What I Wish My IFB Brethren Knew About the Calvinism/Arminianism Debate (Part 5)

 

    This is the fifth and final installment in this series (read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4). In this series, I have been confronting the egregious arguments against Calvinism and the subsequent slander of our Calvinist brothers posted regularly by IFB pastors online (Arminianism as well, although the brunt of the fire is aimed at Calvinism, so the thrust of my arguments have gone there as well). 

    As an Independent Baptist pastor, my goal in this series is not necessarily to champion either of these positions, but to expose the terrible arguments against them. Only when we get rid of terrible arguments fueled by unhinged bias can we have civil and productive dialogue among brothers. This is my goal, unity through edification. It’s time to deal with our final strawman. 

Strawman #5: Baptists have never been Calvinists (worded another way, Baptist Churches have never been Calvinistic in their doctrine). 

    To be clear, church history should never be our final authority for faith and practice; that throne only belongs to the Bible. However, church history is important because it can give us great insight into how our Christian predecessors interpreted the Bible. If our churches are preaching and teaching things that can’t be found anywhere in the annals of church history, it’s probably because our doctrine can’t be found in the pages of the Bible either. As the old adage says, “If it’s new, it’s not true, and if it’s true, it’s not new.”

    Church history is important because it discourages churches and leaders from doing their own thing. This is something that all cults have in common: they ignore Biblical doctrine and church history so they can do their own thing. Church history will force groups like this to answer the question, “Why didn’t any of our Christian ancestors teach or practice those things?” It places the burden of proof on them to explain why they are right and all Christians everywhere for the past 2,000 years were wrong. 

    In the same vein, if a particular church group or denomination does an about-face on a key Biblical doctrine, the burden of proof is on them to explain how and why they came to that conclusion that led them to go against nearly two millennia of church teaching on that particular issue. This particular point will be most relevant to the discussion about what Baptists have historically taught concerning salvation. 

Baptist Churches Have Never Been Calvinistic? 

    To be fair, many people who make this claim probably mean that Independent Baptist churches have never been Calvinistic. However, we will deal with both of these claims individually because they are laden with problems. Let’s first address the claim that Baptists in general are not Calvinists.  

    It needs to be stated up front that, due to the autonomous nature of Baptist churches, it is impossible to throw a blanket over every Baptist congregation that has ever existed and speak for them concerning the specifics of their soteriology. However, we can show what the majority of Baptist churches have historically taught concerning salvation. Bold claim alert: the overwhelming majority of Baptist churches were Calvinist prior to the 1900s. In fact, there were so many Baptist Calvinists of yesteryear that, instead of listing examples, it would save me a lot of time to simply state that it would be almost impossible to name a well-known Baptist pastor or missionary prior to the 1900s who wasn’t a Calvinist (Google it). Church historian Thomas Nettles writes, 

“The particular focus of this book draws attention to soteriology in Baptist life. The writer’s thesis is that Calvinism, popularly called the Doctrines of Grace, prevailed in the most influential and enduring arenas of Baptist denominational life until the end of the second decade of the twentieth century, and that for the past seventy years, both negligence and rejection have taken their toll upon the Baptist understanding of and -even more- commitment to those truths that Baptists once held dear.” (Thomas J. Nettles, By His Grace and for His Glory: A Historical, Theological and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life (Baker, Grand Rapids, 1986) 13.)

    Thomas Kidd writes, 

“In a 1793 survey, early Baptist historian John Asplund estimated that there were 1,032 Baptist churches in America. Out of those, 956 were Calvinist congregations. These were “Particular Baptists,” for they believed in a definite atonement (or “particular redemption”), that Christ had died to save the elect decisively. “General Baptists,” who believed that Christ had died indefinitely for the sins of anyone who would choose him, accounted for a tiny fraction of the whole. Even some of those, Asplund noted, believed in certain Calvinist tenets such as “perseverance in grace.” (https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/calvinism-is-not-new-to-baptists) 

    One of the oldest books in my library is entitled Baptist, Why and Why Not. It was published in 1899 by the Sunday School Board of the SBC (keep in mind that this was prior to the mass exodus of churches from the SBC, and therefore representative of the overwhelming majority of Baptist thought at that time). The authors write, 

“Our people are as stout as the stoutest in holding fast and true the great doctrine of election with its co-ordinate doctrines, and yet are nothing behind the most earnest in emphasizing the freedom of the human will, and in proclaiming the gospel as the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth.” (pg. 13). 

    Notice that this is the classic Biblical paradox taught by strict-Calvinists like Spurgeon (see Blog 3 in this series). Later in this same book, in the chapter entitled “Why Baptist and not Presbyterian,” T.S. Dunaway writes, 

“It is but simple justice to the Presbyterians to say that there are many of their beliefs and practices which entitle them to my highest respect, warmest admiration, and brotherly love. Concerning what are called the doctrines of divine grace, the Baptists and Presbyterians are perhaps nearer agreed in their beliefs than any other large and distinct Protestant denomination. The soundness of their views concerning these doctrines of grace, their intelligence, the prominent part they have taken in higher education, their reverence for God’s word, their strict observance of the Sabbath, their fervent piety and consistent Christian living, call forth the praise and admiration of every true Baptist.” (pg. 130). 

    If you’re still not convinced, just take a look at the historic Baptist confessions. Another bold claim alert: every well-known historic Baptist confession affirms the doctrines of grace either in full or in part (virtually all were 4 or 5 pointers). It isn’t until the Baptist Faith and Message of 1925 that this language begins to be watered down. Let’s just look at a few samples to prove the point. 

    Concerning the Fall of Adam, the Philadelphia Baptist Confession of 1742 states, 

“They being the root, and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free. (Rom. 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22, 45, 49; Ps. 51:5; Job 14:4; Eph. 2:3; Rom. 6:20, 5:12; Heb. 2:14, 15; 1 Thess. 1:10). From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.” (PBC, 6:3-4)  

    This is classic Total Depravity. 

