At this point I will be moving back into a critique of Morris Chapman’s article in the August 2007 SBC LIFE. I will attempt to discuss the article and refer to Mr. Chapman very sparingly. However, this article was and is an important article as it sets out the differences between differing groups in the SBC. His article is an attempt to take a middle ground. It appears that the vast majority of people want a middle ground on this issue, even people on both the Reformed and Arminian side. We must be careful and know what is being said about what the middle ground really is. If we don’t, the Gospel will be compromised by at least one side if not both.
Why do I believe this article has such a dangerous concept? It is because it is an attempt to get people to quit arguing for certain positions in an attempt to keep the SBC from a debate. The problem, however, is that the Gospel is at the center of this debate despite the denial of both sides that it is. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is by grace alone from eternity to eternity and at every point in between. There are professing Calvinists and professing Arminians who deny this in either word or by practice. We must be careful to think through these issues with great care or we will be guilty of compromising the Gospel for the sake of peace and we will run around crying “peace, peace, when there is no peace (Jer 6:14; 8:11; Ezek 13:10).
The overall purpose of the article was an attempt to bring peace regarding three issues in the SBC by looking at the Baptist Faith and Message. One of the issues dealt with is Calvinism. The desire was to prevent a Convention wide debate on this issue as the author thought it would “do irreparable harm to the Kingdom of God and our Convention.” While I totally disagree with the idea that “a debate” on the Gospel would do any harm to the Kingdom of God, we are discussing the reason why the author wrote this article. The author clearly does not want there to be a “debate between those who believe in five-point Calvinism and those who don’t.” This is the stated reason and this reason cannot really be debated from the words of the author himself. That is his stated purpose.
With that in mind, the author starts this section of the article (on Calvinism) by quoting Section V of the Baptist Faith and Message. This is the section that speaks of election. He quotes two paragraphs and both are dealing with election and what Calvinists affirm. He then quotes from Section IV of the Baptist Faith and Message which speaks to salvation being “offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior” and then “there is not salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.” The whole of Section IV is debated, but the author quoted just a small part of section IV. His very next words after quoting Section IV are these: “The Bible teaches both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. The Baptist Faith and Message agrees that both the work of grace and the responsibility of man are necessary elements in the salvation experience.”
If we look at the overall purpose of the article and then the selected quotes from the Baptist Faith and Message followed by the words of the author of this article, I am not sure how it can be denied that the author is setting out a comparison of Calvinist and Arminian teaching. He does not want the Convention to get involved in a debate over this issue and then he sets out quotes from the Baptist Faith and Message. Section V teaches God’s sovereignty and Section IV is interpreted by Arminian leaning theologians as teaching man’s responsibility. But note that what is meant by the responsibility of man at this point is an Arminian view of man’s responsibility. For more on what the Arminian view of responsibility is, see a former BLOG on this issue (Responsibility and Inability I). There is no purpose in giving Section IV in that context if it is not an attempt to show that the Arminian view of responsibility is taught.
If the author meant the Reformed view of responsibility in his article, then he gave no evidence at all for the Arminian view of responsibility. If he meant the Reformed view of responsibility, then there is no reason to say that there should be no debate between those who believe in five-point Calvinism and those who don’t. If indeed he meant the Reformed view of responsibility, then he did nothing but state what Reformed people believe. What would be the point of that in light of this article? The only possible way to interpret this article in the words it was written is that the author meant that the Baptist Faith and Message and Scripture teach the Arminian view of responsibility. If so, then those who are truly Reformed and those who are truly Arminian have a problem. The author would then apparently think that it is okay to teach both Reformed soteriology and Arminian soteriology at the same institutions. That which is truly Reformed and that which is truly Arminian contradict each other and there can be no real agreement between those who truly hold to the various positions. We are just kidding ourselves to say that this is not true.
Do those that believe in the “five-points of Calvinism” believe in the responsibility of man? Yes, but in a far different way than the Arminian does. Of course the Bible teaches both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man (properly defined), but it does not teach the responsibility of man as the Arminian teaches it. In the past Reformed theologians have went to this issue at hand and thought that the Gospel was seriously compromised by Arminians at this very point (see BLOGS Essentials of the Gospel and following for more on this). In fact, they have taught that salvation cannot be by grace alone unless the Arminian view of ability was denied. In the past Arminians have thought that the Reformed view killed evangelism and churches. The author says that there is an antinomy between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. From the Reformed view of responsibility that may be true, but rather than an antinomy there is a contradiction from the Arminian view. For the Reformed people to remain silent on this issue and to accept peace at this point is to jettison what the Reformers and their theological children taught that the Bible taught on this issue. It can still be argued whether it is to jettison Scripture or not, but there can be no argument about what the Reformers taught on this.
The question then comes as to us as to what to do. There can be no debate and dialogue on the Gospel itself. The Gospel is to be preached and declared and there can be no compromise on the Gospel. One can compromise on ways to express things and certain focuses, but one cannot compromise the heart of the Gospel which is all about the glory of God in the face of Christ by grace alone. Can one that loves the Gospel of grace alone be quiet about others who teach a gospel that is not grace alone? Can there be peace in a denomination while some teach a Gospel of grace alone and others teach something else though still using the same designation? These are not silly little issues and is not just one person being picky. These are things that must be dealt with if we are to be faithful to Christ. Sure we have to be analytical and ask what people mean by words and concepts, but that is exactly what people that have been faithful to the Gospel have done over the years. It is far easier in one sense just to stand back and say nothing, but faithfulness to Christ and His true Church requires that we stand firm regardless of the cost.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment