The primary question at hand is this: Is what is commonly referred to among Calvinist Southern Baptists as "Arminianism" (the variety of watered-down Calvinism/partial Arminianism espoused by most Southern Baptists) really "another gospel" (cf. Galatians 1:6-8)? My brother's answer is a firm and confident, "Yes!," and he argues that the only way anyone could possibly claim to believe the Scripture and yet deny the tenets of Calvinism is to do so insincerely based on one's own presumptions, ignoring passages such as John 3:8 and Romans 9-11 completely and only offering other passages (such as John 3:16) as proof-texts in response.
On this point, I have to correct my brother that many of these "Arminians" (and likely, even true Arminians, although I would suspect less so) have in fact dealt with these passages and others at length (in fact I heard a professor on the radio yesterday doing just that; I feel no obligation to point to their arguments, because I don't agree with their conclusions, but I do try to remain aware of them so as to refine my own thinking and to keep me honest). Also, I have dealt with many intelligent and apparently spiritually mature non-Calvinists whose reading of the Scripture tends to lead them away, not toward Reformed theology--at least by their own testimony (again, this professor and radio host noted how he was a Calvinist for several years, but his study of the Scripture led him away from it). My respect for many of these believers and others who teach the same is too great for me to presume, as my brother does, that the only reason they reject Calvinism is a denial of the Scripture based on their own a priori assumptions. And I am also fully aware that Calvinists can make bad biblical arguments and use proof-texts based on their assumptions too (e.g., stating that Ephesians 2:8 says plainly that faith is a gift of God, while ignoring the fact that the words "faith"--pisteos, Gk.--and "that" in the NASB at the link--touto, Gk.--are not even the same gender, or acting as if the critical phrase in John 3:8 is "where it wishes," when a straightforward reading of that verse makes it pretty clear that the unseen nature of true Spirit birth--as opposed to physical birth--is what Jesus is pointing to in the verse), so could it be that "Arminians"--even the well-educated ones and teachers--have just honestly missed the point without missing or denying the gospel itself?
I'm not saying this isn't an important issue. And I certainly agree with my brother that a lot of the language we use with regard to preaching the gospel is poor and confuses the gospel and further that Arminian influence is a major cause for such poor language (although I do know plenty of "Arminians" who agree that the gospel has not truly been preached apart from a call to repentance and thus have difficulties with many popular gospel presentations, just as I know Calvinists who talk about "accepting Jesus into your heart"), but if it is truly "another gospel" then it's more than heretical; it's damnable. The worst my brother seems willing to point toward is that this is serious enough for Paul to say he wishes the Judaizers would castrate themselves (Galatians 5:12) but Paul had already said far worse about their teachings in the first chapter of Galatians:
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Paul says those Judaizers who are preaching something other than the true gospel should "be accursed." The Greek is anathema and refers to something that is to be given as an offering (and thus to be destroyed). It ultimately came to have the meaning of someone or something that was cursed of God. With regard to a person spiritually, the obvious meaning is that he or she would be condemned to damnation (Paul explicitly uses the same word to mean that in Romans 9:3 when he says he might wish himself, "accursed and cut off for the sake of [his Hebrew] kinsmen"). The fact that Paul is calling for them to be condemned asserts clearly that they in fact stood condemned, since he would certainly not make such a pronouncement lightly or without cause. And Paul doesn't just say it was true in this particular case but in any case of those who preach that a requirement be added to the true gospel and thus draw people from the truth.
But on that basis alone, is it safe for us as believers to say that those who teach something other than five-point Calvinism are really preaching "another gospel" and thus, under condemnation of God? Obviously most Calvinists (particularly Calvinistic Southern Baptists) don't seem to make any such assertion. Even so prominent a Calvinist as Albert Mohler was content to have the non-Calvinist Danny Akin as a VP and Dean of Students at Southern Seminary before Dr. Akin was called to be president at Southeastern. And more to the point is it safe even to imply that Billy Graham, Paige Patterson, Alvin Reid, Johnny Hunt and any number of others who have done so much and are doing so much in Southern Baptist life and for the gospel currently stand condemned themselves? Should we ask whether our dearly departed (Adrian Rogers, W.A. Criswell) are before the throne of God today or rather...? Well, you get the idea. It is a very hard thing to accept, at least. But if "Arminianism" is truly "another gospel" it seems hard to conclude that it could be otherwise.
