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.
