Calvinism debate must be balanced

Baptist Standard ^ | A. J. Conyers

[Between the Lines]

One cannot help noticing the interest in Calvinism lately expressed among some Baptists has prompted from others a cry of alarm. One group tends to represent the Baptist heritage as passively shaped by Calvinism, and the other wishes to deny the Calvinist (or Reformed) influence completely. The truth is somewhere in-between.

The concern for eliminating the Calvinist influence among Baptists is misguided.

Every body of believers needs to be in touch with the best of its theological tradition. For Baptists, that tradition is Reformed, or Calvinist, thought. Those who wish to look into this view need only discover for themselves the evident Calvinism of the Particular Baptist London Confession of 1644 and the even more pointedly Calvinist nature of the Second London Confession of 1677. These statements, along with the Savoy Confession and the Westmins ter Confession, evidently came from a co mmon stock of doctrinal expression. The words of the 1644 Confession and its successors are suggestive of Calvin's "Institutes" and not at all of, for instance, the early Anabaptist Schleitheim Confession. This is true not only in the ordinary sense of common vocabulary and system, but also in regard to the tone and the habitual focus. Again, one can point to the undisguised Reformed theology of John Gill, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Andrew Fuller, Isaac Backus, Richard Furman, Basil Manly Sr., James Petigrew Boyce and quite a number of others who were powerfully instrumental in the doctrinal expression of Baptists through the middle part of the twentieth century.

All this has been vigorously preached by the defenders of Calvinist theology, only they have sometimes taken an additional, and unwarranted, step further. They often assume that this put Baptists (especially Southern Baptists) right in line with the most extreme expressions of Calvinism. They assume that Baptists must be advocates of the Canons of Dort, the famous five-point Calvinism that was formulated some half- century after John Calvin himself was dead. Or they align Baptists with the hard-edged Calvinism of early New England Puritan thought. In fact, the Reformed thought that most influenced Baptists, especially in the South, was one that had been softened and moderated by Scottish Common Sense philosophy and by the Baptists' own insistence upon the competence of believers to respond in faith to the gospel.

Interestingly enough, along with this Calvinism moderated by Scottish Presbyterians and Baptists of the American South came a real openness to the strongest and best of Christian thinkers from other traditions. The great Broadus, who set the standard for intelligent and heart-felt preaching among Baptists, remembered with gratitude that the advanced students of Boyce, the founder of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, read from Turrettini (a moderate Reformed thinker) and Thomas Aquinas. E.Y. Mullins, Southern Seminary's president for the first quarter of the 20th century, could adapt Schleiermacher's insights to a basically Reformed worldview.

Some worry about an "aggressive Calvinism" on college campuses. I worry more about a fundamental resistance to any vigorous kind of theological thinking. For the life of me, I cannot see that college campuses are about to be overrun by Calvinists--aggressive or otherwise. If there is genuine theological study going on, which in fact there is, then it is a matter for which we might be grateful. I am concerned about aggressive relativism in ethics and religion; I am concerned about aggressive nihilism in the moral life of college students; I am concerned about aggressive addictions and aggressive sexually transmitted diseases; I am concerned about aggressive indifference in the formation of the intellect among students.

But aggressive Calvinism? I haven't seen that yet. And I do find, however, among our best students an appreciation for the ordered, energetic, biblical teachings of John Calvin and some of his followers. To reject this rich tradition by pretending it has nothing to do with Baptist history would be wasteful and wrongheaded. To confuse the distinctive Baptist form of this tradition with its most radical historical expressions is to miss the Baptist genius that reshaped Calvinism in a way that proved fruitful for the aspiring denomination of Baptist Christians in America.

Laissez faire theology, which forgets its debt to thinkers of the past, may do for a period of time. In fact, that has mostly been the state of things since World War II, after which careful theological teaching was submerged in denominational boosterism and a cult of personality, with results that we have sadly lived with these past two decades. The atheological approach to church life leaves us narrow-minded and unimaginative, merely reciting the prejudices we have gathered like lint over the past 50 years; while a well- wrought theological tradition keeps us alive to conversation partners from every Christian generation, providing a foundation of substance for our mission and our ministry. As P.T. Forsyth once wrote, "The non-theological Christ is popular; he wins votes; but he is not mighty; he does not win souls; he does not break men into small pieces and create them anew."

A.J. Conyers is professor of theology at Baylor University's George W. Truett Theological Seminary in Waco

[Gamecock]

So why would a Calvinist preach the gospel? Because if we don't, it doesn't hurt God, or the unbeliever. God can get someone else to do it. No, it harms only ourselves

Another good point! Never thought about it from that perspective.

[RnMomof7]

Hi, RnMomof7. I agree we need to get back SBC roots, and I am no Arminian, just worried about Church evangelism.

The greatest missionaries were Calvinists look it up.

I attend a bible Presbyterian church. We fund several international Missionaries and we currently have one Teen team on a mission trip..One teen team in a small town near us going door to door, and one team that worked the streets and flop houses in the inner city last week .All doing as Christ commanded..Taking the gospel to all men.

If you are a Baptist you need instead to be concerned for what passes as evangelism in the Baptist churches in this country today

The gosple of easy believeism , every man making God after his own image and sermons that are seminars..

Size is more important than truth in far too many Arminian churches that call themselves "Baptist"

[RnMomof7]

Calvin believed in infant baptism.

Just proves that Calvinists are not puppets:>)

There are different strains of calvinism.. Augustine and Luther were predestinarian and considered "calvinist"

Calvin believed an taught Baptism not as regenerating like the RC's, but as an outward sign of God's covenant with the church..Baptists and some that will tell you they are charasmatic Calvinists believe it is an outward sign of Salvation (a believers sacrament)

But do note neither group believe it has any saving effect ..and all Calvinists believe in the 5 solas

[FreeRep]

***every man making God after his own image and sermons that are seminars****

Will, all I can say is, I’m not God and I don’t judge their hearts.

I attend a small bible southern baptist church and our church is not Arminian.
Hard-Believism, Easy Believism… I just believe in Believism.

*Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.* (SBC Statement of Faith)

[RnMomof7]

Do you ever view TBS ?

nuf said:>)

[God is good]

Faith is not a work, it is counted as a work (Christ's finished work) in God's eyes, but is still not a work. The work is through Christ; the free will's decision to accept the gift (Christ's finished work) is done through faith.

Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness

[God is good]

Are you aware of the Biblical fact [Ephesians 1:3-14] that even before the foundation of the world, God [chose] elected and predestinated all those whom He purposed to bring to eternal salvation in Christ?

No, God predestined those, who were to choose His grace, to the adoption and the benefits of it. Predestination has to do with the grace of adoption, not salvation. Your arguments that God did not love the whole world are the same old psuedo-scholarly arguments I have heard parroted and will reject till the day I die. Yes God does love the whole world, his atonement had to cover all sin, otherwise his atonement is incomplete. Calvinism is a flawed system made up by a man and is unbiblical. The only time in the Bible the question "what must I do do be saved" is asked is answered: "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." Belief precedes salvation. End of story.

[God is good]

Is faith a work? Is it God's faith that allows us to participate in the finished work of Christ or is it our faith? If faith is counted as righteouness, and faith is not of ourselves, then why are we given the reward? Abraham was rewarded for something he is not responsible for?

[Jerry_M]

One group tends to represent the Baptist heritage as passively shaped by Calvinism, and the other wishes to deny the Calvinist (or Reformed) influence completely. The truth is somewhere in-between.

"Passively shaped"??????

Sory, but A.J. Conyers doesn't have a clue. All of the founders of the SBC were unabashed Calvinists, there was nothing "passive" about it.

There is nothing "unbaptistic" in being a Calvinist, whether in 1644 or 2004.

[Jerry_M]

"The logical conclusion (of predestination) is that evangelism is useless," said W.R. Estep, professor emeritus of church history at Southwestern Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, arguing that a strong belief in predestination would pull the rug out from under Baptist evangelism.

Dr. Estep's "logic" hasn't improved since I sat under his teaching in the mid-80s.

We evangelize because: a) God has commanded it, b)God uses it to save His elect, and, most important of all, c) it brings glory to God.

