by Sam Waldron | Mar 31, 2022 | Reformed Theology, Systematic Theology
I. What I Believe and the Reformed Faith Teaches
The Reformed faith believes or holds sola scriptura (the doctrine of the Scriptures alone as the basis for faith and practice) and does so “with a vengeance.” It disagrees with Roman Catholicism which holds that the rule of faith and practice is the Scripture plus oral, apostolic traditions preserved infallibly in the church. It even disagrees with Lutherans and Anglicans who, though they held sola scriptura with regard to the doctrines of the faith, did not regard the polity and practice of the church to be part of the doctrines of faith. Hence, Luther did not think he needed clear, scriptural basis for infant baptism. Cf. Paul Althaus in The Theology of Martin Luther, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 359f. Hence, Anglicans do not think that they need to ground their view of church government in the Scriptures but may ground it in Scripture plus the creeds and traditions of the first five centuries of church history. Richard Hooker is representative of Anglican views. In his work, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, he expressly denies the regulative principle. One writer says of Hooker’s classic work, “Its object is to assert the right of a broad liberty on the basis of Scripture and reason.” Cf. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, (Funk & Wagnalls, New York, 1909), vol. V, p. 360.
The Reformed (beginning with Calvin) disagreed. While Luther adopted the policy of preserving the worship of Medieval Catholicism except where it contradicted Scripture, Calvin, on the other hand, adopted the principle that said that the contents of worship had to have warrant in Scripture. Cf. John Calvin, “The Necessity of Reforming the Church,” Selected Works, 1:128-129. The Reformed believed that, if infant baptism was to be practiced, it had to have a scriptural basis. They believed that the government of the church, like the worship of the church, had to have a scriptural basis either explicitly or by good and necessary inference. They made this belief explicit in the Westminster Confession of Faith and these beliefs are explicitly reiterated in our own 1689 Baptist Confession.
Worship had to have a clear, scriptural basis. Here is the Westminster at 21:1 (and the same wording may be found in 22:1 of the 1689).
… But the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.
Like worship, church government is to be deduced from Scripture—only the circumstances being left to Christian prudence and the light of nature. Here is the Westminster at 1:6 (and the same wording may be found also at 1:6 of the 1689.)
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed
The Westminster (again followed by the 1689) emphasizes this commitment to the sufficiency of sola scriptura by affirming the supremacy of Scripture at 1:10:
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
I find these confessional assertions to be fully and completely scriptural. Anyone committed to one of these confessions also ought to find in them clear and important scriptural truth.
II. Why I am Concerned
With such clear and crucial scriptural truth and confessional affirmation before us, it is nothing less than shocking to be confronted in recent years with assertions by Reformed men that (seem to me) directly undermine the truth of the supremacy and sufficiency of sola scriptura.
First Troubling Statement
A few years ago, this statement troubled me when I heard it, and it still troubles me today.
Semper Reformanda … does not mean changing doctrine, but it means applying the doctrine to our lives. It is a clarion call to a vital experiential understanding of the truth in the lives of Christ’s sheep. So it’s not changing our doctrine, but applying the doctrine that we already know to be biblical.
The origin of the phrase semper reformanda does seem to emphasize bringing our practices into line with our confessional doctrines. Cf. W. Robert Godfrey’s online article here: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/what-does-semper-reformanda-mean.
At the same time, it seems to me, whatever semper reformanda originally meant, we must embrace the notion that our confessions are subject to being reformed on the basis of sola scriptura. Even our confessions must be subject to being reformed by Scripture. Yes, our practice must change, but sometimes our confessional statements need to be modified. The American Presbyterians had to do this with the Westminster Confession in and around 1788-89 to take out of it the deadly doctrine of the union of church and state. Let us not deny that our confessions are subject to the authority of Scripture and subject to being reformed by Scripture.
Second Troubling Statement
Recently, someone wrote online
2LCF 1.1 confesses the following: “The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience…” Notice what Scripture is sufficient for. Is it everything? No. It is not sufficient for changing the oil on my truck. It is not sufficient for installing a new hard drive in my computer. It is sufficient for saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. Everything necessary for the Christian life is found in the Bible. But not every detail of the faith is there.
True, the Bible does not tell us how to change the oil. But this cannot imply in any way that “every detail of the faith” is not derived from it. Scripture is the only rule for faith. It is right there in the Confession.
Here is what I think. If something is not in Scripture either explicitly or by good and necessary inference, then it is not the faith. Whatever else it is, or may be, it is not the faith. This is what sola scriptura requires us to say. We must not say—we may never say of Scripture—“But not every detail of the faith is there.”
Third Troubling Statement
In my recent reading I came across another statement from a Reformed brother that worried me. Here it is:
To depart from the creed is to depart from scriptural teaching itself. … Heresy is a belief that contradicts, denies, or undermines a doctrine that an ecumenical church council has declared biblical and essential to Christianity. What makes heresy so subtle and dangerous? It is nurtured within the church and is wrapped within Christian vocabulary. Its representatives even quote the Bible. It often presents itself as the whole truth when it is a half-truth.
Once more, there is an element of truth in this statement. Until the Reformation, practically speaking, heresy consisted of views that contradicted the scriptural teaching regarding the Trinity and the Person of Christ which were articulated in the Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds. But surely, formally and authoritatively speaking, heresy has to be defined as false teaching that overthrows foundational scriptural teaching. This is what 26:2 of the 1689 says: “not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation.” Such errors must be finally determined by Scripture. Remember 1:10 of the Westminster and 1689?
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
A statement like the one quoted above raises serious questions. So, when and where were the errors and heresies of Roman Catholicism condemned by an “ecumenical church council?” And how shall we decide if it was an ecumenical church council? Must not the answers to such questions finally be determined by sola scriptura? Heresy is not finally defined by church councils, but by Scripture Alone.
Fourth Troubling Statement
Here is a report I received from some friends of mine about a conversation they were having with a Reformed brother. It also troubles me. They were talking about a doctrine usually today associated with Roman Catholicism.
When pressed on the lack of biblical evidence for this, he insinuated that I was being a biblicist. I said that our doctrine should come both implicitly and explicitly from Scripture, he said some of our doctrine comes from outside of Scripture. He said this in response to my appeals to show the validity of that doctrine from Scripture. His concern was that there is significant historical precedent for this doctrine, and this indicates its validity in spite of the lack of data in Scripture.