In a debate over whether or not Calvinists and Arminians (or even Southern Baptist "Arminians") are really teaching the same gospel and preaching the same Jesus, I'm reminded of George Whitefield and John Wesley. Wesley and Whitefield were friends from their college days and two of the key leaders of the First Great Awakening, in both England and the United States. Whitefield was a Calvinist. Wesley was an Arminian (a real one, not the Southern Baptist variety). Even though he was becoming aware of Wesley's rejection of Calvinism, Whitefield was at first reluctant to even speak out against his friend's error. He apparently feared that the work that both were doing for the gospel would be harmed and their opponents strengthened against them if their disagreement should become known. Finally, it was Wesley who broke the silence in a sermon entitled "Free Grace," in which he detailed his disagreements with Calvinism.
At this point, Whitefield felt he could no longer be silent on the issue. He wrote a letter to Wesley to try to correct his views. Whitefield's reproof is sublime, gentle and loving but very, very firm. At no point does he question the validity of his friend's salvation (the end of his letter makes this abundantly clear) or the sincerity of his biblical views, but at no point does he back down on the doctrines of grace either. The two were ultimately reunited in friendship even though their debate raged on. In fact, when Whitefield published the letter (as seen at the link above) he did so with the inclusion of a letter from Wesley, who wrote:
There are bigots both for predestination and against it. God is sending a message to those on either side. But neither will receive it, unless from one who is of their own opinion. Therefore, for a time you are suffered to be of one opinion, and I of another. But when his time is come, God will do what man cannot, namely, make us both of one mind.Whitefield, for his part, agreed (with the distinction that Wesley would be brought ultimately to Whitefield's way of thinking). He stated in his prologue:
Known unto God are all his ways from the beginning of the world. The great day will discover why the Lord permits dear Mr. Wesley and me to be of a different way of thinking. At present, I shall make no enquiry into that matter, beyond the account which he has given of it himself in [his] letter, which I lately received from his own dear hands...In the end, it would be in heaven, not on earth, where their debate was settled, but their bond was enough for Wesley to preach the funeral of his friend George Whitefield. Neither gave ground on their positions, but their love and respect for one another was strong enough that when Wesley was asked if he would see Mr. Whitefield in heaven, he could only reply, "I fear not, for George will be so much nearer the throne of grace." Can we not be thankful for the labors of brothers we disagree with as Whitefield was? I would hope we could.
I am also reminded of my own early days at Southeastern Seminary, some 11 years ago. In those days, the biggest thing on campus was a student-led evangelism group known as Doulos (Greek for "bondservant"). Every Friday night, we would go out to share the gospel, and any believer was welcomed and encouraged to come and join together to share the gospel with all in the area surrounding the seminary. What would likely surprise my brother is that this endeavor was started and maintained by many Calvinists and some who were not Calvinists. In fact, as teams were assembled, Calvinists and non-Calvinists would actually take turns presenting the same gospel! (And yes, I know the gospel is more than the presentation.) My brother has said that such laboring together is improper and has stated that even Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons could preach, "in the name of Jesus," if that is the standard. I will say that, if there is anything in his argument that proves its folly, it is that statement, which is offensive not only toward brothers in Christ with whom we disagree but toward His name as well (though it is not my desire to be offensive to my brother in saying so). The Watchtower and LDS folks may indeed preach in a name of a Jesus, but they most certainly cannot preach, "in the name of Jesus," since His name is more than just a mere word but the authority of an ambassador of the Only Begotten God that goes with it, and the "Jesuses" preached by Mormons or Witnesses are certainly not on par with the true Jesus of the Bible, whether He be preached by a Calvinist, an Arminian, or some other. All untrue gospels fail on who Jesus is, yet Calvinism and Arminianism agree on this point.
But if they preach the same Jesus, do they still preach the same gospel? Is Arminianism (either true or cut with Calvinism) "another gospel," per Galatians 1? I fear those who argue so do what so many like to do with the Scripture and read its words apart from its context. In the first chapter of Galatians, where Paul pronounces that anyone bringing another gospel is cursed, he is dealing with a specific situation, to which I've already alluded--the heresy of the Judaizers being brought to bear on the Galatian believers. The gist of the Judaizers' teaching was that the Gentile believers in Galatia needed to add to their simple faith the act of circumcision and the keeping of the Old Testament law or their faith was not genuine. Paul responds with offense not only for their minimizing and outright denying the true gospel for one that requires more than faith for salvation but also for their denial of the validity of the simple faith of these Gentile believers. That is the thrust of his statement about those who preach another gospel being accursed, that they have both added a requirement to the gospel and invalidated the faith of others.
Have Arminians done this? Are they, "placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples," as Peter states, "that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear" (Acts 15:10)? Are Arminians denying the truth of the simple faith of others because they lack a certain work? Is there an Arminian who would say of a Calvinist that his faith is not yet genuine or complete, because he needs to add will to it? If there is, I'd say he might be accused of, "placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples," and of preaching a different gospel. But what Arminian is saying that? I certainly don't know of any "Arminian" Southern Baptist who would make such a ridiculous claim (I can't think of any true Arminian who would either). So has the non-Calvinist really added to the gospel or merely differed on his understanding of how faith is applied to the believer? Paul tells the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 that what he holds of primary importance is Christ's death, burial and resurrection for our sins as revealed in Scripture (in verse 1, he calls it "the gospel").
If both Arminians and Calvinists believe Christ's death is sufficient to save (and the fact is that they do), why is one the gospel and the other not because they differ merely on the application of that salvation? Is it not enough to just say they are in error without questioning their motives or the condition of their souls when many of them have done far more for the sake of the gospel than either of us is likely to do? And since we have no ability to read the motives of these (as my brother sadly pretends to do) it doesn't seem safe to me to say otherwise. After all, if the Judaizers were condemned for denying the simple faith of the Galatians as insufficient, might we not also fear the same for implying that only a correct understanding of the Scripture without interpretational error (which none of us can attain in this fallen world anyway) is true saving faith? I ask then, who is truly the one who is, "placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?"
Well, I trust I've said enough toward this case with that. If I have in any way miscast my brothers' views, I pray he would correct me on it. I don't wish to slander him or any brother. But, if I have been correct in revealing his views (which, in the main, I think I have) I would offer two final points of conclusion for him (or anyone else who argues the same) to consider:
1) I'll speak more about it when I post about my ministry in Maine as a Summer interim pastor (way back in 2004), but I don't want any minister to wind up disillusioned, bitter, fatalistic, nihilistic and entirely irrelevant, as I have seen those who would argue that anything other than Calvinism is "another gospel" become. In the end, there will be much that God is doing in the world that you will be forced to deny is of Him to keep your viewpoint in tact, and few there will be whom you can agree are worthy to labor beside (I suspect, even as a Calvinist, my views on this particular issue leave you wary), cutting you off from much blessing and effectiveness for the gospel and hurting the unity of the Bride. Both arrogance and irrelevancy are found at the end of that path. God might allow you to escape that fate even if you do continue in your arguments, but He might not. I wouldn't wish that destiny on anyone. It's not pretty, and many other believers who want to be used of God in this world have been hurt along the way by it--not to mention the damage it does to the one who has followed that road to its conclusion.
2) From what I've seen, I don't really understand why you are a Southern Baptist. Your beliefs on what is primary or secondary (or tertiary) doctrine seem more in line with the distinctives of a Bible-believing Presbyterian denomination than with those of the SBC. I'm not trying to push you out of the Convention (in fact, I would much rather you remain here) but I question whether you can continue in good conscience. Again, I'm not asking you to leave at all. I just want you to be true to your beliefs. I confess that I certainly do not know everything you believe, and a fuller picture of your beliefs might clarify the issue. But from what I've seen, I think it's worth considering prayerfully if you really are where you belong (and I suspect that you've been doing so already). While Calvinism is on the rise in the SBC, there are still many who disagree, and that's not likely to change. The mode (and, far more importantly, the candidacy--believers only) of baptism will likely continue to be more of a distinctive to the SBC than Calvinism.
I pray I haven't offended with my post. I just don't want us to divide unnecessarily or slander others. As Whitefield quoted Wesley to say, "There are bigots both for predestination and against it. God is sending a message to those on either side. But neither will receive it, unless from one who is of their own opinion." I write as one of the same "opinion" as my brother to caution against any bigotry and to argue for humility and unity among believers, that we might correct our brothers as Whitefield did--without questioning other believers' faith or motives--and serve together to fulfill the Great Commission. God is still doing great things, and I believe we can still join hands even with those with whom we do not entirely agree for His great work. Blessings to all who took the time to read all this (including the numerous parenthetical parts--even those set off by dashes--:) ) and to all who trust in Christ alone for salvation. Any feedback is more than welcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment