Get your own Free Home PageMarch 1986
Revised July 1997
The following article has been written at the urging of several friends who believe that such is needed at this time. I am really hesitant to pursue such an undertaking because I know that so much has already been written and because I also know that I will not be able to satisfy everyone with my presentation. Long after I am gone I am sure that the subject will be discussed by our brethren from a number of different viewpoints. None of us can ever give "the final word" on any subject!
Several brethren have told me that our people need to know what I personally believe about the issues pertaining to "Calvinism," "election," and "predestination." They have wanted assurance about the orthodoxy of the professors and administrators at Baptist Missionary Association Theological Seminary.
Other brethren, who have heard me deliver orally a similar presentation, have told me that my approach to the subject was very helpful and that they believed that it might help clear up some misunderstandings if I would put my beliefs in writing. Intentionally, the style is not a formal, "term paper" approach.
Ordinarily such a doctrinal presentation would be confined to the classroom. Realizing, however, that it is extremely important that BMA Seminary, like all of our BMA of America departments and their leaders, have the full confidence of our people, I have agreed to this undertaking. [The article was written primarily for BMA people and students, but perhaps it will be helpful to other Christians as well.]
Please read all of the document before drawing final conclusions about its validity, and do give me the same charitable hearing that you would expect me or anyone else to give you in similar circumstances. My intention is to unify, not to promote controversy or division. I also ask for your forgiveness for any mistakes and for your prayers that the Lord would give me grace to admit it when I am wrong. The article has been written primarily for BMA people and students, but perhaps it will be helpful to other Christians as well.
Philip Bryan
March 1986
The present paper contains a message which is truly on my heart, for I have been asked several times recently about a doctrine on which there are differences of opinion. The differences are not new; Baptists and other Christians have discussed, often heatedly, issues related to salvation throughout Christian history. Such debate and heated discussion is understandable since the doctrine of salvation is concerned with eternal consequences! Presently the focus has been on the doctrines of "election" and "predestination." Words like "Hardshell," "Calvinist," and "Hyper-Calvinist" have been used freely.
Underlying the main thesis of this paper is the conviction that neither "Calvinism" nor "Hyper-Calvinism" poses any real threat to our association or individual churches. During the past ten years I have preached and visited in most of the states where we have BMA churches. Although some of our brethren often may emphasize rather strongly the sovereignty of God, I do not believe that we really have any "fatalistic," "Hardshell," "deterministic" preachers. If we do have any, apparently they are very few in number. Misunderstanding and controversy, however, could hurt us. I pray that such does not happen!
The main thesis of this paper is that most--if not all--of the disagreements on the subject stem
from a difference in emphasis, representing two (or more) valid and Biblical viewpoints. To
demonstrate this, let us first make a general, historical classification of the major views of
salvation.
Most students of historical theology have grouped all so-called Christian movements (and people) into three or four categories, so far as their basic beliefs about salvation are concerned. The following names for those categories ordinarily are used because of the strong or generally well-known reputations of certain individuals who maintained different theological positions.
(1) Pelagianism.--The term normally used to signify those who have taught that salvation is by works is derived from the name of a British monk who debated with Augustine in the Fifth Century A.D. The emphasis here has been either on the ability of man to save himself or on the belief that man is so good that he does not need salvation. Probably most Roman Catholics and members of "The Church of Christ" would fit this category.
(2) Calvinism.--This term is used to describe those who have emphasized God's sovereignty in the plan of salvation. They are strong advocates of "salvation by grace" and "the final perseverance of the Saints" (i.e., "the security of the believer"). Among Baptists, the Hyper-Calvinistic branch developed a very fatalistic, anti-missions emphasis. The are usually called "Hardshell Baptists." Present day "Primitive Baptists" would be placed in this category. To some theologians, any one who believes in "salvation by grace" and the "perseverance of the saints" (or "security of the believer") would be designated as "Calvinist." Using that definition, probably most of us would have to "own up" to being Calvinists. That term, of course, was derived from the Sixteenth Century Protestant reformer, John Calvin.
(3) Arminianism.--Closely related to the Calvinists in that they have believe in salvation by grace and have denied "works" for salvation as maintained by the Pelagians are the so-called Arminians. These people have emphasized the freedom of the will, and man's responsibility in accepting the Gospel, etc. From the present perspective, however, there lies a distinct problem in their closely-related belief that man can lose his salvation! They do not believe in the security of the believer! Most of us probably would deny strongly that we are Arminians! The name itself was derived from that of Jacobus Arminius, a Sixteenth Century Dutch theologian. Modern "Free Will" Baptists and Methodists could be classified at Arminians.
