in Ephesians 2:3 that we were all by nature children of wrath? Romans 5:12-18 teaches that while one reason for our guilt is because all sinned (5:12), we have been in some way condemned because of the sin of Adam (5:15-19). Perhaps the authors would do well to explain their position with greater detail. Calvinists believe that while people have an ontological capacity to make right choices (meaning that they have the proper equipment for making a real choice), they do not have the moral capacity to choose anything other than sin because they are dead in their trespasses and sins. In other words, their hearts are stony and dead to God, such that they are rebels against him, at enmity with God. They freely choose according to this nature, which means that they freely choose sin. Not until God gives us a new heart in regeneration does a person become alive to God and desire godliness. At that point, a person may freely choose according to this new, godly nature. Article Three: The Atonement of Christ I m grateful for the affirmation of penal substitutionary atonement of Christ and agree wholeheartedly that it is the only available.sacrifice for the sins of every person. No one will be saved apart from the atonement of Jesus. However, I am puzzled by the use of the word effective. They also claim that Christ s atonement is the only.effective sacrifice for the sins of every person. The word effective means, successful in producing a desired or intended result. One way to understand the claim that the atonement is effective for the sins of every person is to believe that, since Jesus paid for every sin of every person, no one will go to hell. The writers of this statement certainly aren t universalist, so they don t mean that. So what is meant by effective? In what way is the atonement effective for every single person? Perhaps they would respond that Jesus death made the payment for our sins, but that this forgiveness is not applied to the individual until they respond to the gospel offer in faith. 30 John 8:34; Rom. 6:7, 16-20, 22; 8:2; Tit. 3:3 Another voice in the clamor J. Porter 15

16 But that would mean that the atonement was not effective for all, but only those who believe. In this case they simply misused the word effective. I would hate to think this is the case, though. These men are certainly intelligent enough to have been purposeful in using the word effective. Perhaps they understand that the atonement was designed to merely make salvation possible for all people? So Jesus death paid for all people s sins in the exact same way, acting as a leveling device, and then humans can either trust in the cross of Jesus or not? But then what are they trusting in? The leveling power of the cross? How can it be true that the atonement is effective for the sins of all people in the same way if it is also true that God does not impose or withhold this atonement without respect to an act of the person s free will? How can the atonement be effective for all people s sins if it is not applied apart from the willful choice of man? I can t make sense of it. We would all be well served if the brothers who wrote this statement would clarify for us exactly what they mean by the effectiveness of the atonement. Obviously, a Calvinistic Southern Baptist who believes in particular redemption would have problems with other statements in this article. I believe that while Jesus death was sufficient to pay for the sins of the whole world, and while all people benefit from the common grace that resulted from the cross, Jesus died in a special way for his own people. For them, he did not just make salvation possible, but he actually accomplished their salvation, purchasing not only the grace of forgiveness, but also the graces of repentance and faith. Article Four: The Grace of God I appreciate the affirmation that grace does not negate the necessity of the faith response. I am also glad to read that they believe God s grace is expressed by him taking all of the initiative in salvation. God does not respond to us, but we respond to him. We love him because he first loved us. Finally, I wholeheartedly agree that faith does not merit our salvation. However, this statement leaves much to be desired for understanding the relationship between grace and faith. The affirmation reads: We affirm that grace is God's generous decision to provide salvation for any person by taking all of the initiative in providing atonement, in freely offering the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit, and in uniting the believer to Christ through the Holy Spirit by faith. Several propositions are made in this sentence. (1) God s grace is indiscriminate; by defining grace as the decision to take all of the initiative to provide salvation for any person means that all people, saved or unsaved, equally receive God s grace. (2) God s grace is in salvation is expressed in (a) providing atonement, (b) freely offering the gospel by the Spirit s power, and (c) uniting the believer to Christ through the Holy Spirit Another voice in the clamor J. Porter 16

17 by faith. This leads to one of two possible conclusions: (1) Since grace is indiscriminant and one expression of grace is union to Christ by faith, then all people are united to Christ by faith. But that goes against the Bible s clear teaching that some do not believe and die in their sins. So I assume that is not what is meant by this statement. (2) A second possibility is that God s grace is indiscriminant, but the faith response of the person is required for the grace of union with Christ. In this case, faith is not a part of God s work of grace. This distinction between faith and grace is also seen in the first sentence of the article s denial: We deny that grace negates the necessity of a free response of faith or that it cannot be resisted. The wording of this sentence sets up faith and grace as separate realities, arguing that the reality of God s grace does not make faith unnecessary. The problem here is that the Bible teaches that faith, itself, is a gift of God s grace: For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8 9) When [Apollos] arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed (Acts 18:27) And the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. (1 Timothy 1:14) This is also made clear in the Baptist Faith and Message, which says in Article IV that, Repentance and faith are the inseparable experiences of grace. The understanding of grace and faith in the Traditional Statement is inconsistent with the BF&M. If God s grace is indiscriminate, and if faith is required for salvation, and if not all people are saved, then faith would be understood as some work of man apart from grace. I am certain that is not what these men believe, but I cannot discern another way of interpreting this statement. I agree with the three ways God s grace is expressed outlined above. The provision for sins in the atonement, the genuine offer of the gospel, and union to Christ by faith are all gifts of grace. However, because I believe that saving faith is itself a gift of grace, I am required to believe that not all people receive God s grace in the same way. While that sounds strange to our contemporary ears, the Bible, from cover to cover, teaches that God does not work his grace in all people equally. I will address this further when we come to Article Six on election. Another voice in the clamor J. Porter 17

18 Article Five: The Regeneration of the Sinner I am in wholehearted agreement with the affirmation in this article. The problem occurs in the denial statement: We deny that any person is regenerated prior to or apart from hearing and responding to the Gospel. This statement explicitly contradicts what the Baptist Faith and Message teaches. Article IV on Salvation reads: Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The BF&M teaches that repentance and faith are the effects of regeneration. In the moment of salvation, one experiences the new birth simultaneously with repentance and faith. But the cause of those experiences of grace, as the BF&M refers to repentance and faith, is the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. The Traditional Statement turns this order on its head, saying that people must hear and respond to the gospel before being born again. In the statement, the writers cite John 3:3, in which Jesus tells Nicodemus that one must be born again in order to see the kingdom of God. They do not include the verses that follow, in which Nicodemus explicitly asks Jesus how a man can be born again. Jesus answer is telling. He does not say, Repent and believe. Instead, he points to the total inability of natural man ( That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit ) and the sovereignty of God in the new birth ( The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit. ) The writers of the Traditional Statement claim to affirm the Baptist Faith and Message. We would be served well by their clarification on this point. Article Six: The Election to Salvation The affirmation of this article is fine, but doesn t say much. They basically affirm that God s plan of salvation includes election (something the Bible demands), but they do not say what they understand election to be. Or perhaps they understand election is equivalent to the choice to save generally. I m simply unsure. The denial is two-fold. (1) They deny that God has predestined certain people for salvation, and (2) they deny that God has predestined certain people for condemnation. Another voice in the clamor J. Porter 18