A succinct, thoughtful, perceptive analysis. Thank you, Professor Humphreys.

Great article! The next to last paragraph is especially fair and thoughtful.

To my Calvinists friends I ask a question. If a wicked heart cannot choose God, then God must place with-in a lost person a new, good heart in order that they be saved. Only a new heart can have faith in God. The Holy Spirit obviously does this Jer 31. Yet the Bible very clearly says that the Holy Spirit does not enter a person until after they believe. (Acts 2:38 & 19:2 Ephesians 1:13) Repentance and faith come before the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Yet under a Calvinist theology this is impossible. A wicked, depraved heart can never repent until the Holy Spirit intervenes. Yet if the intervention involves giving a lost man a new heart, this is nothing less than salvation itself. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit guarantees salvation 2 Cor. 5:5. I'm sure you see the problem. We have a person with the new heart of salvation before there has been repentance and faith! This is out of order. First comes repentance and faith, after which the Holy Spirit saves and gives the new heart of the New Covenant.

How can you hold to a Calvinist theology that says a person is indwelt with the Holy Spirit (new heart) before they repent and believe? The Bible does not teach this! The concept of regeneration is a figment of Calvinist's imagination that has no scriptural backing!

John Wesley won this argument years ago. Calvinism literally melted in front of the Biblical argumental onslaught from Wesley. "Previnient grace" is the way to go. Previnient Grace teaches that God's grace enables a wicked heart to repent and believe.

John 12:32

And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.

Christ was lifted up on the cross, and when the story of his crucifixion is preached we can KNOW that the Holy Spirit is drawing ALL people. This drawing empowers lost people to have faith in Christ. God can do the impossible, even enable wicked hearts to have faith in Christ. Isn't the GRACE of God wonderful!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_grace

Link for Prevenient Grace Def.

Okay---a question posed in jest since Jesus preceeded Calvin. But on a serious note, why would Jesus ever uttered the great commission if salvation had already been predestined? Why would Paul have traveled so widely and endured all he did for the cause of Christ had God told him about predestination.

Baptist too often promote missions and evangelism as the main thing Christians should be doing and rejoice at all the baptisms we count but then fail to disciple, grow, and minister to so many we have just plunged beneath the waters. Jesus told His followers to tell the nations about him. The accountability is not in how many we baptise but in how many we tell.

It doesn't make sense to me that Jesus could have been of a Calvinistic mindset as defined by Humphries.

Dr. Humphreys,

Your statement is both clear and compelling, a signatory staple I recall from my NOBTS days under your instruction. And, I find your irenic spirit to be even more developed. Thank you for your moral example, not to mention the theological contributions you've made to Baptist life.

You rightly assert, "Many Baptists worry that resurgent Calvinism will undercut our commitment to evangelism and missions." While I think it is true, I'm sure you agree it does not inevitably follow, since, as Calvinists continually and truthfully maintain, many, many Calvinists have been staunch evangelists. Personally, I think while robust evangelism can and obviously does follow even stronger versions of Calvinism, there is missing a psychological power to do so. Hence, the assertions that 2nd and 3rd generation Calvinists tend to lose the urgency to evangelize.

More importantly to me, is your hopeful statement: "We Baptists -- Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike -- are brothers and sisters in Christ. We likely will continue to disagree about whether God predestined some for salvation and passed over others, so we need to treat each other with what the New Testament calls “forbearance.” Sadly I'm becoming less optimistic Calvinists and Non-Calvinists can remain together in the SBC. The most vocal of the next generation SBC leaders are flaming Calvinists.

By flaming I mean vocal, proud, and persistent defenders of Dort. Founders Ministries advocates insist the gospel is nothing more, nothing less than "Five Point Calvinism." For them, "Five Point Calvinism" is the gospel and the gospel is "Five Point Calvinism." The "young,restless" Calvinists continually speak of "gospel-centeredness," which, of course, is equal to the "good news" of Calvinism. Even more, Founders Ministries has, as its vision, to reclaim the "lost Gospel" within the SBC by reforming one church at a time. Perhaps in the colloquial, to "Calvinize" the SBC.

With such an aberrant vision, it's increasingly hard to see how we can live together in "forbearance." Yet, for Christ's sake, I wish we could.

Grace, Dr. Humphreys

With that, I am...
Peter Lumpkins
Carrollton, GA

Given the "T" (total depravity) and "U" (unconditional election) in Calvinism's TULIP, -- both of which this author agrees -- the remainder of the acronym (at least the "L" and "I") pays LIP service to God's sovereignty while foisting upon Him the all to human characteristics of being arbitrary and capricious. Such a God is a God of war, famine, and pestilence. Such a God fosters fear and loathing in His children instead of hope and courage. Such a God is anything but loving and just. He is not Holy. He is evil.

One cannot contemplate the cosmos, gaze upon the beauty of creation, marvel at the miracle of life, nor appreciate the deep, deep love of Christ and yet tolerate for the briefest of moments the whiff of a notion that God is Arbitrary and Capricious.

God is Holy. God is perfect love. God is perfectly just. He is forever faithful with all that He has created. He will never act otherwise.

Predestination doesn't mean anything more than God, in keeping with His Holy nature, planned before the creation to make salivation available to all as a matter of grace. In the beginning, He chose to be an elector, not a selector.

When I choose which fruit to buy, I check the ripeness of avocados by squeezing them, watermelons by thumping them, and cantaloupes by sniffing them. My selections are based of relevant differences in the fruit.

Compared to the glory of God, there are no relevant differences among people. All have sinned. All have fallen short. All have earned their due wages of death. There is no righteous act one can perform to earn salvation. There is no basis for God to make a selection. Without more, salvation would be an arbitrary and capricious act. There is more -- election, salvation by grace offered to all.

When I vote in a general election, I go straight ticket - one punch of the ballot (or touch of the screen), and I cast my vote for every candidate of a particular party. An opponent may very well be better qualified for the office -- I don't care about qualifications, just whether the candidates chose to be part of my political family. It's my vote, my sovereign choice.

Same with God -- it is His sovereign choice that the elect be those who have chosen to be part of His family. As a matter of grace, and for the same reason that He elects and does not select, He extends faith to all people to accept His son as Lord and Savior, to be part of His family. Those who reject the offer retain the wages of their sin.

To get to hell, not only must one earn one's way, but must also tear up a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card along the way. Or God is just arbitrary and capricious.

So what effect will Calvinism have in my Baptist life? I will not be part of a church that entertains for the briefest of moments the whiff of a notion that God is Arbitrary and Capricious.

In defense of my Calvinist friends, who I'm shock have not bothered to defend themselves, all Christians believe in predestination. Why? Its in the Bible. Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:5, 1:11

The question is what does predestined mean. I believe God predestines on the basis of his knowledge of the future/ who will accept his Son through previnent grace.

Lastly, let me say this. Calvinist win these debates because they use the Bible to argue their cause. Non-Calvinist use philosophical arguments. Guess what, to young people who have never heard this debate the Bible quoter always wins. Argue with Calvinists using scripture not cute analogies.

RE “The first Baptists opposed Calvinism…”

This is a misleading statement. Yes, in the early 1600’s the first Baptists were General Baptists, but within one generation Particular Baptists were also present.

Early Baptists were influenced by Anabaptists in the Netherlands so it is not surprising that they would accept the theology of the Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius. However, “Calvinistic Baptists… seem to have arisen among the underground congregations of London in the 1630’s.”*

Baptists are neither Arminian, nor Calvinist; or, to put it positively, Baptists are an unspecified mixture of Jacob Arminius and John Calvin. To indicate otherwise is not being fair to the historical record.

I note that many of the current ABP opinion articles are about Baptists finding their way in the 21st century. Why have Baptists lost their way? Could it be because “Calvinism began to fade from Baptist life, and for more than a century now most Baptists have not been Calvinists” – could this be the reason?

Greg

*Extract from the Introduction to A History of the English Baptists, Volume 1, by B.R. White (The Baptist Historical Society, 1983)

GregF wrote:

RE “The first Baptists opposed Calvinism…”
This is a misleading statement. Yes, in the early 1600’s the first Baptists were General Baptists, but within one generation Particular Baptists were also present.

You only make Prof. Humphreys' point. His full quote there is:

The first Baptists opposed Calvinism, but soon Calvinism entered Baptist life...

You'll note that in the earliest confession of faith from John Smyth (A Short Confession of Faith in XX Articles), he specifically stated:

...God has created and redeemed the human race to His own image, and has ordained all men (no one being reprobated) to life.

But Fisher Humphreys also wrote:

...and for more than a century now most Baptists have not been Calvinists.

He supposes too much here. First, how does he know? Have most Baptist ever been polled? Second, have most Baptists decided whether or not they are Calvinist? Third, have most Baptists been taught enough about Calvinism to make an informed rather than emotional decision? The sad truth of the matter is more likely that for more than a century now most Baptists have not known enough about the Bible and theology to know whether or not they are Calvinist; it's more likely that most Baptists experienced the same kind of teaching I did in which Calvinism was always portrayed in a negative light, but never explained, and Calvinists -- at least the Baptist ones -- were evil, anti-Christian false teachers (the Presbyterian Calvinists were okay).

But taking Prof. Humphreys' pattern of logic, one might also observe that:
* The first Baptists were confessional, and Baptists continued to be confessional throughout their history until the last half-century, when some become anti-confessional;
* The first Baptists were not modernists -- they did not elevate the so-called "essence of Christianity," "soul-freedom," "freedom in Christ," or even the "Priesthood of [the/all] Believer(s)" over the authority of Scripture;
* The first Baptists did not affrim women in pastoral ministry;
* The first Baptists did not affrim homosexuality;
* etc.

What does that mean?

And [how] have the pro "freedom-of-thought" Baptists responded to the persecution of Calvinist Baptist Pastors, as Prof. Humphreys observed:

Usually (but not always) this takes the form of a congregation becoming distressed when it discovers that its pastor is a Calvinist. Some congregations have dismissed their Calvinistic pastors; in other congregations numerous members have left upon discovering their pastor’s Calvinism.

Have they been defended or defamed, have they been ministered to or maligned, have they been supported or supplanted?

And regarding Calvinist's evangelical zeal, Prof. Humphreys observed:

...they have other motives for doing evangelism. They evangelize because Christ commanded it, because it brings glory to God, and because they enjoy doing it. The Calvinistic Baptists I know are committed to evangelism and missions. Still, unless they are able to replace the motive they take away (“we can make a difference!”) with other motives, resurgent Calvinists could undermine Baptists’ evangelism and missions.

Two things Humphreys neglects to mention: 1) the modern missions movement among Baptists was initiated by Calvinists and is unlikely to be abandoned because of the next point; 2) the main motive among Calvinists for evangelism and missions is that God has ordained that those who will be saved shall do so through the preaching of His Word:

For "whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." How then will they call on Him in Whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him Whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? (Romans 10:13-15)

The clearest statement in Scripture for the Calvinist position is this:

...though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to [Rebekkah], "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says 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 does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. (Romans 9:11-24)

Oh, if only it were that easy. Yes, there are passages in the Bible that seem to indicate that God has pre-ordained who is going to be saved and who is going to be damned. But non-Calvinists would argue there are far more passages of the John 3:16 type that indicate Jesus came to save the WHOLE WORLD, not just the elect. I could list them out, but what is the point? Well, the point is that we all must approach Biblical exegesis with humility. Some people by nature seem to be drawn more to the "elective" themes in the Bible, while others are drawn more to the verses that speak of more universal salvation. BOth groups interpret the verses that counter their own position in such a way that they explain away the apparent contradiction. (I say apparent because of course the Bible contains no contradictions, but our understanding of it often does!) This is nothing new. The problem occurs when people decide their own exegesis is superior to all others, and that only those who share their interpretation are true believers...when the only condition for being a true believer is the one given by Christ Himself: confess Him as Lord. By all means, continue to discuss whether God is a Calvinist or Arminian, but remember that proponents of both sides are equally Christian.

Also, may I just add that I think those of use who are comfortable with paradox are less likely to get up in arms one way or the other. I can accept with no intellectual discord that God can simultaneoulsy be fully sovereign and yet allow humans free will, at least in the choice of whether or not to choose Christ. In human terms those things might seem contradictory, but we are talking about God, the alpha and the omega. Also, I can also accept that we can simulatneously be totally depraved and yet have the God-given ability to choose Christ, through the grace of our Lord Jesus. God created us according to His own plan, and thus what seems paradoxical to human logic is not a problem for God, because he is not constrained to only act in ways that are "logical". Logic is a human construct.

Chapters 9-11 of Romans is Paul's explanation concerning God's setting aside - for a time - His chosen people, the Jews, to save the Gentiles. The election described in these three chapters is corporate and not individual, and any analogies -- such as Jacob and Esau or Moses and Pharoaoh -- must be read in that context. To interpret any text of these three chapters outside the context established by Paul could result in a dangerous pretext limiting the extent of God's grace.

Did not Paul also write that God our Savior desires all men be saved? That Christ offered himself a ransom for all? Paul further writes that he was appointed preacher and apostle to teach these truths to the Gentiles. Point blank scripture. No analogies. All means all -- nothing to interpret, nothing to explain.


"I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion," quoted by Paul, is part of his argument that nothing binds God from extending His grace to Gentiles, as He predestined before laying the foundations of the earth.

The Good News is that God extends his Grace to All -- as he planned in the beginning. It is that simple. Anything more is of man not God.

kash wrote:

Also, may I just add that I think those of use who are comfortable with paradox are less likely to get up in arms one way or the other.

Amen.

I might say this, though: the author doesn't clearly answer the question raised by the headline, "What are the consequences of resurgent Baptist Calvinism?" Prof. Fisher Humpreys points out two very positive implications, a difficult challenge, and an irrational fear.

The two positive consequences are: 1) restoration of a sense of the value of theology; and 2) refocusing of worship on its true object: God. These are important contributions in an age when theology is seen as tedious and impratical, and when worship seems to be increasingly narcissistic and anthropocentric.

The difficult challenge Humphreys observes, although he fails to use the word, is the very real persecution of Calvinist ministers. How will opponents of Calvinism respond? How should Baptists respond? With their emphasis on "freedom of thought/freedom of conscience" and ministering to the oppressed and persecuted, the response of at least moderates and liberals should be clear.

And regarding the fear of a possible, but historically improbable, loss of evangelistic zeal, since history has proven this fear to be unfounded, how will Baptists respond?

Will Baptists allow an unfounded fear to drive them to persecute those who would lead them to a more God-focused, Christ-centered worship and a deeper theology?

This is my first time visiting the ABP website. I look forward to returning and reading more when I have more time.

For now, let me just point out that Jimmy Akin's The Salvation Controversy offers a very compelling Catholic perspective on these issues.

The perspicuity and temperate language (regrettably lacking in my earlier writings -- sorry!) of Kash and pjerwin have refocused my attention on the visceral dread with which a resurgent Calvinism causes me. I see yet another spurious theological war on the far horizon, a war fomented not for the sake of the gospel but for fundamentalist hegemony. And in its approach I hear the death knell of the SBC.

There is much to be admired and appreciated in Calvin's Institutes. Quite frankly, I imagine that the vast majority of Baptists would find less than 10% of his treatise objectionable, mostly the stuff about shallow water and infant baptisms. Even in matters of soteriology, almost all Baptists accept the T-U-P part of Calvinism's T-U-L-I-P. It's the L-I in the middle that is problematic.

And that is a shame. Calvin's description of election and his defense based on God's sovereignty leaves a cold and calculating impression of Calvin. (The burning of Servetus doesn't help, either). We lose the sense of piety found in such sections as Paragraph 7, of Chapter 7, of Part IX, of Book III concerning self-denial, the admonition that we must put ourselves in the place of those who need assistance and sympathize with them as though theirs was our own misfortune.

Worse, what does this little bit of supposed "orthodoxy" -- limited atonement and irresistible grace -- add to our orthopraxy? Why even write of it?

Because Calvin was engaged in the Reformation/Protestant struggle with the Church and his magnus opus, while a Godsend for the training of new converts, was also his great remonstrance of the Roman Catholic Church for the abuses in its teachings and practices in his day. The fundamentals of the Reformation's engagement - the five solas - rejected the Church's usurpation of God's sovereignty. Calvin went to great lengths to deny the Church any claim of any share of God's sovereignty.

Who has a problem ascribing the complete act of salvation to God's sovereignty? No Baptist whom I know. But some Baptists may claim that
to even posit that a sinner can choose to place his faith in Christ, even a faith provided by God as a matter of grace, is tantamount to a works type salvation and thus a denial of God's absolute sovereignty.

We could, as suggested by both Kash and pjerwin, leave it there. But we won't. We will fight. It will be thrust upon us by the keepers of God. And the reasons given will, once again, be silly. And the real goal will, once again, be about control. First, it was inerrancy, then the Faith and Message, and now Calvinism.

Those who serve a God Who lets the individual accept or reject God's gift of salvation realize that no one can make the decision for the unbeliever -- not his mother or father, brother or sister, not his wife or children, not even his pastor. And If God, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe, is willing to let the individual decide the eternal destination of his soul, then the rest of us, including the pastor, ought to let him make his own decisions about most anything else, including matters of God. That the individual's freedom is to be exercised under the Lordship of Jesus Christ goes without saying, but it is still the individual's freedom to decide as granted by God.

What can be said of those, however, who believe they -- and they alone -- are the Chosen ones (well, there is Romans 11 for the Jews), who at the beginning of Creation were predestined by God for salvation come hell or high water, and that any decision on their part was merely illusory? The most important decision a person can make concerning his eternal situation, and he has no effective voice in the matter. And if one has no say in one’s eternal destiny, why should one have much of a say about anything else of God? How long before a group of more God-focused, Christ-centered worshippers and deep-thinking theologians – you know, like a group of presbyters -- start making decisions for the lesser educated and weaker thinking brothers and sisters in Christ? How long before not only actions but also thoughts are considered orthodox or heretical based on a man-made creed? How long before the Chosen begin acting like the previously Chosen? Not long I wager.

How is this new covenant different than the former? Righteousness was then determined by keeping the commandments – which no on could. The Law made one aware of one’s need of salvation. But how can the Calvinist know he has been saved, that he has been chosen and has not simply deluded himself, if his voice in the matter is really no voice? -- by keeping the commandments! If out of love, then he has been chosen; if as proof of salvation, the delusion continues. The situation of the poor Calvinist reminds me of an old adage: “If you want a man to know the time, give him a watch; give him two if you don’t want him to know.” At least the Jew with his Law knew he was a sinner; on this Earth, the Calvinist can never be sure if he is sinner or saint.

And of course since God is sovereign, this is all hunky-dory. What does He care if the Gospel is being preached, whether from pride or as a self-delusional proof, as long as it is being preached. He previously accomplished His purpose through a talking ass. Why not a self-deluded “Calvinist”?

As stated, limited atonement and irresistible grace add nothing to orthopraxy, but it does harm orthodoxy. It will destroy what fragile unity is left. Inevitably, the sovereignty of God will rub off on those who most earnestly defend it and another purging will take place. (Remember Servetus – and all that was at stake, other than poor Servetus, was whether Trinitarians knew how to count). It is not the persecution of Calvinist ministers one needs to worry about, but whether the Calvinist in the pulpit is an overseer or an overlord. One need only look to the particular Baptist seminaries training these Calvinist ministers to glean the likely answer.

Oh, brother or sister "Oro Lee," as I read your post, I could sense the mounting visceral dread in your heart. It's difficult for me to understand how the clear, lucid, easy to understand (perspicuous) language and the moderate and self-restrained manner Kash and I exercised in our posts could lead you to such depths of anger and fear so as to write:

He previously accomplished His purpose through a talking ass. Why not a self-deluded “Calvinist”?

Who is fomenting a war? If a war is being fomented it is out of the fear of a "fundamentalist hegemony." Folks are placing so much emphasis on what they can conceive of happening... maybe... someday... what they fear might happen, when in reality there's 500 years of history to look to.

...It will destroy what fragile unity is left. Inevitably, the sovereignty of God will rub off on those who most earnestly defend it and another purging will take place.

Have these fears of Calvinism been realized in the least in 500 years? No. There have been Calvinists in the SBC from the beginning, but in the nearly 165 years of the SBC's existance has it led to its death, has it even made the SBC gasp for breath? These are unfounded, irrational fears.

I've also noticed a formula (apparent in your use of "fundamentalist hegemony") in these kinds of discussions: Calvinist = Fundamentalist. Think about that for a minute: Presbyterian and Reformed Churches are based on Calvinist theology, yet PC(USA) is among the most liberal denominations in America. "Calvinist" does not equal "fundamentalist." It's amazing how quickly the "freedom of thought," "freedom of conscience," "freedom of interpretation" crowd reverses its direction, advocating freedom only for some.

...almost all Baptists accept the T-U-P part of Calvinism's T-U-L-I-P. It's the L-I in the middle that is problematic.

Remember, though, that these "five points of Calvinism" were a response to the five points of the Arminian Ramonstrance, a summary of the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism, not a full and complete summation of Calvin's theology. Calvin never used the model himself. In other words, there's more to Calvin than meets the T-U-L-I-P.

Who has a problem ascribing the complete act of salvation to God's sovereignty? No Baptist whom I know. But some Baptists may claim that to even posit that a sinner can choose to place his faith in Christ, even a faith provided by God as a matter of grace, is tantamount to a works type salvation and thus a denial of God's absolute sovereignty.

Well, some Baptists may (and do) claim many things that are aberrant theology; that means little. But you'll probably find that Calvinists are more inclined to understand it as God's sovereignty and man's God-given faith working together.

Calvin's description of election and his defense based on God's sovereignty leaves a cold and calculating impression of Calvin... We lose the sense of piety found in such sections as Paragraph 7, of Chapter 7, of Part IX, of Book III concerning self-denial, the admonition that we must put ourselves in the place of those who need assistance and sympathize with them as though theirs was our own misfortune.

Perhaps you need to read it in the context of the whole work -- and include what he wrote in his commentaries and sermons. You get a sense of Calvin's piety and compassion there, but here you posit a cold and calculating personality. Is this all from the same person? Then perhaps you're misreading it.

What can be said of those, however, who believe they -- and they alone -- are the Chosen ones... How long before a group of more God-focused, Christ-centered worshippers and deep-thinking theologians –- you know, like a group of presbyters -- start making decisions for the lesser educated and weaker thinking brothers and sisters in Christ? How long before not only actions but also thoughts are considered orthodox or heretical based on a man-made creed? How long before the Chosen begin acting like the previously Chosen? Not long I wager.

It hasn't happened in 5 centuries, so how long is "not long?" This is a gross caricature of Calvinists.

How is this new covenant different than the former? Righteousness was then determined by keeping the commandments – which no on could.

Calvinists believe, along with Scripture's teaching, that "Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Jas. 2:23; c.f. Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3); that "Noah... became an heir of the righteousness which is by faith" (Heb. 11:7); that for all those in the "roll call of faith" in Hebrews 11 "having gained approval through their faith..."; "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval" (Hebrews 11:1-2), which is the same as today, for we do not have a righteousness of our own that comes from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ -- the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith" (Php. 3:9): "For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law," but the Law was not given to impart life (Gal. 3:21).

But how can the Calvinist know he has been saved, that he has been chosen and has not simply deluded himself, if his voice in the matter is really no voice? -- by keeping the commandments! If out of love, then he has been chosen; if as proof of salvation, the delusion continues. The situation of the poor Calvinist...

Again, your fear and anger have blinded you. For Calvinist or non-Calvinist, is it about "knowing" or having faith? (BTW, 1 John 5:1-13 speaks to just what you ask here.)

It is not the persecution of Calvinist ministers one needs to worry about, but whether the Calvinist in the pulpit is an overseer or an overlord. One need only look to the particular Baptist seminaries training these Calvinist ministers to glean the likely answer.

A "likely answer" is not so convincing as a present reality. "Overlords" do not last long in any pulpit today. This is merely anti-Calvinist rhetoric, mythology, or propaganda. And in regard to the "particular Baptist seminaries" (an interesting [unintended?] pun), you speak of that which you do not know. No one is being force-fed Calvinism, there is no Calvinist inquisition.

You're dealing with irrational fears.

Fellow traveler pjerwin, my goodness you are quick on the draw and, unfortunately for me, of steady aim and sure of shot. I have (perhaps we have) conflated two separate matters. First is the theological debate centered on the L-I of Five Point Calvinism's (Neo-Calvinim's?) T-U-L-I-P. While interesting, it is nothing over which I would choose to cross swords or split a church. And I'm not sure this debatable theological matter will have any significant impact on Baptist life. It doesn't (nor should it) affect what we do. Yours and Kash's sentiment on the matter are also mine (which might not please you to know).

The theological debate is of minor (if any) importance. The other matter, wherein danger lurks, is the political. I truly believe a part of the Fundamentalist element of the SBC will use the theological debate as an excuse to solidify control and influence over competing Fundamentalist elements in the convention. The feature which will distinguish this brouhaha from those beginning in the early 1970s (NB: when you write of 500 years you refer to a true theological debate; my time frame is limited to late 20th century SBC politics), will be its internecine character, a battle between those who have all been rightly admitted to the Fundamentalist's ranks.

Why select Calvinism as their stalking horse? Soveriegnty; well, God's sovereignty (at first). Sovereignty is power. Those tasked with protecting God's sovereignty must be imbued with power to do so. The importance of such defense certainly warrants a large measure of power. The large measure of power will remain after the threat is vanquished. Control is all that will remain. I am not presenting a theological or political argument, I am simply predicting an outcome based on prior acts of the last quarter century. Time will tell.

Irrational? Yes, I think so. Maybe, pathologically so. And probable.

Am I angry? I was at some of the things that have happend in the SBC these past 25 years. Now I'm to the point that I'm just dismayed that the same old thing keeps repeating itself. I hope to graduate to bemused soon.

That's the political; now the theological.

Am I anti-Calvinist? Absolutely not. I wished I had written the Institutes. Do I equate Calvinism with Fundamentalism? No, I equate it with control - whether for liberal or conservative purposes makes no difference. All a like minded group needs is to manuever itself into the position of knowing and protecting God's sovereign choices, e.g., PC(USA).

But I really dislike L-I. Convince me that L-I suggests anything but an arbitrary and capricious God. Calvin tacitly admitted as much by focusing on God's sovereignty (although I think developing an anti-Catholic theology influenced the product). Who am I, Calvin would say to me, to argue with God? He could have made me a dog instead of a man, so what's my gripe that Christ's atonement does not cover me? I don't hear the dog griping that it wasn't made a man, do I? So God is arbitrary and capricious - get over it.

I grew up in a home where love and comfort, pain and punishment, forgiveness and penalty, nurture and violence, promises and lies, all seemed meted out in large extent on an arbitrary and capricious basis. I remember the anxiety, the insecurity, the fear that becomes one's constant companions. Your only companions besides anger. Anger at being helpless. And loneliness. There are no relations - no good relations - without trust. Five decades later I remember, and I know even now -- right now -- the pain and tears such memories still cause, the trust issues that still complicate my life and limit my joy, and the hell I would still be living if not for my Christ, my Church, and my wife and kids.

And the whiff, the mere whiff, of the notion that God is Arbitrary and Capricious in His Grace threatens it all.

More points to follow . . . but not tonight.



And I didn't mean anything personal by the talking ass remark.


And yes, the pun was intentional -- good catch!


And I do appreciate the graciousness displayed throughout this thread which I, of course, believe should be extended to all.

Having noted the lack of response to this article from my fellow SBC Calvinists, I decided I would register for an account here so I can speak up on several items. Let me say at the outset that I am grateful for Dr. Humphreys' gracious and gentle handling of this perceptually divisive issue. Most of the rhetoric surrounding the resurgence of Calvinism in the SBC has been coarse and vitriolic over the past 10 years. It is refreshing to see someone with a different view that my own treating the question fairly and graciously.

Having said that, I must take issue with some of the claims made in this article. I fully understand that this article is merely a summary of an issue that spans more than 400 years of denominational history and more than 5,000 years of theological history. I certainly do not expect Dr. Humphreys to fully evidence the claims he is making. However, he should avoid making claims that contradict widely known theological facts about Calvinism.

For example, in the article Dr. Humphreys make the following statement: "Some Christians think that Calvinism is a matter of degree, but in fact you either are a Calvinist or you aren’t. If you think that in eternity God sovereignly predestined some people for salvation and not others, then you are a Calvinist; if you do not think this, you are not a Calvinist." I am sure Dr. Humphreys is well aware that there are at least three major soteriological categories within Calvinism: Infralapsarianism, Supralapsarianism, and Hyper-Calvinism. While the "supra's" and "Hyper's" both hold to the view that God elects some to justification and the rest to condemnation, the "infra's" believe that while God elects some to justification, the rest are condemned by their own sin and and not merely by God's election.

Furthermore, Supra's & Infra's wholly embrace evangelism as not only a command of our Saviour, but also as a consummate expression of worship to the glory of God. Hyper's, on the other hand, reject any notion of evangelism because, in their view, the elect will be saved regardless of any human effort. In essense they reject the idea that faith comes only by the preached Word of Christ as outlined in Romans 10:14.

These distinctions may seem like mere nuances to the uninitiated, however the difference between these three branches of Calvinism are profound and have resulted in major denominational splits.

Dr. Humphreys goes on to observe, "...for more than a century now most Baptists have not been Calvinists." While this statement may be statistically accurate, it fails to take into account the fact that for more than a half-century now most Baptists have not even been Baptists. Liberalism, Universalism, Church Growth and Seeker-Friendly movements have all served to completely water down the strong Biblically-based, Gospel-centered preaching that characterized Baptist preaching for the first 3.5 centuries of our history. I dare say that if you surveyed the average Baptist in the pew to name one distinctive other than baptism by immersion that distinguishes Baptists from other denominations you would get a lot of blank stares!!!

So to compare the relative number of baptist Calvinists to the number of baptist non-Calvinists is truly and apples and oranges comparison.

Dr. Humphreys then makes this very bold conclusion: "Obviously, Calvinists don’t believe that such human effort can make a difference in who God chooses to save." This statement surprised me actually. I am sure as a Baptist historian Dr. Humphreys would fully acknowledge that many of the great Baptist and Congregationalist evangelists of years past were confessed Calvinists. Men like William Carey, Jeremiah Burroughs, Thomas Hooker, John Cotton, Matthew Poole, Thomas Watson, Stephen Charnock, Roger Williams, John Clarke, Jonathan Edwards, and of course our own beloved Charles Spurgeon, who is widely know for his statement "Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else." All of these men, by their preaching and their actions, demonstrated their firm conviction that the preached Word by humans is the means by which God chooses to regenerate and impart faith and grace to enable the elect to believe.

Finally, Dr. Humphreys proclaims, "Still, unless they are able to replace the motive they take away (“we can make a difference!”) with other motives, resurgent Calvinists could undermine Baptists’ evangelism and missions." The reason that this motive is removed by Calvinism, I would humbly suggest, is that nowhere in scripture are we commanded to evangelize from this motive. Clearly, we ARE commanded to evangelize, but the motive is out of loving obedience to God's command for the glory of God.

Roger Williams... a Calvinist? Why, you've rocked their world. Thank you for your contributions, kingofbleh. But I'm not so sure that Prof. Humphreys has "treat[ed] the question fairly and graciously," especially in light of some of the things you've pointed out, after all, he is a specialist in Christian Theology, and perhaps to a slightly lesser degree, in Church History.

You write: "...for more than a half-century now most Baptists have not even been Baptists... I dare say that if you surveyed the average Baptist in the pew to name one distinctive other than baptism by immersion that distinguishes Baptists from other denominations you would get a lot of blank stares." Last evening as members of the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches gathered for our annual Bible study (we're studying 1 Corinthians), I pointed to this very thing in relation all of our congregations. I asked, "I wonder how many of us in the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches are members because of doctrinal agreement and how many because of some level of sentimentality -- some significant relationship with members of the church or some significant life experience?" The fact of the matter is, most of these folks could not point out more than one difference between our churches' doctrines.

In response to Oro Lee, let me say that I empathize with your family experience. It is likely that out of your woundedness you tend to respond to any circumstance that conjures up similar feelings of isolation, unfairness, etc. with anxiety and even anger. You should take the advice of Calvin at the very beginning of his Institutes and do some introspective work there, for we cannot truly know God unless we truly know ourselves, just as we cannot truly know ourselves unless we know God. I say this from personal experience. It's hard work, very daunting, and very easily avoided, to one's own detriment, but the freedom that Christ offers as one engages in this deeply honest discipline is worth every effort. But don't seek to do it only by yourself, for we are given to insidious self-deception; no this requires community -- at least one other person to act as a sort of "spiritual director" to help you keep in touch with reality.

I would, however, also point out that the last quarter century is no measure with regard to control. If you'll widen your perspective just a little, you'll recall that it was events from just 100 years ago, the turn of the previous century, that gave rise to our present circumstances as modernism began to manifest itself. There were stops and starts as various groups responded to the ramifications of this modernism, giving rise to fundamentalism (which bore little resemblance to the current caricature of fundamentalism), the fundamentalism of Carl F.H. Henry, A.W. Tozer, etc. For nearly three-quarters of a century modernists to one degree or another controlled Baptist institutions -- at least that was the perception -- and the movement of the last quarter century was a response to that. The issue of control is a matter of perception -- control wasn't an issue for moderates and liberals until someone else took their control.

And this Calvinism debate is probably not so much a "stalking horse" for one side as it is a "whipping boy" or a scapegoat or a red herring for the other.

But regarding the sense many have of Calvin's theology that the God he describes is arbitrary and capricious, remember that God "elects" and "decides," he doesn't cast lots. He didn't cast lots in His election of Israel out of all the nations; He didn't cast lots in His election of David over all his brothers; trace it though all of the instances when God elected one person or family or nation over another/others. He did it for a reason, His reasons, reasons that are higher and nobler than ours, for He does not look on the outside, but the inside, and He is no "respecter of persons." This is among the things described as the mysteries of God. It is hard for us to kick against the goads; let it be what it is.

I agree with Calvin, and Augustine who pioneered the key insights that Calvin drew from, on several of his interpretations of the Bible with a focus on Paul's epistles. I agree that people are in a fallen condition and have turned away from God to the point that they are spiritually dead until they are touched by the Holy Spirit. I agree that God is sovereign and is in complete control of human affairs, human history, and the natural world. This truth entails that God controls all events that lead to human suffering including tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, disease, etc. In other words, God actively brings and wills human suffering. God has a purpose in what he does at all times, but God does things that most people find would horrific if they considered the full ramifications of God's sovereignty. The Calvinist is particularly good at providing an explanation and justification for the pain that we experience. The justification is that God commits no injustice in bringing about human suffering because we have sinned and God is within his moral rights to inflict suffering on us even if we have done nothing in particular that is egregiously wrong to merit punishment. If we trust in God through our pain, then he will be actively involved in bringing us through whatever the circumstances are. The pain he inflicts on us will have particular meaning to each person. God will build a deeper relationship with the individual who responds properly to what God is doing in that person's life as trust and faith develop more deeply.

A related truth recognized by Calvinists is that God will "stick with" the person who trusts Jesus as Savior no matter what. This is the strength of Calvin's insights on the "perseverance of the saints." No matter what we do in the short-run, if we have accepted Jesus as Savior, God holds on to us regardless of what we do or fail to do. This point is the key weakness of the Arminian view that Christians can lose their salvation and that we must strive toward perfection to avoid losing our salvation. Of course, in the process of sanctification, God might very well inflict catastrophic, but temporary, pain on a back-slidden Christian to bring the Christian back into closer relationship with him.

So, while I agree with much of the thrust of Calvinism and appreciate the deeper, and to me, more satisfying accounts of human suffering and security of salvation, I believe that Calvin made certain unwarranted assumptions that underlie the more disturbing implications of his theology. The most alarming of Calvin's interpretation of biblical teachings is his views of Providence and predestination. Calvin assumes that because God is sovereign over his creation and predestines individuals' eternal lives, then he must necessarily enter the causal stream shaping the universe as he strictly determines the will of each person. Of course, God could do that but from numerous biblical passages we can gather that he does not do so, even though the wording of other passages seem to imply that he does just that.

One bit of confusion that is at play here is that God is both inside the temporal structure of the universe and outside it simultaneously (if that word is even appropriate here). William James presents a version of what I suspect is pretty close to how God views the temporal order. James terms this view as the "block universe" in which the entire history of the universe is in place all at once. This view is to be contrasted with the way that we perceive the passage of time as a flowing stream. James then proceeds to make a similar error that I think plagues Calvin. James believes that if everything is strictly settled from God's viewpoint, then nothing that we do makes any difference, so there is no free will.

There are three interrelated errors in James', and I suspect Calvin's, analysis on this point. The first is that just because God knows how the entire universe fits together and how everything will work out does not entail that God caused it to come out that way. I know what happened yesterday in the news and those events are forever fixed, but I did not cause them to occur. The other mistake is to assume that just because things turned out the way that I expected and am satisfied with must mean that I directly caused them to turn out that way. That is does not have to be the case. I want my team to win the game as I watch them on TV, and they win, and I am consequently satisfied with the outcome, but I did not cause the game to turn out a certain way. Again, I now know the outcome and the final score is forever locked into place, but I did not cause the game to turn out as it did. The third problem with James' analysis is that even if we go further and assume an omnipotent and omniscient actor's participation in the event, say a football game, does not entail that such an actor strictly determined the outcome of the event. For example, if the coach of one of the teams knows the plays of the other side and can consistently call plays that exploit his opponent's weaknesses, then there is no need for some sort of mind control for the omniscient coach to win and win by a certain score that he desires. We could even push this analogy further and imagine that the omniscient and omnipotent coach could mentally suggest plays to the opposing coach that he knew the opposing coach would find promising but would end in failure. Merely presenting thoughts to someone either audibly or through some sort of telepathy does not violate the free will of the person considering the suggestion and then choosing to act on the suggestion.

Consider I Kings 22:19-23 where God sent a lying spirit to the false prophets to lure Ahab into attacking the Arameans who God knew would kill Ahab. Micaiah the true prophet even clearly warned Ahab what was going on. Ahab still refused to listen to Micaiah whom God had revealed the source of the false prophets' predictions. All of these exhortations were presented to Ahab and he chose to act as he did. God did not take over his mind at any point but the biblical text recounts that Micaiah clearly warned Ahab that "the Lord has decreed disaster for you."

The key issue in debates over free will is a purely hypothetical, but crucial one. That issue is this: could an agent have done otherwise? Could a Ahab have listened to Micaiah and called off his attack? In point of fact, he did not. God knew that he would not. But could he have acted other than he did? I do not see why he could not have chosen to listen to God speaking through Micaiah. There was nothing compelling him to attack. There is every reason to believe that Ahab was in full command of his will. But given his inclinations and his character, God knew that he would act as he did. He also knew what had already happened from his divine perspective. But God did not cause Ahab to act foolishly. Ahab hypothetically could have acted differently than he so chose. I do not see any reason to challenge this possibility, and that is what we are talking about with freedom of the will, possibility.

One might respond and say that if everything is already settled from God's block universe perspective, then in what sense does our will play any part at all. This line of argument confuses the two perspectives, the God's eye, block universe perspective and the limited human stream of time perspective. The reason that things turned out the way that they did was not because they were decreed that way before time began and then time started followed by God forcing people in disregard of their will to do as he had decreed already. This line of thinking is what I suspect that Calvinists slip into. But it is flawed since the block universe is not the same as the flow of time perspective. These two conceptions of time and space are both equally real but work on different tracks, so to speak. In effect, the Calvinist conflates them and sees time only from the flowing perspective. He then wrongly considers that the only way that God could work his eternal will is to override temporal actors wills and cause them to act in the prescribed way. But it is entirely possible that God knows the outcome and brings it about from an eternal perspective without in any way violating the free will of any human agent as the human lives his life within the temporal stream that God has placed him/her within.

It is easy to confuse these two perspectives on the same course of events. I believe that not only the Calvinist makes this slip in reasoning, but so does William James in arguing against the block universe in his defense of free will. But James is correct in saying from his own personal experience in reacting against his father's Calvinism, that some people given their temperament will become demoralized and fail to act in the moment if they believe that the outcome is already decided. This is the danger that Dr. Humphreys is concerned about in regard to evangelism and missions. Again, the problem that James himself falls into is accepting the confusion that the Calvinist has created by confusing the eternal and temporal perspectives. If we keep in mind the difference, then we can retain God's omnipotence, omniscience, and human free will.

Bah, my church emphasizes both views. My pastor leans toward Calvinism and I toward Arminianism.

Finally, Dr. Humphreys proclaims, "Still, unless they are able to replace the motive they take away (“we can make a difference!”) with other motives, resurgent Calvinists could undermine Baptists’ evangelism and missions." The reason that this motive is removed by Calvinism, I would humbly suggest, is that nowhere in scripture are we commanded to evangelize from this motive. Clearly, we ARE commanded to evangelize, but the motive is out of loving obedience to God's command for the glory of God.

It's never explicitly stated either way... The implication is that that more intuitive "we can make a difference!" is true.