This Calvinist has made a sacrificial gift to the Lottie Moon Christmas offering, and has admonished his congregation to do the same.

[CARepubGal]

Ummm, the Mainline CINO Churches are declining but the Conservative ones are NOT! I went from a Baptist Church to a Reformed church along with many of the 400 or so folks in the congregation. We have and will continue to church plant and yes, our numbers are growing at a reasonable rate. When you get tired of the sideshow, find a nice Reformed Church or a good solid Calvinist SBC. :-)

[CARepubGal]

I figured you would be here! And I will ping our Dutch Brothers with a Note to the readers: the RCA is Reformed in name only. Check the growth of the URC along with the Presbys.

[CARepubGal]

And Reformed Baptists believe in Credal Baptism. Incidentally, they only differ from us "frozen chosen" in the matter of when baptism is performed.

[drstevej]

***Dr. Estep's "logic" hasn't improved since I sat under his teaching in the mid-80s.***

I too was a student under Dr. Estep (1980) and he served as the external reader for my dissertation (Soteriology of the English General Baptists to 1630). He was a good teacher and a great guy, but he positively loathed Calvin and was very upset when the change came requiring faculty to subscribe to inerrancy.

He was an expert on religious liberty and baptist distinctives, but soteriology was not a particularly strong point for him. He subscribed to the view that the General Baptists (Smyth, Helwys and Murton) were Arminians until he read my dissertation which demonstrated then absence of any Arminian influence upon the development of their theology. He was open enough to acknowledge that I had made my case conclusively.

He is now with the Lord. I appreciate the opportunity to study under him and get to know him a bit.

[Jerry_M]

I wasn't aware that Dr. Estep had passed over.

Yes, he hated Calvin, but was honest enough not to grade down papers that came to conclusions differing from his own (such as mine). Looks like we had similar experiences with him, yours at the doctoral level, mine at the MDiv.

He is a "Calvinist" now.

[drstevej]

An Open Letter to Dr. William Estep

Roger Nicole

My dear colleague,

Your recent article in The Baptist Standard of Texas has come to my attention. I am grieved that you should have such a low opinion of Calvin and of Calvinistic Baptists. Although you hold that "most of the ardent advocates of this movement have only a slight knowledge of Calvin or his system," I think that I am tolerably well acquainted with Calvin, not only through the Institutes of the Christian Religion, but through his sermons, commentaries and special treatises as well as through secondary sources. His collected works in 9 volumes in the 1667 Amsterdam edition are at my fingertips in my office. My personal library has more than 250 volumes by or about Calvin, and well above 1000 if you count those about Calvinism and the Reformed faith and history, including Particular Baptists.

A number of statements in your article are erroneous and others appear to me as needing to be challenged.

1. You give the date of Calvin's death as 1554 instead of 1564. We were lamenting that Calvin should have died at the age of 55, and now your article cuts off erroneously another ten years of his life. If this is a typographical error, it should have been corrected in the galley proofs.

    

2. You state that the definitive edition of Calvin's Institutes was published in 1559 in "four volumes." This edition was in one folio volume, as indeed apparently all editions prior to 1800! The material was divided in four books, but bound in one volume.

    

3. Critical remarks are made concerning Calvin's uncontrollable temper and his responsibility in Servetus' execution and Bolsec's exile, in the union of church and state in Geneva, and in the failure to advocate freedom of religion in the state. All of these are clearly irrelevant to the issue whether Calvinistic Baptists ought to be shunned, unless you can prove that they are necessary inferences from Calvin's doctrines of sovereign grace, and that only those who agree therein with Calvin suffer from these defects.

    

4. You made a much too commendatory representation of the views of Bolsec: if his convictions were just what you describe, I could almost agree with him! You did not even mention his emphatic rejection of divine election nor his insulting accusations against Calvin's doctrine and its Biblical foundation.

   If you want to promote Bolsec and Servetus rather than Calvin as your theological heroes, you need not fear competition from me: I will even throw in Castellio for good measure!

    

5. You state that Calvin "seemed to erect a whole system of theology on eternal decrees without any reference to Christ or the love of God." This is patently false on three counts:
   1. Predestination is discussed at the end of the third book of the Institutes. It is the climax of Calvin's presentation of salvation by grace alone, not the foundation of the work!
   2. Chapters 6-17 of the second book of the Institutes are devoted to the part of Christ in human salvation. Furthermore, in III. xxiv. 5 a very famous passage asserts that Christ is the "mirror of election."
   3. Throughout his treatment, Calvin emphasizes the grace of God in election and rejects human merit at its base.

    

6. You say that "it is difficult to state briefly Calvin's view of predestination" and so you quote five lines from the Institutes III. xxi. 5 without making it clear that I. xvi-xviii, II. i-v and III. xxi-xxiv must be consulted in order to form a proper understanding of Calvin's presentation. Furthermore, Calvin's three treatises on predestination and providence, his "Articles on Predestination" and hundreds of references in his Commentaries and Sermons would help. You might as well say that the block of marble that was delivered to Michelangelo's studio is the famous statue of David as to say that these two quoted sentences constitute Calvin's doctrine.

   You could have eased your task by quoting some paragraphs of the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Philadelphia Confession. These at least, written in agreement with Calvin, would be more reliable than one statement plucked as by hazard out of Calvin's work by one manifestly hostile individual.

    

7. You claim that Calvinism is "a system of theology without biblical support." In III. xxi-xxiv alone I count 173 biblical references, including 3 out of the 5 that you allege against him. How could a man who wrote commentaries on 18 books out of 39 in the Old Testament, and 24 out of the 27 in the New Testament ever be accused to be unbiblical? And his preaching program included expositions on the whole Bible, although he did not live long enough to fulfill that plan.

    

8. You deplore the influence of Calvin upon "Calvinistic Baptists." None of these, however, accepted Calvin's view of infant baptism, otherwise they could not be called "Baptists." There must be, therefore, something else than Calvin's authority that led them to follow him in his views on the doctrines of grace: I say it is the authority of Scripture and its teaching on divine sovereignty as well as human responsibility.

    

9. You say that Calvinistic Baptists have "only a slight knowledge of Calvin or his system." My impression from your article is that you do not excel either in this area! Now if what you claim is true, why in the world do you attack them on the basis of an author of which you claim they are ignorant? This would seem to make the major part of your arguments irrelevant!

    

10. When you deal with the five greatest dangers by which you claim "unmodified" Calvinism threatens the Southern Baptist Convention, to wit lack of Biblical support, similarity with Islam, destruction of individual responsibility, intolerance and haughty spirit, and anti-missionary spirit, one is left wondering where you picked up this nightmare. Calvinistic Baptists have sent excellent missionaries to Islamic people, and they have greatly developed the sense of accountability historically and ethically. I cannot imagine where you have encountered anyone who fits your description, and I will say that in my contacts with hundreds of Calvinists I have never met any such person. There may be some in a murky corner of the vast territory of the Southern Baptist Convention, but even then they do not represent a threat to SBC, for such people do not reproduce themselves and thus are dying out in the first generation!

My colleagues will respond to other features that we deem objectionable. As one who has been influenced by Calvin for nearly 65 years, I accepted this aspect of our task. I do find comfort in the thought that although you may oppose Calvinism on this earth, you will be yourself a Calvinist when you get to heaven, for I say "Who will deny or seek to restrict the sovereignty of God when appearing before His throne?"

In this hope I remain,
Yours sincerely in Christ,

Roger Nicole
Mutch Professor of Theology, Emeritus
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

Visiting Professor of Theology
Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando

====

 

Estep became a Calvinist July 14, 2000

 

[Dr Warmoose]

Yes God does love the whole world, his atonement had to cover all sin, otherwise his atonement is incomplete.

Wow. So you believe that everyone, without distinction has been saved. For if all sin has been paid for, then God cannot judge the guilty to eternal damnation and still be just.

Your logic is flawed here. The number of people are finite, therefore God's atonement to "be complete" or to be like all of His other attributes - infinite and transcendant in scope cannot be based on the number of people, but on the simple fact that any sin cannot be in the presence of an infinite God. The sin is infinite in its opposition to God's holiness. The number of people has absolutely nothing to do with it.