Now perhaps my friends drastically misunderstood their friend in this conversation. But I doubt it! And if this reported conversation is true, it once more illustrates the really troubling confusion about the implications of sola scriptura spreading in Reformed circles.
Really? Does … some of our doctrine comes from outside of Scripture … ? We may have opinions that come from outside Scripture. We may have personal convictions that come from outside Scripture. We may have important applications that depend on something beyond Scripture. But if we believe sola scriptura, we may not have doctrine that comes from outside of Scripture.
Fifth Troubling Statement
I can summarize this fifth troubling statement this way. Thomas Aquinas held sola scriptura. Yes, there is actually a serious conversation going on over the last several years about whether Thomas Aquinas held sola scriptura! Fine Reformed men and other Evangelicals are in print affirming that he did. I do not need to mention their names. You can look them up yourself if you are interested.
Well, I am with my friend James White on this matter. Thomas did not believe in sola scriptura; and it is not even a close call. Furthermore, White is right when he says that the fact that Aquinas did not hold sola scriptura is a foundational matter of doctrine. This means that he is not a safe guide to the interpretation of Scripture. Cf. James White’s broadcast on “Reformed Thomists?” It may be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR3ExDuY8Ic.
The fact that people can be confused on this shows that they are quite confused about the meaning of sola scriptura and its implications. Perhaps the problem here is that people have not realized the complexity of the issue of sola scriptura prior to the Reformation. I would urge anyone to read Heiko Oberman’s Forerunners of the Reformation on this matter. He deals with the problem of Scripture and tradition in chapter 2 on pages 51 to 120. I think you will see that this matter is “complicated.” I think a failure to see how complicated it is has led some to naively quote statements of Thomas Aquinas out of context. While such statements show that he believed in Scripture, they do not show that he believed in Scripture Alone or sola scriptura.
I cannot in this article go into detail about this. I do, however, want to illustrate it by looking at one commonly cited statement of Thomas which sounds like sola scriptura. I suggest a perusal of this site for more detail: http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a113.htm. The statement often quoted is this: (I place the key statement in bold italics.)
“It should be noted that though many might write concerning Catholic truth, there is this difference that those who wrote the canonical Scripture, the Evangelists and Apostles, and the like, so constantly assert it that they leave no room for doubt. That is what he means when he says ‘we know his witness is true.’ Galatians 1:9, “If anyone preach a gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be anathema!” The reason is that only canonical Scripture is a measure of faith. Others however so wrote of the truth that they should not be believed save insofar as they say true things.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of John 21)
This sounds to many like sola scriptura. But it is not. Several things must be noted.
- First, the contrast Thomas is drawing in context is between canonical Scripture and non-canonical writings. He is not contrasting Scripture with the oral traditions of the church.
- Second, he does not say that the canonical Scripture is the measure of faith, but “a measure of faith.” The author of the article on this site makes this point clearly.
“First, what does it mean that “only canonical Scripture is a measure [or rule] of faith” … What St. Thomas is doing is contrasting Scripture to other apocryphal or non-canonical writings (as noted by Catholic Dossier above). And Catholics/Orthodox today would agree. Aquinas was not opposing “the canonical Scriptures” against the Church or her tradition which he also affirmed was a measure, a rule for faith and practice. In other words, St. Thomas is not saying sacred tradition is not ALSO A rule for faith and practice. How do I know this? He says so below.”
- Third, Thomas Aquinas explicitly repudiates sola scriptura in a number of places in his writings. Here are a couple of examples:
Summa Theologica: Third Part, Question 25, Article 3: “The Apostles, led by the inward stirring of the Holy Ghost, handed down to the churches certain instructions which they did not leave in writing, but which have been ordained in accordance with the observance of the Church as practiced by the faithful as time went on. Therefore the Apostle says: ‘STAND FAST, AND HOLD THE TRADITIONS WHICH YOU HAVE LEARNED, WHETHER BY WORD’ — that is by word of mouth — ‘OR BY OUR EPISTLE’ — that is by word put into writing (2 Thess 2:15)….”
Summa Theologica: Third Part, Question 64, Article 2 on “Whether the Sacraments are instituted by God alone?” “REPLY 1: Human institutions observed in the Sacraments are not essential to the Sacrament, but belong to the solemnity which is added to the Sacraments in order to arouse devotion and reverence in the recipients. But those things that are essential to the Sacrament are instituted by Christ Himself, who is God and man. And though they are not all handed down by the Scriptures, yet the Church holds them from the intimate tradition of the Apostles, according to the saying of the Apostle : ‘THE REST I WILL SET IN ORDER WHEN I COME’ (1 Cor 11:34).”
III. What I Want to Warn You About
Is Sola Scriptura Now Biblicism?
There is such a thing as biblicism. What is it properly understood? It is the demand for explicit, scriptural prooftexts and the rejection of what may be by “good and necessary” inference deduced from Scripture. Not a few “New Testament” scholars seem unwilling to allow systematicians to synthesize the teaching of Scripture and require explicit prooftexts before they will accept any teaching.
Biblicism is also interpreting Scripture without the benefit of the guidance of the pastor-teachers which Christ has given the church over the last 2000 years. We need and benefit from those pastor-teachers. This teaching tradition ought never to be ignored. When it is neglected or denied, that is a kind of biblicism. Such biblicism trusts its own interpretation of Scripture blindly against the “great tradition.”
Yet we must say (contrary to Roman Catholicism) that this tradition is neither unified nor universal. There are differences in the tradition. It is certainly not inerrant or infallible. Some parts of that tradition actually deviate from apostolic doctrine.
Nor does that tradition have any authority apart from Scripture. Its value, like the value of any good teacher, is simply to help us see what is already there. The good teacher does not tell us to believe something just because they say it. The good teacher shows us what is already there and helps us to see it for ourselves. Thus also, the “great tradition” simply helps us to see what is already in the Bible with our own eyes. It has no more “authority” than this.
Like Luther, then, we must be convinced from Scripture of what we must believe. We cannot take the word of creeds or councils as the basis of our faith. Luther said it clearly at the Diet of Worms in 1521: “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me.”
Here is the bottom line. The “great tradition” is a wonderful guide and teacher to what the Bible says and means. But it is a terrible lord and master. We listen to guides and teachers, but we only submit and obey sola scriptura as our lord and master. I fear that this distinction is being lost in the wave of emphasis on interpreting the Scriptures according to the “great tradition.”
Do We Understand the Danger with the Current Emphasis on the Analogy of Faith?
The hermeneutical principle of the analogy of faith is a valuable help in the interpretation of the Bible. It says that no assertion of Scripture should not be interpreted in such a way as to contradict another clearly taught doctrine of Scripture. It is at least implied by the statement of its sister principle the analogy of Scripture in the 1689 Baptist Confession at 1:9: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly.”
Once more, however, I think a warning is in order. While the principle is true, our applications of it may be false. The classic illustration of this misuse of the analogy of faith is the one made by the Protestant Reformed and Herman Hoeksema when he argued that, since the doctrine of unconditional election is true, the doctrine of the free offer of the gospel and common grace cannot be true. God cannot offer Christ freely and show common grace to people whom he has not elected to salvation. He perceived that the free offer of the gospel and common grace contradicted the doctrine of election. This is a bright flashing yellow light cautioning us against an over-confident use of the analogy of faith.
And this leads me to another concern.
Have Our Systematics Become Incorrigible To The Bible?
I am a systematician. That is the area in which I did my Ph.D. studies. I love and believe in systematic theology with all my heart. I think the lack of systematic teaching is a blight on a lot of modern preaching.
But we must never become so enamored with the logic of our systematics that we are unable to hear the Scriptures plainly contradict our views. This is what I mean by our systematics becoming incorrigible to the Scriptures. Our systematic theology must always be able to be corrected by the Scriptures. It must never be put in a place where it is incorrigible, irredeemable, or incurable by sola scriptura.
Did the Development of Doctrine Cease in the 17th Century?
I love the high Reformed and Puritan theologians of the 17th century. I have read most of Richard Muller’s Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. Unquestionably, it was a great advance on the confusion of the Medieval period and even on the adolescence of the Early period of church history.
But I cannot accept the view that the development of doctrine ceased in the 17th century. This really seems to be the perspective of some. The New Testament teaches that the organic development of Christ’s church continues throughout this age and only ceases when the church is finally built and Christ returns. This infers the development of doctrine throughout this age.
Please don’t now attribute to me what I am not saying. I am perfectly happy with Classical Theism, the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity, and the Chalcedonian Christology. I see no need for any alteration in these great truths.
But there have been important theological developments since the 17th century. The doctrine of last things is clarifying in the modern period. The doctrine of the relation of church and state is becoming more clear with the entire shedding of the idea of a state-church in the modern period. The distinction between natural and moral ability associated with Jonathan Edwards and Andrew Fuller is another example of such development.
We must not assume the perfection and finality of the High Reformed construction of doctrine. They did not assume it. We should not either. All of our development of doctrine is subject to the lord and master, sola scriptura!
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Tom Nettles | Mar 29, 2022 | Church History
On January 14, 1855, Spurgeon preached on the text 2 Kings 7:19 “Behold, thou shalt see it with thine eyes but shalt not eat thereof.” His theme was the certain judgment that comes from the sin of unbelief. Such was the case with the king of Samaria. Some elements of Spurgeon’s argument in this sermon resonate with a sermon by Stephen Charnock, “A Discourse of Unbelief, Proving it is the Greatest Sin.” [Charnock, Works 4:220-295.]
Unbelief has many shades of dark and darker hues; it appears in the regenerate under a variety of circumstances, but increasingly engulfs the unregenerate. It is forgiven and diminishes in the regenerate but damns and hardens the unregenerate. It yields only the hammer that breaks the rock by effectual operation.
If a person does not believe with his whole being the promises of God based on the certainty of his redemptive work, then he calls into question God’s immutability, his omnipotence, or the continued wise providential arrangement of his decrees. Atheism is a peculiar sort of unbelief because it is aggravated by ontological irrationality arising from moral and ethical issues; “Without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him” (Hebrews 11:6). An atheist chooses the indefensibility of nothingness over the self-evident truth that moral uprightness finally is a matter of seeking true knowledge of God. The real target in this message, however, is the specific theology of hyper-Calvinism. – “I am astonished, and I am sure you will be,” he announced, “when I tell you that there are some strange people in the world who do not believe that unbelief is a sin. Strange people I must call them, because they are sound in their faith in every other respect, only, to make the articles of their creed consistent, as they imagine, they deny that unbelief is sinful.” Spurgeon found something comprehensive in Jesus’ words concerning the convicting operations of the Holy Spirit beginning with “of sin because they believe not on me” (John 16:9, the text for Charnock’s sermon). At the root of all violations of divine law and the piling up of wrath from actual transgressions is this, “They believe not on me.” Fore and aft, sin amounts to a rejection of the Lordship of Christ: fore in disobedience to his law, both that written on the heart and that revealed through the written code; aft, for refusing to receive the person of Christ in his completed work of redemption.
Hyper-Calvinism, however, isolates faith to the category of pure soteriological sovereignty. Because evangelical faith comes only through an effectual work of the Holy Spirit, and the consequent right relationship with God comes by grace alone, it was not a part of the requirements given to Adam in the unfallen state. Right relationship with God in that state depended on absolute obedience to law. He never contemplated nor was aught revealed of a right relationship through forgiveness and its concomitants. Faith generated by the Holy Spirit, faith in a Redeemer, was not required from man in the unfallen state. It would be unjust of God, therefore, to require now what was not revealed then and was in the nature of things impossible then. Therefore, though faith is a blessed gift granted to the elect, lack of it is not a sin in the non-elect. We cannot on that account call persons to believe and indicate that judgment is increased by their not believing. Spurgeon was alarmed and aghast. “I thought that, however far they might wish to push their sentiments, they would not tell a lie to uphold the truth, and in my opinion, this is what such men are really doing.”
The sermon, therefore, is an extended assault on unbelief as the seedbed of all sin from the fall of the innocents to the condemnation of the finally and aggressively impenitent. “Oh! sirs believe me,” he pled with the crowd at New Park Street, “could you roll all sins into one mass—could you take murder, and blasphemy, and lust, adultery, and fornication, and everything that is vile, and unite them all into one vast globe of black corruption, they would not equal even then the sin of unbelief. This is the monarch sin, the quintessence of guilt, the mixture of the venom of all crimes, the dregs of the wine of Gomorrah, it is the A-1 sin, the masterpiece of Satan, the chief work of the devil.” After a long list of events and persons in the Scripture who experienced devastation loss, or death, or eternal judgments because of lack of faith Spurgeon said, “Unbelief, you see, has the Cain-mark upon its forehead. God hates it, God has dealt hard blows upon it, and God will ultimately crush it. Unbelief dishonors God. Every other crime touches God’s territory, but unbelief aims a blow at His divinity, impeaches His veracity, denies His goodness, blasphemes His attributes, maligns His character, therefore, God, of all things, hates first and chiefly, unbelief, wherever it is.” Spurgeon surveyed the Old Testament and traced every sin, every calamity of judgment to unbelief. He went through Hebrews 11 and showed that faith was the moral basis of every manifestation of trust, obedience, or self-effacing action for God’s glory. If faith is not a requirement for all persons in whatever condition, and if lack of faith is not a sin, then the whole Bible is a massive irrelevancy for proclamation in a rebellious, distrustful world Did Spurgeon’s adoption of Andrew Fuller’s view of faith as a moral duty diminish his commitment to faith as a gift of sovereign grace? By no means. They are perfectly consonant with each other. Hear him
as he described the response of those who attended his sermons. “There is someone in the front there, who gets converted, and someone down below, who is called by sovereign grace, some poor sinner is weeping under a sense of his blood-guiltiness, another is crying for mercy to God, and another is saying, ‘Have mercy upon me, a sinner.’” Then he applied the phenomenon to apparently disinterested attenders, combining their responsibility with their utter dependence on the call of grace. “A great work is going on in this chapel, but some of you do not know anything about it. You have no work going on in your hearts, and why? Because you think it is impossible. You think God is not at work. He has not promised to work for you who do not honor Him. Unbelief makes you sit here in times of revival and of the outpouring of God’s grace, unmoved, uncalled, unsaved.” Does Spurgeon then, in spite of the ridicule, suspicions, and opposition of James Wells and his hyper-calvinist compatriots urge the entire crowd to close with Christ through faith? Listen! “I beseech you, my hearers, by the death of Christ—by His agony and bloody sweat—by His cross and passion—by all that is holy—by all that is sacred in heaven and earth—by all that is solemn in time or eternity—by all that is horrible in hell or glorious in heaven—by that awful thought, “for ever”—I beseech you lay these things to heart, and remember that if you are damned, it will be unbelief that damns you. If you are lost, it will be because you believed not on Christ, and if you perish, this shall be the bitterest drop of gall—that you did not trust in the Savior.”
Dr. Tom Nettles is widely regarded as one of the foremost Baptist historians in America. He joined the faculty of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary after teaching at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School where he was professor of Church History and chairman of that department. Previously, he taught at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary. He received a B.A. from Mississippi College and an M.Div. and Ph.D. from Southwestern. In addition to writing numerous journal articles and scholarly papers, Dr. Nettles has authored or edited nine books including By His Grace and For His Glory, Baptists and the Bible, and Why I Am a Baptist.
Courses taught: Historical Theology of the Baptists, Historical Theology Overview, Jonathan Edwards & Andrew Fuller.
by Sam Waldron | Mar 22, 2022 | Reformed Theology
Editors Note:
This blog post originally appeared as a series on CBTS’s website in 2015. Due to its practical value, it has been curated here into one long post.
Introduction:
I have arranged my treatment of 21 Misunderstandings of Calvinism in the order of T-U-L-I-P.
1. Calvinists do not believe in free will!
It certainly is true that Calvinists do not believe in what most people call (usually with a great deal of confusion) free will. Sometimes I have heard respectable Calvinists say that they believe in free agency rather than free will. As for myself and many other Calvinists, we prefer to say that we believe in free will properly defined. What is a proper and biblical definition of free will? It is the one given in the 1689 Baptist Confession in chapter 9, paragraph 1: “God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.” Here free will is defined as the power of acting upon choice. This is the natural liberty of the human. Such a view of free will is suggested by a number of texts:
Matthew 17:12 but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished (willed). So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.”
James 1:14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
Deuteronomy 30:19 “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,
As I implied above, mankind still possesses this natural liberty or ‘free will.’ This is implied by an analysis of the outline of Chapter 9 of the Confession. It may be outlined as follows:
I.The Definition of Human Freedom, par. 1
II.The States of Human Freedom, par. 2-5
A.Free will in the State of Innocency, par. 2
B.Free Will in the State of Sin, par. 3
C.Free Will in the State of Grace, par. 4
D.Free Will in the State of Glory, par. 5
The force of this outline is that paragraphs 2-5, including and especially paragraph 3, do not function as a negation of the definition of human freedom given in paragraph 1. All of these paragraphs simply tell us the four states in which the natural liberty or free will of man may exist.
But, of course, mankind does not in the state of sin possess the spiritual or moral liberty to use his “free will” to choose what is right. His will is tied to his sinful nature so that he cannot will any spiritual good. Thus, Jesus teaches in Matthew 7:17-18: “So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.” All this means that I agree with Walt Chantry that man’s will is free, yet bound. So it is not true to say that Calvinists do not believe in free will.
My intention in this blog is not to condemn all denunciations of free will in our preaching. We often assume, properly it seems to me, an Arminian definition of free will in such legitimate denunciations. I am saying that when it comes to calm and careful theological discussion that it is better to affirm that we believe in free will properly defined.
2. Calvinists do not believe in human responsibility!
This assertion is also a slander on authentic Calvinism. Calvinists not only believe that men have a natural liberty, but they also agree that men are responsible for their actions because of that natural liberty.
The reason why Arminians claim that Calvinists deny human responsibility is that they have adopted what amounts to a Pelagian premise into their theology. They believe that responsibility assumes ability. The notion that responsibility for doing something assumes ability to do something is not true—if you are talking about moral ability. The Bible in many places teaches that men cannot come to Christ, but it still holds them responsible to do so.
John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
John 6:65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”
I am in agreement with the great Calvinists Jonathan Edwards and Andrew Fuller who made a distinction between natural and moral ability. I think in making this distinction they are simply enlarging on what the Confession already teaches. Human responsibility assumes natural ability, but it does not assume moral ability. God does not tell us to run one minute miles. He does tell us to do things which He has given us the natural ability to do. We are able to love and trust and be sorry. We have the natural ability to do such things. But we do not have the moral ability to love and trust and be sorry about the right things. Thus, God tells us to do things that, because of sin, we do not have the moral ability to do. John 5:40 rebukes the Jews precisely for not coming to Christ for salvation: “and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.”
3. Total depravity means that men are as bad as they can be!
Once more this is not mainline Reformed teaching. While it is true that men can do no spiritual or saving good, the Reformed tradition has recognized that unconverted men can and do perform what is often called acts of civil righteousness. It was better that Ahab outwardly responded to Elijah’s rebuke than if he had not, but it did not mean that Ahab had truly repented or truly done anything spiritually good. Here is the language of 1 Kings 21:27-29: “It came about when Ahab heard these words, that he tore his clothes and put on sackcloth and fasted, and he lay in sackcloth and went about despondently. 28 Then the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, 29 “Do you see how Ahab has humbled himself before Me? Because he has humbled himself before Me, I will not bring the evil in his days, but I will bring the evil upon his house in his son’s days.”” Thus, I agree with E. H. Palmer who in his book on the five points of Calvinism said that, while men are not as bad as they can be, they are as bad off as they can be. Total depravity is not absolute depravity!
4. Total inability means that, even though men want to be saved, they cannot be saved or come to Christ!
Once more this is a total misunderstanding of the doctrines of total depravity and total inability. May I quote the Confession once more?
Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
Total inability absolutely does not mean that men want to be saved, but they just cannot be because they are totally depraved. Total inability consists in an indisposition of the will to any spiritual good. It means that men are “averse” to good. It means that “the cannot’s” of John 6 are a way of describing “the will not” of John 5:40: “and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.” Total inability means that nobody really wants to be saved apart from the grace of God working in their hearts.
5. Calvinists are fatalists!
I looked up the dictionary definition of fatalism, but I think it has little to do with what the people who make this charge actually mean. Let me tell you what I think they mean. I think they mean to say that Calvinists think that nothing we do changes our final destiny. I think they mean that there is no relationship between how a person acts and where he will spend eternity. I think they mean that somehow a person’s destiny in eternity is fixed regardless of how he responds to the gospel here in this life. If that is what they mean by fatalism, then it has nothing to do with mainstream Calvinism. Calvinists believe that the promises of the gospel are true for any person who will receive them by faith. The promise of Acts 16:31 is true without exception: “They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”” Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved is absolutely true for everyone. The person who repents of his sins and believes in the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved without exception. Election does not mean that God is free not to keep His gospel promises. It does not mean that He may not save you even if you believe in Christ. Listen to the first systematic statement of the doctrines of grace, the Canons of Dort:
SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 5. Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life….
6. Calvinists believe the elect will be saved no matter what we or they do!
Once more this is absolutely not what the doctrines of grace teach. Consider these words of chapter 3 of the 1689 Baptist Confession:
God is neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established …
Here the Confession makes clear that God honors human liberty and the contingency (conditionality) of second causes in the working out of His eternal plan. This means that what people do does matter! The Confession teaches this because it is absolutely the teaching of the Bible. 2 Timothy 2:10 gives us Paul’s doctrine of the election: “For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.” If Paul believed that the elect would be saved no matter what they or we do, how could he have uttered these sentiments? Election does not mean that the elect will be saved no matter what we or they do. It means that they and we will certainly do certain things! It means missionaries will suffer. It means that the elect will believe. It means that both of these things will happen, and in this way the elect will be saved!
7. Calvinists steal assurance of salvation from God’s people!
Wrong! This assertion is exactly and precisely the opposite of the truth. It is Arminians who make assurance of salvation impossible. I remember seeing John Wesley quoted in support of assurance of salvation. But whatever John Wesley believed, since he believed in falling from grace, he did not and could not consistently believe in genuine assurance of salvation. Real assurance of salvation is only possible if the genuine Christian cannot fall from grace. If a genuine Christian can fall from grace, then you can have assurance that you are Christian today, but you can have no assurance that you will be a Christian tomorrow! This is no true assurance of salvation at all. Only someone who believes that salvation is a gift of the sovereign God and the fruit of sovereign election can be certain that the salvation he has today he will have on the day he dies!
But Arminians probably make this assertion that Calvinists steal assurance of salvation from God’s people! because they think that connecting salvation with election makes it into a mysterious matter about which one can never be certain. But this is simply a misunderstanding. The London Baptist Confession of Faith (3:6; 10:1) teaches what the Bible clearly says and that is that someone’s election is made clear by the results of that election in his life. One can know that one is elect from the fruits of election in their life. Here is 3:6 of the 1689:
As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so he hath, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto; wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation; neither are any other redeemed by Christ, or effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
Of course, such teaching simply reflects the clear assertions of the Bible. Faith, hope, and love, and true conversion under the power of the gospel are according to the Apostle Paul the tell-tale marks of divine election in a person’s life.
1 Thessalonians 1:3 constantly bearing in mind your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father, 4 knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you; 5 for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.
Listen also to the Canons of Dort on this subject:
FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 12. The elect in due time, though in various degrees and in different measures, attain the assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable election, not by inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things of God, but by observing in themselves with a spiritual joy and holy pleasure the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the Word of God – such as, a true faith in Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrow for sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc.
8. Calvinists teach the damnation of infants!
Once more this is simply false. Many famous Calvinists believe in the salvation of all infants dying in infancy. Spurgeon a century ago and Al Mohler are two examples of such Calvinists. Others think that God has shrouded this whole matter in mystery and says little or nothing directly about it in Scripture. They adopt an optimistic agnosticism about the matter. No Calvinists of whom I am aware affirm the damnation of infants.
9. Calvinists teach double predestination!
Here we Calvinists must avoid a snare. We must first ask our accusers, What do you mean by double predestination? We may affirm double predestination and mean something by it that is much different and much better than what our accusers mean by it. So we must be careful.
- It is certainly true that unconditional election means that when some are elected for salvation others are passed over and left to their just condemnation for their sins. So (True!) the same election which chooses some for salvation leaves others in their sins. This is a kind of double predestination.
- But if someone means by double predestination that people are predestined to hell regardless of their sins, then that is not true, and I know of no Calvinists who ever taught it. Predestination to hell is always in light of the sins of the creatures and therefore well-deserved.
- And if someone means that some people are predestined to damnation in the same way that others are predestined to salvation, then they also are quite mistaken! God intervenes in magnificent and multiple acts of grace in bringing the elect to salvation. He simply leaves others to follow their own sinful desires so that their predestination to damnation is brought to pass.
10. Calvinists do not believe in missions or evangelism!
Listen to the Canons of Dort once more:
SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 5. Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal 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.
Here we want to cry out to our accusers, Have you never heard of William Carey? Do you not know that this first Baptist missionary was a Particular or Reformed Baptist and was sent out by churches that were Particular or Reformed Baptist?
The fact is that it is not Calvinism, but Arminianism which is the great danger to evangelism and missions! The foundation of evangelism and missions is the exclusivity of the gospel. The great defenders of the exclusivity of the gospel are the Calvinists.
It is the Arminians who think God has to be fair with sinners. It is Arminians who think God owes everyone a “chance” to be saved. It is Arminians who think that it is not fair for God to send people to hell who never heard the gospel. It is Arminians, therefore, who are always inventing ways for men to be saved without the gospel. It is Arminians who for this reason and in this way are always chipping away at the exclusivity of the gospel and, thus, chipping away at the foundations of evangelism and missions.
11. It is not the duty of the non-elect to believe in Christ for salvation! Calvinists do not believe in the free offer of the gospel.
This is, indeed, the doctrine of a few Hyper-Calvinists, but it has never been the doctrine of mainstream Calvinism. The 1689 Baptist Confession (7:2) affirms: “Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved.” Listen once more to the Canons of Dort:
THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 9. It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ offered therein, nor of God, who calls men by the gospel and confers upon them various gifts, that those who are called by the ministry of the Word refuse to come and be converted. The fault lies in themselves; some of whom when called, regardless of their danger, reject the Word of life
12. God does not desire the salvation of the non-elect, but has only hatred for them.
There are again some High Calvinists that teach that, even though God commands the non-elect to come to Christ, He really has no desire that they come. But listen again to the Canons of Dort:
THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 8. As many as are called by the gospel are unfeignedly called. For God has most earnestly and truly declared in His Word what is acceptable to Him, namely, that those who are called should come unto Him. He also seriously promises rest of soul and eternal life to all who come to Him and believe.
13. There is no such thing as common grace.
Once more the 1689 Baptist Confession contradicts this claim. At 14:3 it speaks of “the faith and common grace of temporary believers…”
This is a good place to stop and make a comment or two about what is going wrong when Hyper-Calvinism denies duty-faith, the free and well-meant offer of the gospel, and common grace. What is going wrong is that they have adopted an imbalanced doctrine of the divine will! They are identifying the divine will simply with God’s decree. The Bible, however, teaches that the divine will is also revealed in God’s precepts. Consider a few texts:
Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.
Genesis 50:20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.
Ezekiel 33:11 “Say to them, ‘As I live!’ declares the Lord GOD, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?’
Romans 2:4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
Hyper-Calvinism refuses to value, or undervalues God’s preceptive or revealed will in favor of His decretive or secret will. But these two dimensions of God’s will must be equally valued. God as holy, righteous, and good, desires and must desire that men act in a way that is holy, righteous, and good. For mysterious reasons of His own He has not predestined in His decretive will that men should always act according to His preceptive will. Sometimes it is God’s decretive will that men violate His preceptive will and do what Joseph calls “evil.” We must bow to this mystery and not try to explain it away!
14. Only Calvinists limit the atonement.
The fact is that every evangelical somehow limits the atonement. Only the Universalist who believes that absolutely everyone will actually be saved by the death of Christ has a really unlimited atonement. Evangelicals with an atonement which is unlimited in extent limit the power or efficacy of that atonement to actually save those for whom Christ died. Calvinists limit the extent of the atonement. But both limit the atonement! This is why—by the way—I prefer to describe limited atonement as particular redemption.
15. Calvinists limit the value of the atonement.
Actually, it is Arminians who do this! But it is certainly not Calvinists who limit the value of the atonement. Listen once more to the Canons of Dort:
SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 3. The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.
The question debated between Arminians and Calvinists in regard to limited atonement is not, then, how much the atonement is worth or how valuable the redemption price paid by Christ is. The question is for whom was it paid and for whom was atonement made.
16. Limited Atonement contradicts the free and well-meant offer of the gospel!
Arminians make this claim because they rightly conclude that limited atonement means that we Calvinists cannot tell everyone you meet that Christ died for them. If limited atonement is true, then Christ did not die for everyone, and we may not say that He did! This seems a serious issue for the one who assumes that sharing the gospel means telling people that Christ died for them.
The problem is that the offer of the gospel does not consist in anybody’s view of whom Christ died for, or statement about the extent of the atonement. The gospel offer is not ‘Christ died for you.’ You can find no such gospel offer in the preaching of the Apostles of Christ or in the Book of Acts. The offer of the gospel is simply the offer of Christ Himself as a sufficient Savior. It is not necessary to make assertions with regard to those for whom Christ died in the mystery of the divine will in order to offer Christ as a sufficient Savior for all men without exception. Paul’s declaration in Galatians 2:20 that Christ loved me and gave himself for me is not a statement of the gospel offer to all sinners, but a statement of glorious assurance of salvation for saved sinners.
17. Limited atonement means that whosoever will may not come!
Once more the Canons of Dort contradict this slander:
FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 2. but in this the love of God was manifested, that He “sent his one and only Son into the world, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (1 John 4:9, John 3:16).
The question, then, is not if “whosever will may come.” Of course, anyone may come. The question is who actually will come and what will make them come.
18. Irresistible grace means that God saves men against their will!
Exactly not! Irresistible grace means rather that God makes people willing in the day of His power! The text often quoted by Calvinists here is Psalm 110:3: “Your people will volunteer freely in the day of Your power.” The 1689 (10:1) makes this matter abundantly clear:
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.
19. Irresistible grace means that men never resist the Holy Spirit!
Of course, if irresistible grace meant this, then irresistible grace would not be biblical. The Bible is explicit that some men do resist the Holy Spirit. Acts 7:51 reads: “You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.”
Irresistible grace, however, does not mean that men never resist the Holy Spirit. As I showed in a previous post, according to the 1689 Baptist Confession Calvinism teaches something known as common grace. The wooings and workings of common grace are not irresistible. As I also showed in a previous post, The Canons of Dort and the Confession both make clear that there is also such a thing as the general call of the gospel. In common grace and the general call of the gospel, the Holy Spirit speaks to men and sincerely calls them to come to Christ. Such common grace and general calls of the gospel are frequently resisted by men. However, the special grace and the effectual call of the Spirit actually create the response to which men are summoned. That grace and that call are, therefore, irresistible!
20. The Perseverance and Preservation of the Saints means that, once men are saved, it does not matter how they live, they will still go to heaven!
In our degenerate age this is actually how many professing Christians understand what they call eternal security. Eternal security is a corrupt form of the doctrine of the perseverance and preservation of the saints.
The historical fact is that at the time of the Synod of Dort and the writing of the 1689 Baptist Confession, neither mainstream Calvinists nor Arminians believed such a horrible doctrine. Neither the Calvinists who wrote the Canons of Dort, nor the Arminians who forced them to write the Canons, would ever have dreamed of teaching anything akin to the idea that once you are a Christian, you will be saved no matter how you live. Both Calvinists and Arminians believed that the perseverance of the Saints was a necessity. They only disagreed as to whether it was a reality and a certainty!
Listen to these excerpts from the Canons of Dort:
Those whom God, according to His purpose, calls to the communion of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and regenerates by the Holy Spirit, He also delivers from the dominion and slavery of sin …. But God is faithful, who, having conferred grace, mercifully confirms and powerfully preserves them therein, even to the end. (5th Head; Articles 1 and 3)
Saved people are delivered from the dominion and slavery of sin and are powerfully preserved in that deliverance to the end. This is the authentic and original doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints.
21. The Perseverance and Preservation of the Saints means that God’s people can have no assurance of salvation until after they have persevered!
Nothing could be further from the truth. It is only the doctrine of the perseverance and preservation of the saints that grounds assurance of salvation. Only a salvation bestowed by sovereign election and in which every true Christian will certainly be preserved provides any ground or hope of authentic assurance of salvation.
And furthermore assurance of our perseverance does not have to wait until after we have persevered. It can be gained from the marks of special grace which accompany all true faith. The 1689 Baptist Confession affirms this clearly in chapter 14, paragraph 3:
This faith, although it be different in degrees, and may be weak or strong, yet it is in the least degree of it different in the kind or nature of it, as is all other saving grace, from the faith and common grace of temporary believers; and therefore, though it may be many times assailed and weakened, yet it gets the victory, growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance through Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith.
Once more and finally, listen to the Canons of Dort:
FIFTH HEAD: ARTICLE 9. Of this preservation of the elect to salvation and of their perseverance in the faith, true believers themselves may and do obtain assurance according to the measure of their faith, whereby they surely believe that they are and ever will continue true and living members of the Church, and that they have the forgiveness of sins and life eternal.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Jim Savastio | Mar 21, 2022 | Practical Theology
It has often been stated that the Lord Jesus referenced only the church twice in His earthly ministry. The first time is in Matthew 16 wherein he stated that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church and the second in Matthew 18 wherein He envisions the necessity of church discipline against an impenitent member. In these two statements, it has been said, we have the church triumphant and the church militant (struggling). The history of the Church bears both these marks. There are glorious stories of triumph and grievous stories of shame, infidelity, and retreat.
For over thirty years I have been part of Reformed Baptist Churches. I have pastored one church for over 31 years and have sought to help other churches get planted. I have been involved in ministerial training in the US, Africa and the Far East. I have witnessed much of the good and sadly some of the bad an ugly of our little movement. While I find much to encourage my heart about the spread of confessional Baptist churches in recent years, there are also matters for concern. One of the greatest needs before us is the upcoming leadership crisis in many of our churches.
While there are numerous Calvinistic Baptist movements marked by vigorous and youthful leadership, our churches are not yet among their number. There are many of our churches where there are sole pastors and some of those churches are pastored by men of advancing years. Not only can they not find a lay elder in their local church to bring about a biblical plurality, they do not know who will lead their flock in the decades to come. No pastor I know wants their churches to fade away when they are gone. They desire that God will replace them with robustly confessional men who love the Lord and His people and who will lead them to the green grass and cool waters of His Word for decades till they themselves are replaced.
What kind of men? We desire biblically qualified men who have a passion to selflessly shepherd Christ’s flock. We desire men of giftedness who will be able to feed the flock. We desire men who will love and serve others with love and humility. We also desire men of doctrinal fidelity and conviction. As convictional Reformed Baptist we desire men who are robustly confessional. That means, for us, men who embrace the truths of the 1689 Confession with firmness, conviction, patience, tenacity, knowledge and joy. Men who embrace Baptist Covenant Theology. Men who love the Lord’s Day and are not ashamed of its place in the Moral Law. Men who believe in the centrality of the church and the commitment of members to its life together. If our churches are to remain committed not only to Orthodox and Reformed Christianity but to 1689 Confessionalism then we must do at least three things.
The first we must do is pray that the Lord of the Harvest will raise up laborers (Matt 9:38). As one has well said, only the God who made the world can make a gospel minister.
Secondly, we must invest in our younger men. We must lay bare afresh what we believe and why we believe it and pray that the Lord will instill in the rising generation a passion for these truths they have grown up with in a way that does not lead to pride, judgmentalism towards brethren who differ, and isolation. We can and must be a people of narrow convictions and broad affections and associations.
Thirdly we must act. This may mean proactively encouraging young men to consider the ministry. Pastors need to look for men to mentor and invest time and resources in. Look to give younger men opportunities for ministry—prison ministries, nursing homes, homeless shelters, youth gatherings, Sunday School classes, and eventually morning or evening worship services. We should be willing to invest time and resources into young men whose lives and gifts encourage us to believe that they may be useful leader in the church. This may mean supplying them with good books, paying for them to go to conferences and investing in their seminary education. It will also mean an investment in time. Pastors need to devote some time regularly to pour into the future generation. This may be done formally, as in some kind of pastoral theology class or inviting a man into an elders’ meeting from time to time. It may mean taking a man with you to visit a member in a nursing home or hospital. It may involve taking a brother out to breakfast or lunch and addressing issues of pastoral ministry. We need to lead the people of God in prayer for the rising generation with hope that God will own and bless His truth in them till His Son returns in glory.
Jim has been with RBC since 1990. He was set aside by the church for full time ministry in November of 1991. Jim was brought to faith as a teenager and soon began to experience a desire to preach God’s Word. He trained for the ministry at Columbia Bible College in Columbia, SC (now Columbia International University) and at the Trinity Ministerial Academy in Montville, NJ. He married his wife, Becky in 1989 and they have been blessed with three daughters and one son.
by Michael Haykin | Mar 21, 2022 | Church History
The people called Baptists have historically been a people with a high view of the Scriptures. The eighteenth-century Baptist pastor John Sutcliff (1752–1814) put it this way: “[T]he word of God … is called the Bible, the Book, intimating there is none like it. Its divine origin, its high authority, its unrivalled excellency, place it on a throne before which every other book must bow.” (( John Sutcliff, On Reading the Word of God, Circular Letter of the Northamptonshire Association (Kettering: J.G. Fuller, 1813), 2.)) As such, Baptists have been profoundly shaped by a loving interaction with and heartfelt submission to the Bible. In their doctrine, their life together, and their spirituality they have been a people of the Book.
Consider, for example, the witness of Thomas Dunscombe (1748–1811), the third minister of the Baptist congregation in the Oxfordshire village of Cote, spelt Coate in the eighteenth century. (( On Dunscombe’s life and ministry, see especially Stanley, Church in the Hop Garden, 128–154. Also see Account of the Bristol Education Society: For the Year Ending June, 1802 (Bristol: Harris and Bryan, [1802]), 20; Roger Hadyen, Continuity and Change: Evangelical Calvinism among eighteenth-century Baptist ministers trained at Bristol Academy, 1690–1791 (Milton under Wychwood, Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire: Nigel Lynn Publishing, 2006), 230.)) Dunscombe had been born in the West Country, at Tiverton in Devon, in 1748. In April of 1770, he matriculated at Bristol Baptist Academy, where he studied for the next two years till 1772, when he was asked to be the supply preacher at Cote after the death of the previous minister, Joseph Stennett. (( On Dunscombe’s life and ministry, see especially Stanley, Church in the Hop Garden, 128–154. Also see Account of the Bristol Education Society: For the Year Ending June, 1802 (Bristol: Harris and Bryan, [1802]), 20; Roger Hadyen, Continuity and Change: Evangelical Calvinism among eighteenth-century Baptist ministers trained at Bristol Academy, 1690–1791 (Milton under Wychwood, Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire: Nigel Lynn Publishing, 2006), 230. )) After a year of supply preaching, Dunscombe accepted a call to the Cote pastorate in June of 1773 and was ordained on August 4, 1773. His teachers from Bristol, Hugh (1712–1781) and Caleb Evans (1737–1791), father and son, both preached on the occasion.
Exactly twenty years later Dunscombe was asked to deliver a memorial address for Caleb Evans, at the Bristol Baptist Academy. In the course of this address, he made the following remarks about the Scriptures:
“God and his Word … are distinct, but ought never to be divided. We should acquire a habit of intercourse with God himself by meditation and prayer; and we should seek an intimate acquaintance with his Word. … His word is his voice; what that says to us, God says to us; to consult that, is to consult him; to be guided by that, is to be guided by him. … [I]f we want to find out the mind and will of God, if we wish to have his counsel and direction, we must go to the Word of his grace [Acts 20:32]: let but his word “dwell in us richly in all wisdom” [cf. Colossians 3:16] and it will be “a light to our
feet and a lamp to our path” [cf. Psalm 119:105]. ((Thomas Dunscombe, The tribute of affection to the memory of the late Doctor Evans
(Oxford, 1792), 24, 25, modernized.)) “
Here Dunscombe emphasized a critical principle of the Reformed tradition that goes back to John Calvin. ((See John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.7, 9.)) To read the Scriptures is to hear the voice of God; God and his Word are inseparable. Dunscombe continued by emphasizing that the Scriptures are “the grand instrument” that God uses to bring sinners to faith in Christ and then to sanctify those who have been converted:
“God, in all his processes with us, uses means; and if we were to trace effects up to their causes, we should find that his Word is the grand instrument which his Spirit uses in all his transactions with us and influence over us. Is an impenitent sinner alarmed? What is it produces the alarm? It is the revelation of God’s wrath which the Bible contains, and which the Spirit of God impresses on his mind. Is a penitent sinner encouraged and comforted? It is in consequence of recollecting or of being reminded of the proclamations and the tidings which the Gospel addresses to such as are of a broken heart and of a contrite Spirit. There is nothing deeply, lastingly, and profitably impresses the mind but the word of God … [So] if we take the Word of God for our guide, it will edify us, it will sanctify us, and it will support and comfort us. ((Dunscombe, Tribute of affection, 25–26, modernized.)) “
Little wonder that Dunscombe finished this mini-reflection upon the Scriptures by emphasizing that “there is a plenitude, a perfection in the Holy Scriptures,” for it speaks to every aspect of the human condition. ((Dunscombe, Tribute of affection, 27.))
Born in England of Irish and Kurdish parents, Michael A.G. Haykin serves as professor of church history & biblical spirituality. Haykin has a B.A. in Philosophy from the University of Toronto (1974), a Master of Religion from Wycliffe College, the University of Toronto (1977), and a Th.D. in Church History from Wycliffe College and the University of Toronto (1982). Haykin and his wife, Alison, have two grown children: Victoria and Nigel.
He is the author of a number of books, including The Spirit of God: The Exegesis of 1 and 2 Corinthians in the Pneumatomachian Controversy of the Fourth Century (E. J. Brill, 1994); One heart and one soul: John Sutcliff of Olney, his friends, and his times (Evangelical Press, 1994); Kiffin, Knollys and Keach: Rediscovering Our English Baptist Heritage (Reformation Today Trust, 1996); ‘At the Pure Fountain of Thy Word’: Andrew Fuller as an Apologist (Paternoster Press, 2004); Jonathan Edwards: The Holy Spirit in Revival (Evangelical Press, 2005); The God who draws near: An introduction to biblical spirituality (Evangelical Press, 2007).
Course taught for CBTS: Biblical Spirituality.
