Get the ‘L’ Outta Here!

An article discussing the doctrine of particular redemption, termed popularly as “limited atonement,” appeared in The Church Advocate. It stated:

“It is found in ancient books on divinity, written in a sterner age, and when the principles of interpretation were less understood, and the large and literal nature of the gospel was less appreciated. It is petrified in certain creeds maintained by the church – made firm, like fossil remains in a transition state, when ancient opinions were passing to a more liberal form. It is taught in a few seminaries, where men feel themselves constrained to repress the warm emotions of their own minds to reach conclusions which they can scarcely avoid. But the doctrine is not preached, except when the heart is cold and dead. It is not preached when the soul is on fire with the love of men, and when the cross, in its true grandeur rises to view. It is never preached in a revival of religion – a proof, not feeble, that the doctrine is not true.”

Given some of the statements made by some leaders within Baptist circles recently, you might be tempted to think this was penned to provoke ire against “Calvinism” and those adhering to the doctrines of grace. However, it was written by Albert Barnes in 1854. Barnes (1798-1870), a graduate of Princeton Seminary and an ordained Presbyterian minister, held a prominent position with the New School Theology advocates. He was tried (but not convicted) for heresy in 1836 over his views regarding original sin, the imputation of Adam’s sin, and the nature of the atonement. The same year Barnes that penned these words, Charles H. Spurgeon spent his first full year in the pastorate of New Park Street. It was from the pulpit at Park Street where the “Prince of Preachers,” who was known for aggressive evangelism, declared:

“Now, beloved, when you hear any one laughing or jeering at a limited atonement, you may tell him this. General atonement is like a great wide bridge with only half an arch; it does not go across the stream: it only professes to go half way; it does not secure the salvation of anybody. Now, I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford, which went all the way across, than on a bridge that was as wide as the world, if it did not go all the way across the stream.”

A bust of Spurgeon, who declared, “when Christ died, He died for you, if you be a believer in Him,” rests in the one of the hallways of Southwestern Seminary. One wonders if it will soon be removed since current SWBTS president, Paige Patterson, has declared, “Southwestern will not build a school in the future around anybody who could not look anybody in the world in the eyes and say, ‘Christ died for your sins.’” Patterson was echoing the Dean of the School of Theology, David Allen, who remarked at the John 3:16 Conference:

“Anything that makes the preacher hesitant to make the bold proclamation to all people is wrong. . . . . Calvinism is not the Gospel. Should the Southern Baptist Convention move toward five-point Calvinism, such a move would be away from, and not toward, the Gospel. . . . A consistent five-point Calvinist cannot look a congregation in the eyes or even a single sinner in the eye and say: ‘Christ died for you.’ What they have to say to be consistent with their own theology is ‘Christ died for sinners.’ Since Christ did not die for the non-elect, and since the five-point Calvinist does not know who the elect are, it is simply not possible in a preaching or witnessing situation to say to them directly, ‘Christ died for you.’”

It seems “Christ died for you” has replaced “inerrancy” as the new Southern Baptist shibboleth. Steve Gaines, the pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church, delivered a message at Criswell College last year in which he warned his listeners not to “get caught up in theology that says that God just wants to save some,” then began citing Scriptures he believes refute particular redemption. Gaines continued:

“It would emaciate my evangelism if I couldn’t walk up to a total stranger and say, ‘Jesus died for you.’ There’s people who can’t do that. They can’t do that. They say, ‘Jesus died for the elect, I hope you’re not one of them. . . . Get rid of your system and go back to the Bible. Quit reading the Bible through your theology and start getting your theology from the Bible.”

Several years ago the SBC faced a lawsuit for plagiarizing D. James Kennedy’s Evangelism Explosion. The late Dr. Kennedy, a five-point Calvinist, declared in his work, Solving Bible Mysteries:

“God makes His sovereign election from among the human race, a race of sinful and corrupt people, all of whom deserve condemnation. But God extends mercy to a vast multitude. He must be just, but He doesn’t have to extend mercy to any. Those whom He selects are saved—a great number out of every tribe and tongue and nation. He sends His Spirit to them to draw them to Himself. But what about the rest? Note carefully: God invites them all to come. With a sincere invitation, He offers them a free salvation, paid for at the cost of His own dear Son. . . . God does not cast anyone out. He does not bar the door. Those who are outside are outside by their own choice, because they keep God away.”

Kennedy didn’t use the phrase, “Christ died for you,” but rather, spoke of what was “paid for at the cost of His own dear Son.” Or, to put it in a manner which Gaines says isn’t biblical, “Christ died for sinners.” To maintain that Kennedy and Spurgeon held unbiblical views which emaciated their evangelism is over simplistic and erroneous.

