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)