The preceding are the usual classifications of Christian soteriology which historically have been made to designate the differing views and emphases on salvation. Where would we fit as Associational Baptists? If we had to choose one of them, the label "Calvinist" would probably fit the best, although we certainly would not be "Hyper-Calvinists. And certainly we are not "Pelagians" or "Arminians." What are we? We are really another category: "Missionary Baptists"!
(4) Missionary Baptists.--As Missionary Baptists we have held to a strong belief in the
sovereignty of God and man's responsibility before God (as represented in the teaching of
"salvation by grace through faith"). We fit somewhere between the extremes of Hyper-Calvinism
and Pelagianism (or the lesser degrees of Calvinism and Arminianism). Among Seventeenth
Century British Baptists, one could logically state that the Hyper-Calvinistic Baptists were
represented by the "Particular" Baptists and Arminian Baptists were represented by the
"General" Baptists. In a number of respects, modern day Missionary Baptists might not feel
comfortable in either "camp"! Such a conclusion demonstrates dangers involved in classifying
individuals on the basis of one doctrine, etc.
(1) Calvinism vs. Arminianism.--Surely it has been demonstrated thus far that it is not wise to engage in derogatory name-calling. Undoubtedly none of us would want to be classified as Arminian, although there are some very attractive points about Arminianism. Similarly, surely none of us would desire to be called Hyper-Calvinists, although at least one definition of Calvinism (i.e., salvation by grace and the security of the believer) would not be offensive to most of us!
(2) The "Five-Points" of Calvinism.--Sometimes the so-called "Five-Points of Calvinism" have been used as a means of determining who the Calvinists are. This is not a "sure-fire" approach either. Although "fatalists" (i.e., those who believe that "what will be will be--regardless!") generally have used those "points" to explain their position, a decision of one's orthodoxy based on those tenets will not really solve the problem. In order to substantiate and illustrate such an assertion, it should be helpful to consider the so-called "points" individually. Most readers will recall that the acrostic "TULIP" is often used to represent those beliefs.
(a) "Total Depravity" is the first of the "TULIP" arguments. Surely everyone knows that belief in "Total Depravity" is one of the points of our own BMA of America doctrinal statement (#5 in the versions prior to 1989 and #V in the later edition, adopted in 1989). It is also contained in several of our state and local association doctrinal statements. Does belief in "Total Depravity" automatically make one a Calvinist? Or a Hardshell? If so, then all BMA Baptists might be so classified! To the contrary, it is the extreme emphasis on "Total Depravity" that the Hyper-Calvinist would make that separates his position from that of Missionary Baptists.
(b) "Perseverance of the Saints" is the last of the "TULIP" arguments. That this position is almost synonymous with the security of the believer is illustrated by the Articles of Faith of one of our local associations:
"5th. We believe in the everlasting covenant, grace is treasured up in Christ to insure the generation, sanctification, preservation and perseverance of all God's people so that none of them shall finally be lost" (Washington Association of Regular Missionary Baptist Churches, Minutes, "Articles of Faith," 1981, p. 2).
The last of the "TULIP" tenets is clearly held by all Missionary Baptists. Since we believe in two of the "Five Points," are we Calvinists? Let the reader judge for himself.
(c) "Unconditional Election" is the "U" of the "TULIP." Frankly, I must confess that such terminology makes me uncomfortable, but who would state that the Bible teaches "Conditional Election"? I would not prefer that term either, unless one uses it on the basis of God's "foreknowledge." Historically speaking, however, many of our brethren have used such terminology in their official documents to explain their beliefs about salvation, making it the official position of their local BMA associations by including it in their doctrinal statements. This phenomenon apparently occurred in several states. For present purposes, the following examples from some associations in Mississippi should suffice:
"4th. We believe in the everlasting love of God to His people in eternal and unconditional election (emphasis is mine, PB) of all His spiritual children of grace and glory" (Washington Association of Regular Missionary Baptist Churches, Minutes, "Articles of Faith," 1981, p. 2; see also: Big Creek Missionary Baptist Association, Minutes, "Articles of Faith," 1977, p. 2; and Ten Mile Missionary Baptist Association, Minutes, "Articles of Faith," 1954, p. 11, for almost verbatim statements).
Similar examples could be given from the doctrinal statements of local associations in Texas and other states. A logical question is: Did our forefathers really believe and emphasize "unconditional election"? Did they believe it in the Calvinistic sense? If the answers are "yes," then it behooves us to be tolerant of present brethren whom we might label as "Calvinists" also. If the answer is "no," then this illustrates that the utilization of such "Calvinistic" terms does not automatically make one a Hyper-Calvinist! There is a pitfall in categorizing someone merely on the basis of an arbitrary system of Five-Points.
(d) "The Limited Atonement" has especially been at the center of current debate about Calvinism. Certainly Hyper-Calvinists have used such a teaching to contend that the Gospel cannot actually be offered to all people; consequently, missionary activities and evangelistic "invitations" at the conclusion of sermons would not be necessary nor desirable. Again, however, what one means by the term "Limited Atonement" is of extreme importance. In current discussion, apparently some people have lost sight as to just what is meant by the term "atonement." The extremely respected J. E. Cobb (who served for a number of years in Associational Baptist educational and publications ministries) explained about the "atonement" in his book entitled Basic Studies in Christian Doctrines:
"The fact of the atonement is explicitly set forth in the Scriptures by types, witnessing terms, and positive statements. Strictly speaking the word 'atonement' is an Old Testament term. It is the rendering of the Hebrew word, kaphar, meaning to cover, that is, sin. The New Testament uses a stronger word, "reconciliation." This is the rendering of the Greek word katallage. The word 'atonement' is found but one time in the New Testament in our Authorized Version. The R.V. properly translates the Greek word katallage, reconciliation. (Read Romans 5:11.) And strictly speaking, the atonement is limited (emphasis mine, PB). The atonement is limited to believers in Christ, and to irresponsible persons. The sacrifice of Christ is unlimited, that is, 'Christ tasted death or every man.' But the atonement is limited, as stated above (emphasis mine, PB). It can be easily understood from the meaning of the Hebrew word rendered atonement that it is limited. The unbeliever's sins are not covered, or forgiven" (J. E. Cobb, Basic Studies in Christian Doctrines, Little Rock: Baptist Publications Committee, n.d., pp. 112-13).
Later in the same book, Cobb states:
"1. In its sufficiency, the atonement is general, or universal. (Read Heb. 2:9; I Tim. 2:6; 4:10; Titus 2:11; I John 2:2; II Peter 3:9.)
2. In its efficiency, the atonement is limited. (Read Eph. 1:4, 7; II Tim. 1:9, 10; John 17:9, 20, 24.)" (Ibid., p. 119).
The late D. N. Jackson (who was on the original faculty of BMA Theological Seminary) made almost the same statements in his book entitled The Doctrine of Divine Election:
"The atonement, therefore, is sufficient for all mankind, making it universal, but is efficient only for those who believe in Christ; in this sense then, it is particular" (D. N. Jackson, The Doctrine of Divine Election; Calvinism and Arminianism Examined,Oklahoma City: American Baptist, n.d., p. 15).
Upon understanding the meaning of "atonement"--even the explanation "at-one-ment" (i.e., "reconciled" or "covered")--one would have to agree with Dr. Cobb, that "strictly speaking, the atonement is limited." Such a position, however, does not make one a "fatalist." The "fatalist" would, no doubt, state, with Dr. Jackson, that a "fatalistic" interpretation of this tenet "logically limits the offer of salvation to the elect only" (Ibid.). The "Hyper-Calvinist" does not believe that the Gospel (or salvation) can legitimately be offered to all men. Missionary Baptists (including all the faculty members and administrators at BMA Theological Seminary) believe that salvation can--and should--be offered to all men! That is the real test of orthodoxy so far as the atonement is concerned!
The question remains, however: Does acceptance of four of the "Five Points" automatically make one a Calvinist? Let the reader decide, but it is precarious to draw such a conclusion! If so, then most of us are Calvinists!
(e) "Irresistible Grace" is the tenet of the Five-Points which would give me personally the most trouble to accept. A Hyper-Calvinist would clearly state that it is impossible to "resist" God's grace. I believe that I was under conviction several times before I became a believer. One could respond, however, "You finally gave in, didn't you? You didn't ultimately resist His grace."