The statements made by Patterson, Allen, Gaines, and others is creating a sense of panic within SBC. For example, Tim Guthrie, an evangelist whom I respect, remarked recently on SBC Today that he was greatly concerned about any Southern Baptist decrying the statement that “Jesus died for all.” He maintains those within denominational life have always maintained a general atonement. Ironically, he claims Dr. Kennedy (whom he admits to be a Calvinist) did not hold to particular redemption. Guthrie then asks if a select few are going to tell the entire denomination that the Gospel is only for a few and not for all? He answers that he would not be pleased with any employee of any SBC entity who could not tell anyone “Jesus died for you!”

I have posted several times on the topic of “limited atonement.” While detractors denounce it because they believe so strongly that the phrase, “Jesus died for you!” should be used extensively, they fail to examine the intricacies of particular redemption. The delegates at the Synod of Dort declared the atonement is “sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect.” Calvinist stalwart Francis Turretin, who is in full agreement with the Dortians, wrote in The Atonement:

“We do not inquire whether the death of Christ gives occasion to the imparting of some blessings even to the reprobates. Because it is in consequence of the death of Christ that the Gospel is preached to all nations, that the gross idolatry of many heathen nations has been abolished, that the daring impiety of man is greatly restrained by the word of God, that multitudes of the human family obtain many and excellent blessings, though not saving gifts, of the Holy Spirit. It is unquestionable that all these flow from the death of Christ, for there would have been no place for them in the Church, unless Christ had died.”

While the Calvinist position asserts the sufficiency of Christ’s death for all, it does not view faith as that which makes the atonement effective. It affirms, instead, that the atonement secures the faith of the elect and makes actual payment for their sins. Justification does not occur, however, until one trusts Christ alone for salvation. Those who are lost may not blame God for a lack in the atonement or because they are not elect. They are at fault because of their own sin. If they would only believe, they would find the cross sufficient for themselves, yet they refuse. This is exactly why Dr. Kennedy declared, “God extends mercy to a vast multitude. . . . Those whom He selects are saved—a great number out of every tribe and tongue and nation. He sends His Spirit to them to draw them to Himself. But what about the rest? Note carefully: God invites them all to come. With a sincere invitation, He offers them a free salvation, paid for at the cost of His own dear Son. . . . God does not cast anyone out. He does not bar the door. Those who are outside are outside by their own choice, because they keep God away.”

Calvinists have historically affirmed that the death of the Lord Jesus Christ has both universal and particular designs. Calvinist stalwarts such as R. B. Kuiper, Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, Louis Berkhof, John Murray, and Herman Bavinck have affirmed strongly that, “It is for all without distinction proof of God’s infinite love and seals the word that He has no pleasure in the death of the sinner but therein that he live, it declares to all that the sacrifice of Christ is sufficient for the expiation of all sins, that no one is lost because it is not rich or powerful enough.” The atonement does have reference to the non-elect.  It secures for them benefits, namely the sufficiency of the atonement in offering salvation and common grace.  The main difference between the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist is that Calvinists believe, in Murray’s words, not “that we are placed in a redeemable position. It means that Christ purchased and procured redemption. . . . Christ did not come to make sins expiable. He came to expiate sins . . . (Hebrews 1:3).”

Murray, along with other Calvinists, makes it plain that this design in no way nullifies the free offer of the Gospel or the responsibility of individuals to repent of their sins and trust Christ alone for salvation.  God has commanded His Church to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all people in all places. This fact was not lost on the delegates to the Synod of Dort, who proclaimed in their canons:

“The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world. . . . Moreover the promise of the gospel is, that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have everlasting life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of his good pleasure sends the gospel. And whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief; this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.”

The Lord Jesus will return only after this good news has reached the ears of every tribe and tongue and people and nation (Mark 13:10; Revelation 5:9). I suggest that non-Calvinist Southern Baptists consider the words of D. A. Carson, who wrote in The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God:

“I argue, then, that both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all, in the sense that Christ’s death was sufficient for all and that Scripture portrays God as inviting, commanding, and desiring the salvation of all, out of love . . . Further, all Christians ought also to confess that, in a slightly different sense, Christ Jesus, in the intent of God, died effectively for the elect alone, in line with the way the Bible speaks of God’s special selecting love for the elect.”

I fear, however, that Carson’s words will fall on many deaf ears. Tom Ascol asserts correctly that, “Competing visions for the future of the Southern Baptist Convention are coming to a showdown.” On the one hand are many within the “Baptist Identity” camp, such as Malcolm Yarnell and Ergun Caner, who disallow any criticism of their assertions and maintain Calvinists are disloyal to the Baptist cause. On the other hand are those within the “Great Commission Resurgence” camp, such as Danny Akin and Alvin Reid, who are ready to join hands with non-Baptists for the cause of Christ and the advance of His Kingdom.

I was struck by Dr. Ascol’s statement that, “The GCR vision for the future of the SBC is one where unity is built on the essentials of the gospel while maintaining the distinctives of our Baptist convictions. It recognizes that there are different ways of being Christian Baptists and is not threatened by the diversity of those ways within our confessional commitments. This vision is willing appropriately to utilize the gifts that God has given to gospel-centered churches that are not Baptist and believes that Southern Baptists can do so beneficially and in ways that do not threaten their own convictions.” It sounds eerily familiar to statements made by many Southern Baptists during the days of the Conservative Resurgence / Fundamentalist Takeover. When the Conservative Resurgence began in the 1970s, the stated goal of conservatives was to “have a place at the table” within denominational leadership. Rather than simply gaining a place at the table, conservatives took over the table and removed moderates entirely. Some fundamentalists quipped behind closed doors, “After we get rid of the moderates, the Calvinists are next.” We are now at that point.

Dr. Ascol states optimistically, “I really do believe that, despite our differences, Southern Baptists can work together if we can agree on the centrality and power of the gospel for all of life. I am convinced that a growing number of Southern Baptists believe this, too. Because of this, I anticipate better days ahead.” Due to my experiences over the past two decades in denominational life, I do not share his optimism. In recent days I’ve been told my theological convictions are akin to “Nazism.” Despite my protests as I’ve pointed to doctrinal agreement with The Baptist Faith & Message (Art. V) and such luminaries as W. B. Johnson, R. B. C. Howell, Richard Fuller, P. H. Mell, J. P. Boyce, John Broadus, Richard Furman, J. M. Frost, Jesse Mercer, J. L. Dagg, J. M. Peck, Isaac McCoy, and J. B. Gambrell, I’ve been told I’m “not a real Southern Baptist.” Just a few months ago, Voddie Baucham spoke of the growing antagonism against Calvinists in SBC life. He confessed, “The SBC establishment is firmly and openly anti-Calvinist.  There is no question about that.” Though Dr. Baucham was appointed Chair of the Teller’s Committee in 2001 at the annual convention, offered a three-book publishing deal from LifeWay/Broadman & Holman in 2002, and received invitations to preach at the SBC Pastor’s Conference in 2002, 2004, and 2005, he was marginalized when he “came out of the closet” in 2006 and admitted to being a “fire-breathing, TULIP believing, five-point Calvinist.” Baucham says this “is the unpardonable sin in contemporary Southern Baptist life. . . . The dreaded ‘C’ word has become a death sentence in ‘mainstream’ Southern Baptist life. . . . My crime is being a part of a movement the SBC sees as a threat to evangelism, and our already declining baptismal numbers.”

Over five years ago, Dr. Ascol addressed the question, “Why stay in the SBC?” in The Founders Journal. He makes several fine points in his piece, but I will deal with only two. First, he states one good reason to stay within the SBC is its historic theology, which is “that of the founders of the denomination.” I wholeheartedly affirm the theology under-girding the denomination at its inception, yet acknowledge that the denomination is no longer guided by these doctrines. Just as the U.S. was once guided by Judeo-Christian principles but now finds itself as a multi-cultural, pluralistic society, so the SBC is operating from a different framework than it did at its founding. Not only this, but individuals such as former SBC President Frank Page deride this framework as unbiblical with such comments as, “The totality of history shows the vast majority of Baptists have not been [Calvinists], so why go back to the founders? I think we need to go back to the Bible.” The pastor of FBC Laneville, Texas, Joseph Regel, commented recently in the SBC Texan:

“When it comes to false doctrines, what difference does the history of the SBC make? History, associations and friendships have nothing to do with it. . . . My question is: why do we even want to walk together with proponents of false doctrines?”

Second, Tom states that reformation was impossible for Luther within the Roman Catholic Church because it would have to “necessarily be dismantled and rebuilt without its false dogmas and practices.” He then adds, “It is at just this point where the genius of Baptist polity shines brightly. Our polity makes reformation always a prospect because we do not have a ‘top-down’ structure of government. Every church is independent.” While this is true in theory, it is not so in practice. The SBC has become a bureaucratic machine with a practical top-down structure. Who is at the “top” in sending missionaries? The IMB, not the local church, ultimately determines who is qualified for service. What about chaplain service? It is not ascribing to the local congregation’s confession of faith or church covenant which determine a chaplain’s guidelines for service, but his subscription to NAMB policies. Board polices touching upon doctrinal matters are currently more restrictive than the denomination’s own confession of faith. This leaves one to wonder what stipulations will be added within the next few years. “Calvinism,” well within the parameters of The Baptist Faith & Message, could soon fall under a denominational anathema and Calvinists will be told to just “get the ‘L’ outta here!”