    Concerning the doctrine of election, the Standard Confession of 1660 states, 

 “That God hath even before the foundation of the world chosen, (or elected) to eternal life, such as believe, and so are in Christ, John 3. 16. Ephes. 1. 4, 2 Thes. 2. 13. Yet confident we are, that the purpose of God according to election, was not in the least arising from fore-seen faith in, or works of righteousness done by the creature, but only from the mercy, goodness, and passion dwelling in God, and so it is of him that calleth, Rom. 9. ii. whose purity and unwordable holiness, cannot admit of any unclean person (or thing) to be in his presence, therefore his decree of mercy reaches only the godly man, whom (saith David) God hath set apart for himself, Psal. 4:3.” (SC, Article VIII) 

    This is classic unconditional election. What’s interesting about the Standard Confession is that it was a General Baptist Confession. General Baptists did not believe in limited or definite atonement, and yet they believed the other doctrines of Grace. What this means is that even the “non-Calvinist” Baptist churches of yesteryear were infinitely more Calvinistic than most Baptist churches today. 

    In reference to the atonement, the London Baptist Confession of 1689 states, 

“God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification; nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit in time does actually apply Christ to them.” (LBC, 11:4). 

    Christ died for the sins of the elect. This is classic limited atonement. 

    In reference to the saving grace of God, the Philadelphia Baptist Confession of 1742 states, 

“Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.” (PBC, 10:1).  

    This is classic irresistible grace. 

    In the section literally entitled, “The Perserverance of the Saints,” The Sandy Creek Confession of 1845 states, 

“That such only are real believers as endure unto the end; that their persevering attachment to Christ is the grand mark which distinguishes them from superficial professors; that a special Providence watches over their welfare, and they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.” (SCC, Article IX)

    I could give multiple examples of these doctrines from multiple confessions, but I think the reader gets the idea (for a list of pretty much all of the Baptist Confessions, click here). Suffice it to say, the statement that “Baptists have never been Calvinists” is a patently false statement. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is entitled to their own facts. 

Ok, but Independent Baptist Churches have Never Been Calvinistic? 

    There are three glaring problems with this statement. First, the word "Independent” assumes that each church has the authority to teach doctrine in line with their Biblical conviction and in accordance with what Baptists have historically taught (we just saw that). One would have to possess absolute knowledge about the doctrine of every Independent Baptist Church in the world in order to make such a blanket statement. Granted, there might be some Baptist “popes” out there who would like to decree that no true IFB church would ever teach the doctrines of grace, but again, the word "Independent" destroys their power to do so.  

    Second, given all that we have learned about historic Baptist teaching concerning soteriology, the burden of proof falls on IFB pastors who would make such a statement to explain why they are right and our Baptist forefathers were wrong (and damnably wrong in the eyes of many). Imagine our brethren being able to travel back in time and sit at the table with men like Spurgeon, Bunyan, or Carey, explaining to them their damnable heresy from hell (I’d love to see it). IFB pastors are cutting off their nose to spite their face when they ride their hobby horse of Calvinism. They cannot do so without condemning our Baptist forefathers. 

    Lastly, IFB pastors are creating an incredible dilemma for themselves when they make this statement because they are going to have to explain why they are doing their own thing, completely separated from church history (which, by nature, is very cultic). Whenever I hear a preacher harp on the “Old Paths” or “Old Time Religion,” I think to myself, “How far back are we going?” Are we going back to the time when the overwhelming majority of Baptists taught the doctrines of grace, or are we going back to the 1950s when Baptists were fighting against the evils of wire-rimmed glasses and beards? 

    This dilemma becomes glaring when one considers that a large percentage of the rabidly anti-Calvinist IFBs also believe in the “Trail of Blood” mentality as it pertains to Baptist history. For the uninitiated, The Trail of Blood was a book published posthumously in 1931 from the works of B.H. Carroll (who was a staunch Calvinist BTW) argues that Baptist succession goes all the way back to the times of the Apostles. The claim that the IFB churches are doing their own thing and find their origins in the early 1900s is irreconcilable with the “Trail of Blood” mentality. 

    To take the irony a step further, IFBs in this category deny any connection at all to Calvinist Baptist churches, but they will gladly accept Carroll’s assertion that early heretical groups like the Paulicans, Montanists, and Donatists were actually the early Baptists by a different name. These groups were Heretics with a capital H. If we saw them today, we wouldn’t even consider them brothers in Christ, much less Baptists. But hey, consistency is way overrated, right? 

    Needless to say, the statement that Independent Baptist churches have never been Calvinist is a patently false statement as well. To try to stand by this statement is to commit homicide against facts and logic. That dog won’t hunt. 

Conclusion

    I conclude this series by reiterating that I’m not trying to defend or champion a certain label (although I certainly know where my beliefs land). My goal is to encourage people to lower the temperature regarding our brothers and sisters in Christ with whom we might disagree. Not everything is a tier 1 issue. I also wanted to unify through edification. We tend to fear what we don’t understand. If we understand someone else’s position, we need not fear them (unless they truly are a heretic, and even then, we should pray for their salvation). 

    I was talking to an older Baptist pastor friend of mine just this past week about how, in years gone by, he (a non-Calvinist) could go to an IFB meeting, sit at a table after the service, and break bread with Calvinists. They could talk about their differences, agree to disagree, and go about their lives. We need to get back to that. The inability to do so isn’t macho; it’s weak and fragile. Unfortunately, weak men hurt a lot of people in their attempt to look macho. 

    Even over the past few weeks of releasing this blog series, I lost over a hundred friends on Facebook. Not a single one of them reached out to me to ask questions or clarify anything; they just cut me off. None of them even attempted to address my arguments or point out anything I said that was untrue. This isn’t heroic, it’s weak. It’s so fragile that a person can’t even be Facebook friends with someone who doesn’t believe 100% like they do. WEAK.

    Lastly, I wrote this blog series because I was already being talked about and hated on by other preachers (I know because some of the preachers who got an earful of this were kind enough to tell me). This has been happening for several years, and I finally reached the point where, if I’m going to be hated, at least now I might not be hated for what I don’t believe. I took the time to write a five-blog series (at least 20,000 words in total). There it is, do what you will with it. But just remember that God still hates slander (In other words, please get better arguments). At least now, from here to eternity, if someone uploads a slanderous post or message, I can send them a link to this series. 

    We live in a world full of darkness; let’s not fight against the children of Light. If you believe the Bible and preach the true gospel, I’m for you. I don’t care what label you wear. By the grace of God, I’m thick-skinned enough to handle our differences.  

What I Wish My IFB Brothers Knew About the Calvinism/Arminianism Debate (Part 4)

 

This is part four of a series (read part 1 here, 2 here, and part 3 here). In this series, I am confronting egregious arguments put forth on almost a daily basis by IFB pastors on social media, attacking Calvinism and slandering our Calvinist brothers (Arminians as well, but they don’t get nearly as much heat, so I won’t give them as much attention). As an Independent Baptist pastor, I’m not writing to defend these positions per se, but rather to deal with the terrible arguments against them. It’s time to deal with strawman #4. 

Strawman #4: Calvinism Kills Evangelism 

Whenever I see someone post this claim online, I can feel my spiritual gift of sarcasm start to well up in a double portion within my soul. I know when a person says this, they are repeating something they have heard, from somebody else who heard it, from somebody else who just made it up. I suppose it can be argued that Hyper-Calvinism kills evangelism, but that’s not what we are talking about here (see part 3 for the differences). This blog probably won’t be as long as the others, simply because this claim is so easy to refute. 

The Missionary Hall of Fame is Filled With Calvinists

The vast majority of the early mission societies were Calvinist organizations (for example, the Massachusetts Missionary Society (1795), the Missionary Society of Connecticut (1798), the London Missionary Society (1795), the Female Society for Missionary Purposes (1800), and the Baptist Missionary Society (1792)).

It stands to reason that since most of the early Mission Societies were Calvinist organizations, most of the missionaries and evangelists would also be Calvinists. This is certainly the case. I will list several examples with a brief biography of each. (though not all of them belonged to the aforementioned Mission Societies). 

  Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). Edwards preached the most famous sermon since the time of the Apostles, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” Many historians consider this sermon to be the spark that lit the fire of the Great Awakening. Over half a million people have downloaded this sermon across all major platforms (just to hear someone else read it word for word). After Edwards' church booted him for refusing to practice open communion, Edwards and his family became missionaries to the Mohican Indians in Massachusetts. Edwards also had a huge influence on many of the Mission Societies in New England. 

  John Bunyan (1628-1688). Bunyan was imprisoned for 12 years for refusing to stop preaching without a government license (which would have controlled what he was allowed to say). While in prison, he wrote Pilgrim’s Progress, much of which was written on the prison wall. To date, Pilgrim’s Progress has sold more copies than any other work in the English language, with the exception of the King James Bible. Not bad for an uneducated tinker. His preaching was so popular that thousands would gather to hear him preach in a field or a barn. Oxford graduate, John Owen, said of Bunyan, “Could I possess the tinker’s abilities, please your majesty, I would gladly relinquish all my learning.” 

  George Whitefield (1714-1770). Whitefield was one of the most prominent voices of the Great Awakening. He walked up and down the Eastern Seaboard, open-air preaching in the American Colonies. His booming voice was legendary and reportedly heard for miles. It is estimated that Whitefield preached to crowds ranging from 20,000 to 50,000 people. 

  Shubal Stearns (1706-1771). A convert of George Whitefield, Stearns was a powerful preacher during the Great Awakening. He was the founder of Sandy Creek Baptist Church in North Carolina. Under Stearns' leadership, this church produced some 125 ministers, who went on to plant 42 churches accross the South. 

  Obediah Holmes (1610-1682). Holmes is famous for taking 30 public lashes for refusing to stop preaching, as well as a refusal to acknowledge infant baptism as a sufficient mode of Baptism.  He could have paid 30lbs and avoided the beating, but refused. 

  William Carey (1761-1834). Carey is known as the father of modern missions because he founded the Baptist Missionary Society and spent over 40 years as a missionary in India without a single furlough. He is famously quoted as saying, “Expect great things from God; attempt great things for God.”

  Adonirum Judson (1788-1850). Judson was a disciple of Carey. Just weeks after marriage, he and his wife travelled to Burma to be missionaries. Judson spent nearly two years in prison for preaching the gospel in the infamous Ava and Aung Pinle prisons. He also lost his wife and young daughter to smallpox in 1826. Judson didn’t see his first convert until after spending 7 years in Burma, but would see nearly 700 converts in his lifetime. He planted several churches and translated the Bible into the Burmese language. 

  Luther Rice (1783-1836). Rice rode thousands of miles on horseback, up and down the Eastern Coast, visiting churches and raising mission funds for Judson and others. He died in the saddle in South Carolina in 1836. Perhaps no other single individual has raised more money for missions than Luther Rice.

    Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892). This man needs no introduction (but if you want to know more, see blog 3 in this series). 

  Jim Elliot (1927-1956). Elliot sought to share the gospel with the Huaorani people of Ecuador. Sadly, he was murdered at spear point (with four of his missionary friends) by the very people he sought to reach. His wife and children, as well as the families of his deceased friends, stayed and reached the Huaorani with the gospel anyway. His story was put into a book and a major movie production called “The End of the Spear.” Elliot is famously quoted as saying, “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.” 

I could list countless more examples, but I think the reader gets the idea. Imagine someone walking up to George Whitefield as he was preaching in the streets (many times to the chagrin of the crowd), or John Bunyan as he languished in prison, or Luther Rice as he was dying in the saddle, or Jim Elliot as he was about to be murdered, and saying, “It’s just too bad that Calvinists don’t believe in evangelism.” In the words of Michael Jordan, “Please stop, get some help.” 

Does Calvinism Kill Evangelism Today?

I actually had someone argue that, given all the examples of Calvinist missionaries and preachers in the past, it probably wasn’t wise to say that Calvinism killed evangelism back then, but it definitely kills evangelism today. Ok, let’s examine that statement, shall we? Who has the greatest online presence in the conservative, non-Catholic church world? Love them or hate them, it’s the Calvinists (Apologia, Wes Huff, James White, Allie Beth Stucky, Chadd Wright, etc.). The only “Big” IFB online influencer right now is Spencer Smith, and he can’t even call out perverts or a cheap gospel among our own ranks without many in the IFB wanting to tar and feather him for it.

Who is leading the fight against abortion in this country? It’s the Calvinists. Who is hitting the street corners? It’s Calvinists. I went down to the LDS General Conference this past weekend to try to hand out gospel tracts to some of the over 20,000 in attendance. There were several churches there doing the same thing, with nearly 80 people total (despite the pouring cold rain). 90% of them were Calvinists. In fact, if you’re like Tony Hutson and don’t want to rub shoulders with Calvinists, you’d better stay within the safety of the four walls of the church. Because if you ever want to hit the highways and hedges, there will be Calvinists waiting on you there. 

Is Calvinism Inconsistent With Evangelism?

Some might say, ok, but if Calvinists evangelize, they do it in spite of their beliefs and not because of them. I might agree with that statement if we are talking about Hyper-Calvinism, but not Calvinism. We see this contrast so clearly when William Carey (a Calvinist) was talking to his pastor, John Ryland (a Hyper-Calvinist), about going to the mission field in India. Ryland said to Carey, “Young man, sit down. When God pleases to convert the heathen, he’ll do it without consulting you or me.” (Thomas Schirrmacher, William Carey: Theologian, Linguist, Social Reformer, p. 100).

Why would anyone want to evangelize if God elects? My question would be, why would anyone want to evangelize if God doesn’t? Think about it. Either God can change hearts or He can’t. Either He can save anybody, or He can’t. You don’t have to agree with the theology to understand the premise that it’s a huge motivation and confidence booster to believe that God is going to save His people. He is going to call His sheep, and they will hear His voice and follow Him (is that in the Bible somewhere?). Charles Spurgeon said, 

“If God would have painted a yellow stripe on the backs of the elect I would go around lifting shirts. But since He didn't I must preach "whosoever will" and when "whatsoever" believes I know that he is one of the elect.”

On the other hand, imagine how burdensome it would be to hit the highways and hedges and think that the results are up to us. These souls hang in the balance, and it’s up to our powers of persuasion and debate to win them. As a minister of the gospel, I couldn’t function in a world like that. We are responsible for sowing the seed. It is God who brings the harvest.

Conclusion

Calvinism doesn’t kill evangelism, but I’ll tell you what does: apathy; and a cheap gospel. Unfortunately, our independent Baptist churches are full of both. Just this morning, a well-known IFB evangelist tweeted this, 

“Did you hear about the Life Guard who took 1 hour and 45 minutes making sure the drowning man understood everything there’s to know about the Life Preserver before he threw it to him? Nope, me either, so stop doing that with Salvation’s Soul Saving Preserver!”

In other words, John 6:44 isn’t in the Bible. It doesn’t matter if the Lord is dealing with their heart or not. Walk them through a 123 repeat after me prayer, and then you can post a picture online about winning this person to the Lord. Fruits of repentance, what is that? Perhaps it’s time that we, as Independent Baptists, get our own spiritual house in order and give the Calvinists a break. 

Read part 5 here 

 

What I Wish My IFB Brothers Knew About the Calvinism/Arminianism Debate (Part 3)

 

    Admittedly, I am way behind on this third installment of the blog series (you can read part 1 here and part 2 here). On top of my normal schedule, I've had to write two seminary papers, and to be honest, the Charlie Kirk thing shook me up. Not only did the shooting take place less than 100 miles away, but the shooter was a student at Utah State, which is less than 3 miles from my house. 

    However, the response to the Charlie Kirk tragedy from within the world of Independent Fundamental Baptists provides a perfect example of why I’m writing this blog series. The response to Charlie Kirk's life and ministry from IFB pastors and churches has been overwhelmingly positive (as it should be). This is particularly ironic, considering that 99% of IFB churches would not have allowed Kirk to speak in their pulpits due to disagreements on secondary issues (most likely, they wouldn’t have even called on him to pray during the services). 

    So, here’s my question: why is it that many of the same IFBs who publicly praise Charlie Kirk online also publicly bash Calvinists online on a regular basis? I couldn’t help but notice that the IFB world has been mostly silent concerning the death of Voddie Baucham yesterday. I also found it interesting that I woke up today to a fresh batch of anti-Calvinists posts from the IFB haters. 

    I want to remind the readers that this blog series was sparked in response to rabid anti-Calvinist/Arminian posts online from IFB pastors (one post in particular) that used horrific argumentation to slander good brothers in Christ. I also want to reiterate that I am an Independent Baptist pastor writing this series, not as a defense of Calvinism or Arminianism, but as a rebuke to the terrible arguments that attempt to condemn these positions. Many times, there is grace in at least understanding the other side. With this in mind, it’s time to deal with popular strawman #3.  

Strawman #3: All Calvinism is the same, and it’s all evil. 

     I firmly believe this will be the most important blog in the series simply because the subject matter is the most misunderstood. For this reason, the blog will be longer than the others (please bear with me). As usual, I will be dealing much more with Calvinism than Arminianism, simply because Calvinism gets most of the heat from the rabid anti’s, but I want to point out that not all Arminianism can be lumped into one category either (see next paragraph). 

    My opening premise is that there are three main types of Calvinism: Hyper-Calvinism, High-Calvinism, and Strict Calvinism (the word “strict” can be misleading because it’s a much more moderate version of Calvinism than the other two). Although there are other nuances and categories that could be discussed, I will limit the discussion to these three, as they are by far the most consistent and historically popular categories. (See Jeffrey Johnson, He Died For Me: Limited Atonement & the Universal Gospel, [Free Grace Press, 2018] 27.)

    No matter what “ism” a person’s beliefs fall into (and they do fall into a historical category, see part one of this series), every position is trying to answer the following question: If God is truly all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing, then why aren't all saved? Hyper-Calvinism attempts to answer this question by saying that God is all-loving towards His elect, but He doesn’t love the non-elect; therefore, the non-elect aren’t saved. It’s logical, but it’s not Biblical. One must disregard certain texts in the Bible to reach this conclusion. They sacrifice God's love on the altar of His sovereignty. 

    On the other hand, Arminianism attempts to answer this question by saying that God is equally loving towards everyone, and in an attempt to keep things “fair,” God has left the final decision of salvation and the ultimate success of the cross solely in the hands of sinful people. This is logical, but it’s not Biblical. One has to explain away certain texts in the Bible to come to such a conclusion. They sacrifice God's sovereignty on the altar of His love. 

    Both Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism are logical attempts to answer this all-important question. Dr. Sam Waldron writes, 

“The ultimate origin of both Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism is the refusal to recognize that in this matter we are confronted with divine mystery. Both Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism are rationalistic. Both want a tidy system and are willing to suppress some part of the Word of God to obtain it.” (The Crux of the Free Offer: A Biblical, Confessional, and Theological Explanation and Defense of the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel [Free Grace Press, 2019])

    As John Duncan put it, “Hyper-Calvinism is all house and no door; Arminianism is all door and no house.” (David Brown, The Life of John Duncan [Edinburgh, 1872] 404.) Though these positions are logical, they aren’t Biblical. Before we dive deeper, let’s take a brief look at these positions from 30,000 feet. 

Hyper-Calvinism 

* Well-known hyper-Calvinists in history include John Gill (1697-1771), John Ryland (1753-1825), and A.W. Pink (1886-1952)

* God does not love the non-elect. (Pink recanted this point later in life.)

* Many HCs believe in what is known as equal-ultimacy, the idea that God actively hardens the hearts of the non-elect in the same way that he actively regenerates the hearts of the elect. 

* Many HCs also believe in double-predestination, that God chooses people for damnation in the same way that he chooses people for salvation.

* Although HCs believe in preaching the gospel (the death and resurrection of Christ), they do not believe in offering or encouraging sinners to come unto Christ. A great example of this thinking can be found in these words from John Gill, 

“How irrational it is, for ministers to stand offering Christ, and salvation by him to man, when, on the one hand, they have neither power nor right to give; and on the other hand, the person they offer to, have neither power nor will to receive it … It is not consistent with our ideas of God, that he should send ministers to offer salvation to man, to whom he never intended to give it.” (John Gill, Collections of Sermons and Tracts: In Two Volumes (London, 1773) 146.

    There are very few purist Hyper-Calvinists in our day. The only ones that I have personally met were Primitive Baptists. The PBs I met told me that one of their mottos is “Whatever will be, will be,” which is a classic example of fatalism. 

High-Calvinism

* Famous High-Calvinists in history include John Owen (1616-1683) and B.B. Warfield (1851-1921).

* High-Calvinists agree with Hyper-Calvinists in pretty much every way, with the exception that they do believe in calling sinners unto repentance. However, because High-Calvinists distinguish between the outward call of the preacher and the inward call of the Holy Spirit, the outward call to the non-elect isn’t actually a sincere offer from God because he does not love the non-elect. (Jeffrey Johnson, He Died For Me: Limited Atonement & the Universal Gospel, [Free Grace Press, 2018] 87.) 

* It’s important to note that fewer High-Calvinists believe in equal-ultimacy and double predestination than Hyper-Calvinists. 

* An example of a modern-day High-Calvinist would be Dr. James White. Although he is very active in preaching the gospel and calling sinners to repentance, he has always steered away from the idea that God loves all in a salvific way. 

Strict-Calvinism

* Famous Strict-Calvinists in history include Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), Shubal Stearns (1706-1771), Andrew Fuller (1754-1815), William Carey (1761-1834), Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892), and John MacArthur (1939-2025). 

* Unlike the other positions we have examined, Strict Calvinism recognizes a Biblical (and illogical) paradox between the Sovereignty of God and the agency of man in salvation. 

* Strict-Calvinists believe that God genuinely loves all, that He is sovereign enough to save all, and yet all are not saved, leaving this mystery up to God. 

* Strict-Calvinists believe in the genuine and free offer of the gospel to all. Thus, the SCs believe in a “whosoever will” gospel and that God will save anyone who genuinely wants to be saved. 

* On the other hand, SCs also believe that men and women in their sinfulness will choose their sin over Christ 100% of the time. However, God in His grace has gone above and beyond to elect and save a countless multitude anyway. If true, this would make God infinitely more gracious, not less gracious. 

* Strict-Calvinism teaches this salvific paradox: from man’s perspective, salvation is a free gift and an open invitation to all. From God’s perspective, salvation is a foolproof plan in which, in eternity past, God the Father chose a bride for His Son; the Son came to earth to slay the dragon and redeem His bride; and in time, the Holy Spirit woos that bride through the preaching of the gospel. This makes man completely responsible for rejecting the gospel, and only God gets the glory for the salvation of sinners. 

* Modern Strict-Calvinists include (probably) those pastors that you continue to slander online because you didn’t take the time to find out what they actually believe. 

Some Insights from Spurgeon

    For the remainder of this blog, I would like to briefly highlight some aspects of Charles Spurgeon's life and beliefs that are particularly relevant to this discussion. I do this because so many people in our day greatly revere Spurgeon. Even the most rabid anti-Calvies are hiding Spurgeon commentaries under their mattress (let’s be honest, if we were to remove every book from our libraries that was written by Calvinists, our Bible-reference section would almost completely disappear). 

    In the early years of Spurgeon’s ministry, the Baptist churches in London were saturated with Hyper-Calvinism. Some of Spurgeon’s hardest battles in those early years were against the Hyper-Calvinist pastors who used their weekly columns in the newspaper to destroy Spurgeon and his character. They accused him of the “duty-faith error” and the “Fullerism heresy” simply because he invited sinners to come unto Christ. (Iain Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching [Banner of Truth, 1995] 41.) Ironically, later in his life, the pendulum would swing so far the other way that Spurgeon would have to battle the tsunami of Arminianism. (See Iain Murray, The Forgotten Spurgeon [Banner of Truth, 1966]).

    Spurgeon found himself taking shots from both of these camps precisely because he recognized the Biblical paradox between the sovereignty of God and the agency of man in salvation. In reference to this paradox, Spurgeon stated, 

“The system of truth is not one straight line, but two. No man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once...Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there is no precedence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free to be responsible, I am driven at once to Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other. These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.” (New Park Street Pulpit, 4:337). 

“I believe in predestination, yea, even in its very jots and tittles. I believe that the path of a single grain of dust in the March wind is ordained and settled by a decree which cannot be violated; that every word and thought of man, every fluttering of a sparrow’s wing, every flight of a fly...that everything, in fact is foreknown and foreordained. But I do equally believe in the free agency of man, that man acts as he wills, especially in moral operations — choosing the evil with a will that is unbiased by anything that comes from God, biased only by his own depravity of heart and the perverseness of his habits; choosing the right too, with perfect freedom, though sacredly guided and led by the Holy Spirit...I believe that man is as accountable as if there were no destiny whatever...Where these two truths meet I do not know, nor do I want to know. They do not puzzle me, since I have given up my mind to believing them both.” (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 15:458). 

    Typical of Strict-Calvinism, Spurgeon believed that men and women have free agency, that is, that people do what they want to do, but what they want to do is sin. 

“Oh,” says the Arminian, “men may be saved if they will.” We reply, “My dear sir, we all believe that. But it is just the if they will that is the difficulty. We assert that no man will come to Christ unless he is drawn. No, we do not assert it, but Christ Himself declares it—‘You will not come unto Me that you might have life.’ And as long as that ‘you will not come,’ stands on record in Holy Scripture, Christ shall not be brought to believe in any doctrine of the freedom of the human will.” It is strange how people, when talking about free will, talk of things which they do not at all understand. “Now” says one, “I believe men can be saved if they will.” My dear sir, that is not the question at all. The question is, are men ever found naturally willing to submit to the humbling terms of the gospel of Christ? We declare, upon Scriptural authority, that the human will is so desperately set on mischief, so depraved and so inclined to everything that is evil—so disinclined to everything that is good—that without the powerful, supernatural, irresistible influence of the Holy Spirit, no human will will ever be constrained towards Christ!” (New Park Street Pulpit 4:182). 

    Typical of Strict-Calvinism, Spurgeon believed that God elected a multitude of sinners who never would have elected Him. Spurgeon said,  

“I believe the doctrine of election, because I am quite sure that if God had not chosen me I should never have chosen him; and I am sure he chose me before I was born, or else he never would have chosen me afterwards; and he must have elected me for reasons unknown to me, for I never could find any reason in myself why he should have looked upon me with special love.” (Charles H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students [Zondervan] p.277). 

    Typical of Strict-Calvinism, Spurgeon believed that the blood of Christ is sufficient to save all, and yet there was a divine intention in that Christ died in such a way as to actually redeem His elect. He stated, 

“And after all, though men call this a Limited atonement, it is as effectual as their own fallacious and rotten redemptions can pretend to be! But do you know the limit of it? Christ has bought a “multitude that no man can number.” The limit of it is just this—He has died for sinners. Whoever in this congregation inwardly and sorrowfully knows himself to be a sinner, Christ died for him! Whoever seeks Christ shall know Christ died for him! Our sense of need of Christ and our seeking after Christ are infallible proofs that Christ died for us! And mark, here is something substantial—the Arminian says Christ died for him. And then, poor man, he has but small consolation, for he says, “Ah, Christ died for me—that does not prove much. It only proves I may be saved if I mind what I am after. I may, perhaps, forget myself. I may run into sin and I may perish. Christ has done a good deal for me—but not quite enough—unless I do something.” (New Park Street Pulpit, #173, The Death of Christ, 1-24-1858).

    He also said, 

“I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot, I dare not, allow the thought to find lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy. In Christ’s finished work I see an ocean of merit; my plummet finds no bottom, my eye discerns no shore. There must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ, if God had so willed it to have saved not only all in this world, but all in ten thousand worlds….Having a divine Person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited value; bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the divine sacrifice. The intent of the divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work.” (Spurgeon’s Sermons, Vols 1 and 2, “The Peculiar Sleep of the Beloved” [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999], 48.) 

    Typical of Strict-Calvinism, Spurgeon didn’t believe that God forces unwilling people to believe the gospel but graciously changes their will and draws them to Christ. Spurgeon said, 

“A man is not saved against his will, but he is made willing by the operation of the Holy Ghost. A mighty grace which he does not wish to resist enters into the man, disarms him, makes a new creature of him, and he is saved.” (Spurgeon at His Best: Over 2200 Striking Quotations from the World's Most Exhaustive and Widely-read Sermon Series, Baker Publishing Group).

    Typical of Strict-Calvinism, Spurgeon didn’t believe that Christians keep themselves saved through their works, but that they are kept by the power of God. Spurgeon stated, 

“I could never either believe or preach a gospel which saves me today and rejects me tomorrow,-a gospel which puts me in Christ’s family one hour, and makes me a child of the devil the next,-a gospel which first justified and then condemns me,-a gospel which pardons me, and afterwards casts me down to hell. Such a gospel is abhorrent to reason itself, much more is it contrary to the mind of the God whom we delight to serve.” (Searchlight on Spurgeon: Spurgeon Speaks for Himself, 81.)

    Typical of Strict-Calvinism, Spurgeon believed that the sovereignty of God is a good and comforting thing. Spurgeon said, 

“There is no attribute of God more comforting to his children than the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe troubles, they believe that Sovereignty hath ordained their afflictions, that Sovereignty overrules them, and that Sovereignty will sanctify them all. There is nothing for which the children of God ought more earnestly to contend than the dominion of their Master over all creation—the kingship of God over all the works of his own hands—the throne of God, and his right to sit upon that throne. On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by worldlings, no truth of which they have made such a foot-ball, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the Sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah. Men will allow God to be everywhere except on his throne.” (New Park Street Pulpit Volume 2, sermon 77). 

    Typical of Strict-Calvinism, Spurgeon absolutely believed in evangelism, understanding that God has ordained both the ends and the means of salvation. To this point, Spurgeon said, 

“Oh, my brothers and sisters in Christ, if sinners will be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies; and if they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees, imploring them to stay, and not madly to destroy themselves. If hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go there unwarned and unprayed for.” (“The Wailing of Risca,” Sermon No. 349; Delivered on Sabbath Morning, December 9th, 1860, at Exeter Hall, Strand).

Conclusion

    I don’t know about you, but none of this seems to be heretical or damnable to me. Maybe this is why I’ve actually heard IFB preachers condemn Calvinism and praise Spurgeon in the same sermon. They don’t know the difference between the categories of “Calvinism.” At least they can respect dead Calvinists like Spurgeon. Unfortunately, many of those same IFB pastors will disfellowship and cut down living men who believe like Spurgeon. I have often pondered this phenomenon, but I think the reason is that IFB pastors don’t have to worry about dead Calvinists supporting their meetings. But oh man, they would really be in a panic if a living Calvinist walked in the door and risked the brethren thinking that the pastor was friends with such a blood thirsty heretic. Such interactions prove that these men are governed more by a fear of the brethren more than they are the truth. 

    This nonsense has got to stop. The online bashings have to stop. The division and character assault have to stop. When IFB pastors and members accuse all Calvinists of believing that God is the author of sin, that there is no need to evangelize, that God doesn’t love everyone, that God forces people to believe against their will, that they don’t believe in “whosoever will,” that they preach a false gospel, or that they are blind followers of John Calvin, they are either uninformed (I’m being nice) or lying. Bro. Sammy Allen once said, “You do not become a Calvinist by reading the Bible; you become a Calvinist by reading other books.” While the premise is debatable, I would like to point out that the inverse is certainly true. The only way that people come to despise their Calvinist brothers is if they have never read a book at all (outside of their echo chamber). 

(Read part 4 here) 

What I Wish My IFB Brothers Knew About the Calvinism/Arminianism Debate (Part II)

 

    This article is part II of a blog series (you can read part I here) in which I am confronting the egregious arguments and slander made online by some of my IFB brothers against Calvinism and Calvinists (Arminianism as well). I want to reiterate that the thrust of this blog series isn’t a defense of Calvinism or Arminianism, but to expose the terrible arguments, false caricatures, and subsequent slander against our brothers in Christ from IFB pastors. Although I am responding to a specific Facebook post, this post accurately represents the army of strawmen that I have heard in my circles for years. I speak much more about Calvinism than Arminianism simply because that’s 99% of what the post was attacking (it always is), but everything I say about Calvin and Calvinism can also be applied to Arminius and Arminianism. As promised, I will try to write multiple blogs in an effort to keep them short. With that in mind, it’s time to deal with strawman #2.  

Strawman #2: John Calvin invented the Doctrines of Grace, Better Known as Calvinism. 

    I bring up this point because, without a doubt, the most frequently used argument against Calvinism among my IFB brothers is that the doctrines of grace originated with John Calvin, who they claim was an evil person. In the Facebook post I am responding to (mostly in the comments), it was frequently echoed that John Calvin was a murderer (Servetus!), a Jew hater, a baby dunker, and that he had no clear testimony of salvation. I was also publicly challenged in the comment section to defend a statement that Calvin made in which he said the non-elect are “doomed from the womb.” I promised to address this in my blog, so here is my response: it’s completely irrelevant to whether or not the doctrines of grace can be found in the Bible. 

    This is the classic Genetic Fallacy (also known as the Origin Fallacy). The weakness of the Genetic fallacy is that it focuses on the supposed source of a truth claim, instead of the merits of a truth claim. The deductive form of this argument against the doctrines of grace goes like this: 

Premise 1: John Calvin taught that the doctrines of grace are Biblically true.  

Premise 2: John Calvin was a bad person. 

Conclusion: Therefore, the doctrines of grace cannot be Biblically true.

    Let’s give another example of the Genetic Fallacy to show how weak this argument is. 

Premise 1: Adolf Hitler said that the sky is blue. 

Premise 2: Adolf Hitler was evil. 

Conclusion: Therefore, the sky can’t be blue. 

    Can you see the faulty logic here? I hope that we can all agree that, regardless of the doctrine or position we are trying to defend, we ought to have no room for bad arguments (perhaps I am asking too much). Good positions don’t need to be defended by bad arguments. Using weak arguments to defend what might otherwise be a strong position is a poor strategy. 

    Although I think the accusations against Calvin are often overblown, there are plenty of things that John Calvin said or did that I would never try to defend. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not the doctrines of grace are found in the Bible. I want to repeat, John Calvin could have been a murdering, anti-Semitic, baby-dunking, tofu-eating, croc-wearing, Taylor Swift-loving, Auburn fan, and it still has no bearing at all on whether or not the doctrines of grace can be found within the pages of Holy Scripture (ok, I can’t lie, I love to wear my Wal-Mart crocs when I’m working outside, but that has no bearing on whether or not the claims in this blog are true).

(As an aside, neither Calvin nor Arminius systematized their systems. "Calvinism" was systematized over 50 years after Calvin's death at the Synod of Dort. You can read the Canons of Dort here. Likewise, Arminianism was also systematized after the death of Arminius. You can read the Articles of Remonstrants here. I think both men would be horrified to know that these systems of Biblical interpretation were named after them.)

IFB Pastors Ought to Have Zero Tolerance for Intellectual Dishonesty, Even Against Those with Whom You Disagree. 

    The reason this argument is so intellectually dishonest is that there isn’t a Calvinist alive who would try to prove the truthfulness of the doctrines of grace by taking people to Calvin’s Institutes, as if they were theopneustos. A Calvinist is going to take you to texts like Romans 3 and John 6 to try to prove Total Depravity, Romans 8 and Ephesians 1 for Unconditional Election, Matthew 1:21 and John 10 for Definite Atonement, John 6 and Ephesians 2 for Irresistible Grace, Philippians 1:21 and Romans 8 for Perseverance of the Saints, etc.

    John Calvin didn’t write John 6, 10, 17, Ephesians 1-2, Romans 8-9, etc., etc. Charles Spurgeon said,

“I believe nothing because Calvin taught it, but because I have found his teaching in the Word of God … We hold and assert again and again that the truth which Calvin preached was the very truth which the apostle Paul had long before written in his inspired epistles, and which is most clearly revealed in the discourses of our blessed Lord Himself.”

    Just this week, Calvinist preacher, Dustin Benge, tweeted (I know it’s X, but I’m old school), 

“Erase John Calvin from church history and delete the word ‘Calvinism,’ and I still believe in the absolute helpless depravity of man, the unconditional election of God, the definition atonement of Christ, the efficacious grace of God, and the perseverance of all God’s children.” 

    To my IFB brothers, please hear this: even if you disagree with the “Calvinistic” interpretation of Scripture, the honest thing to do is to engage the Calvinists on the battlefield of Scripture. If the goal is to effect real change, if you really want to get the attention of the Tulip sniffers, I triple dog dare you to go on an online forum (YouTube, podcast, blog, etc.) and walk through these texts to give your “correct” Biblical interpretation. For example, walk through Romans 8-9 verse by verse to try and prove the “Nations” argument (oh please do it!). I know you won’t, but sometimes it’s fun to dream. Sadly, you will probably remain content with “amens” from your echo chamber on Facebook.   

We Have Biblical Precedent to Intellectually Engage with People on Their Turf 

    When Jesus was dealing with the Sadducees (who did not believe in the resurrection from the dead), “Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.” (Matthew 22:29-33). 

    Not only did the Sadducees not believe in a bodily resurrection, but they also believed that only the five books of Moses were authoritative. They did not consider any other OT book or prophet as being inspired Scripture. Notice that Jesus cites from Exodus 3 to prove the point that there will be a resurrection. Jesus could have quoted from pretty much any OT prophet He wanted to, but He purposely chose to cite Moses because He knew that his writings were the Sadducees' authority. He used their standard to get to His point. 

    When the Apostle Paul was preaching to the Greeks at Mars Hill, he quoted from one of their own poets (Aratus), “For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.” He then used this as a springboard to teach them Scriptural truth about God. Like Jesus, Paul used a standard they respected to get to His point. 

    I’m far from a Paul or a Jesus (not even close), but I recently had the opportunity to do something similar with a Jehovah’s Witness. JWs believe that Christ was a created being and that His Father, Jehovah, is the only true God. The JW’s have written their own corrupt version of the Bible (The New World Translation) for the purpose of cutting out the parts that point to Jesus being God. I happened upon a young man at the coffee shop who was reading the NWT. After a brief conversation, I asked him to turn to Isaiah 6 and begin reading aloud. Over and over, his NWT said that Isaiah saw the glory of Jehovah high and lifted up, with his train filling the temple. I then asked him to turn to John 12:41, where it says that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus. I then said to the young man, “Even your own Bible says that Jesus is Jehovah God, what are you going to do about that?” 

    The point I’m making is that it’s just reasonable, honest, and Biblical to engage with people from where they are, not from where they aren’t. When I see someone get online and act as if they have somehow destroyed the teachings of “Calvinism” by “destroying” the character of John Calvin, I think to myself, “either they don’t know the difference between John Calvin and John Deere, or they are being deliberately dishonest.” 

    Since both Calvinists and Arminians derive their beliefs from their interpretation of Scripture, the honest thing to do is to engage their interpretation of Scripture. If you’re not willing to do that, you’re not even in the game; you’re just playing with caterpillars in deep right field. It's just poor form to dictate to a person what they believe and proceed to attack what they don't believe. We can do better. (Read part 3 here.)