I am not personally aware of any of our associations who have officially declared belief in "irresistible grace," although at least one association's "Articles of Faith" could be so interpreted:
"1. We believe in the doctrine of election, predestination, the final preservation of the Saints in Grace; believing in Baptism by emersion only, and, that by authority as given New Testament churches.
..................................................................................................................................................
"5. We believe that God loves His people with an everlasting love, that He chose them in Christ before the foundation of the world; that He called them with an holy and effectual calling(emphasis mine, PB), and they being justified through the righteousness of Christ alone, imputed to them. They are kept by the Power of God through faith unto salvation" (Hobolochitto Baptist Association, Minutes, "Articles of Faith," 1982, p. 10).
The term "effectual calling" is very compatible with the Calvinistic expression "irresistible grace."
Knowing as well as I do many of the brethren in the particular associations that I have quoted, I
know that they are not "fatalists." Such further illustrates that it is dangerous to classify people as
"Hyper-Calvinists" simply because they use certain "Calvinistic" language in explaining their
beliefs about salvation.
Finally, we come to what I consider to be a more satisfactory explanation of Biblical truth than what one often encounters, especially by labeling brethren as "TULIP People," "Calvinists," or "Arminians." I simply prefer the term "Missionary Baptists," which is what we really are!
(1) The "two rails" is a term which the late Dr. C. C. Winters (beloved BMA Baptist preacher and educator of Columbia County, Arkansas) used to describe Biblical truth about salvation. A Louisiana brother recently told me about this illustration. I have since been told that Dr. Harry Ironside used the same example. Although I had been teaching basically the same way for a number of years, I had not heard this particular illustration before.
(2) Picture the two rails of a railroad track. Both are necessary to operate a train. The "two rails" of salvation are the "rails" (i.e principles) of God's "grace" (sovereignty) and man's "faith" (responsibility). Both principles are graphically illustrated in the familiar statement "for by grace are ye saved through faith" (Eph. 2:8).
(3) Each "rail" must be accepted and emphasized if Biblical truth is to be maintained. The Bible
teaches both! And I really mean this: The Bible teaches God's sovereignty and man's
responsibility! Hyper-Calvinists and Arminians (and Pelagians) are guilty of emphasizing (or
neglecting) one principle (or "rail") to the exclusion of the other. The "two rails" illustration
exposes what can happen whenever someone neglects one of the two principles.
(1) The danger of "derailing" is ever present on a train whenever the train crowds one side or the other. In the present discussion, two dangerous possibilities exist whenever one of the two principles is emphasized more than the other.
(2) "Derailment" can result in serious heresy. This is illustrated very clearly by Pelagians and Arminians when they stress man's will and ability to the point of either making man save himself or allow himself "to will himself in or out of heaven." Calvinists can end in the heresy of fatalism or determinism and lose their evangelistic zeal. In such cases, man often is seen as a "robot," or "puppet," with God "pulling all of the strings." Interestingly enough, a warping of either perspective (i.e., over-emphasis on God's sovereignty or man's responsibility) has often led to the same heresy of universal salvation. The Pelagian might believe that no man is bad enough to be lost. The Calvinist might end up with God electing to save all men, regardless!
(3) "Derailment" can also cause someone to "explain away" Scripture in the attempt to make it agree with his preconceived, "either/or" ideas. In my opinion many Calvinistic and Arminian inclined individuals have either ignored or eliminated major portions of Scripture. I know that some will disagree with some of my examples, but I am honest in using the following:
(a) Some Calvinists have explained away (to my way of thinking) the universality of the free offer of salvation by stating that "the world" in John 3:16 is "the world of the elect"! Others have stated that the statement that "he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2) does not teach the potentiality of the salvation of all men. Similarly, they have eliminated the clear teaching "that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Heb. 2:9). Moreover, they have tried to force Ephesians 2:8-10 to teach that "faith" is the gift of God. Possibly some other passage may teach that God is the author or source of "faith," but the Ephesians passage does not. At least two reasons demonstrate the incorrectness of that teaching: (i) The grammatical gender of "that" in Greek is neuter; "faith" is feminine. Hence, "that" must not be referring to "faith." Probably it is referring to "gift" which is neuter. (ii) The context shows that Paul is not talking about "faith" as a "gift." Note that he adds, "It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast." Is he not saying, "It is the gift of God, it is not of works"? What is not of works? "Faith"? No, "salvation"! Salvation is the gift of God! Paul is not denying that faith is produced by works (although it is not); he is denying that salvation is produced by works.
(b) Some Arminian inclined people, however, have been just as guilty, in my way of thinking, on
other passages. They have either closed their eyes to manifold references to "election,"
"predestination," and similar expressions as they explain the Scripture, or they have changed the
meanings of those terms to fit their particular interpretation. For example, the explanation that
"God votes, the Devil votes, and I cast the deciding vote" is extremely inadequate and does not
do full justice to the Word of God! Some have tried to solve their dilemma by saying that "God
elected the plan of salvation, but not the people." The serious problem with this explanation is
that the word "elect" in Scripture almost always is used to designate people, not a plan. God has
indeed selected His plan of salvation, but He has also elected His people, and they are even
called "elect" before their salvation (e.g., see 2 Tim. 2:10, where Paul writes: "Therefore I endure
all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus
with eternal glory").
So, it is very clear that adherents of both sides of the question (i.e., God's sovereignty and man's
responsibility--or will) are capable of "stretching" or "twisting" Scripture to get it to agree with
their preconceived ideas. But that is a problem that we all have! Such "derailments" are bound to
happen when anyone over-stresses one principle to the exclusion of the other.
Let me conclude this article (which has become longer than I had intended) by re-stating that:
(1) I do not believe that Calvinism or non-Calvinism poses a particular threat to our churches today.
(2) I believe that the real problem is controversy caused in part by a misunderstanding of terms. Apparently what many of us consider to be "Hyper-Calvinism" (i.e., "fatalism" and "Hardshellism") is what others mean by the term "Calvinism." Usage of some, much more all, of the so-called Five-Points of Calvinism to explain or question one's beliefs can certainly be misunderstood. Indeed, who among us would want to use the label "Calvinism" to identify our beliefs if it had the connotation of Hyper-Calvinism? If belief in eternal security is meant, then all of us might be willing to identify with the term!
(3) A better way to describe one's beliefs seems to be the illustration of "the two rails." I cannot emphasize this too much: I really mean that the Bible teaches God's sovereignty, foreknowledge, and election. I also believe that man is accountable for his actions, and that any man can be saved if he will "call upon the name of the Lord" (Rom. 10:13). God's offer of salvation to all men is real; it is not a fake. Any explanation of salvation must include both of these aspects: God's grace and man's faith!
Someone may object that it is impossible for the two opposite positions to be true. The problem lies with man. It is a matter of proper perspective. Consider the railroad track. When we are close to it, we can examine and describe only one rail at a time. Similarly, we can describe and affirm in detail only one of the principles of "grace" and "faith" at a time. We know that the rails of the track are parallel and never meet; but when we look into the distance, we see the two rails merge into one rail! From God's perspective the two rails of God's grace and man's faith are compatible!
Let me close with three other human illustrations of how mutually opposite identities can be merged into one identity. (1) Consider the child who is the product and carries the inherited traits of both of his/her parents. We can see the mother's eyes, for example, and the father's nose. Who would have known just what the child would look like? (2) A bar magnet has a north pole and a south pole. One cannot say where one begins and the other ends. If the magnet is cut in half, the result is two magnets, each with a north pole and a south pole! (3) Or the same result holds with a coin. It has a "heads" side and a "tails" side. Where does one begin and the other end? Unless someone is "cross-eyed," he cannot look at both sides at the same time. And if the coin is sliced in two pieces, we have two coins, each with a "heads" and each with a "tails" side. We accept such human phenomena every day; why can we not accept the dual truth of God's sovereignty and man's freedom and responsibility?
Years ago, the late Charles H. Spurgeon used an illustration to set forth essentially the same Bible truths that I have been attempting to show in this paper. I do not have immediate access to the exact quotation, but essentially the following is what he said:
"Every saved person became a Christian when he saw the outstretched hands of Jesus and harkened to His invitation, 'I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved.' (John 10:9). After that person has entered the door (i.e., Christ) and has been saved, he can look back and see that he was 'chosen . . . in him before the foundation of the world . . . '" (Eph. 1:4).
Brothers and sisters, such is the greatness of God's grace and man's responsibility before God!
This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page