JD Greear: Don't Split Over Calvinism, Bicker About Theology 'When People Are Lost, Going to Hell'

I appreciate what he’s trying to do, but unity is not going to be achieved in SBC by telling Calvinists that their beliefs are trivial. Ideas have consequences, even for “people who are lost and going to Hell.”

The SBC has a big theological tent. The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is derived from the 1833 New Hampshire Confession of Faith and it clearly has a Reformed-ish soteriology. Punting on this won’t help anybody. However, this is undoubtedly a tricky path for a leader to walk in the SBC.

If the divisions are serious enough (and I’m not quite foolish enough to equate social media with real life), then perhaps the “traditionalists” (a misnomer if there ever was one!) and the Founders folks could issue a joint statement about what they do agree on with regards to soteriology, have a public hug fest, and hopefully begin to move forward.

Greer said this:

“I agree with (former SBC president) Johnny Hunt. I do not know all there is to know about the particulars of Calvinism,” he added, “but what I do know is that the more I go and share Christ, the more people seem to keep getting elected.”

This is a good statement!

Here’s one example of a good, middle of the road statement that lovingly tries to straddle the fence on soteriology and appeal to both sides (except for atonement; the statement takes a stand on this):

The Bible faculty are committed to teaching a biblically balanced soteriology. We believe in the divine source of salvation, that all of salvation flows from God’s free and unmerited grace. We also affirm the responsibility of all people to repent of their sins and believe the gospel. We recognize that good men have differed throughout church history regarding the difficult questions of election and predestination. While believing that it is essential that every student of the Word work through the numerous passages that touch on these difficult issues, we grant both our faculty and students the liberty to investigate the sovereignty of God and the freedom of man in various ways.

We reject theology that denies the responsibility of all people to repent and believe, or the responsibility of all believers to evangelize everyone they can. We do not support positions that attribute the source of evil to God or that limit the extent of Christ’s atonement to the elect. We also reject man-centered theologies that depreciate human depravity, emphasizing free will to the extent that they depend upon methodologies and strategies as the crucial components in evangelism and revival. We uphold the biblical doctrine of eternal security.

The Bible faculty believe that carelessly disparaging men as Calvinists or Arminians is unhelpful and intellectually chilling. At Maranatha the great doctrines relating to God’s gracious work are treated with reverence and respect and believers are evaluated according to their obedience and faithfulness to the Word regardless of the labels men ascribe to them. Both scholarship and truth require accuracy and grace when evaluating men and ministries. We believe professors and students ought to be able to interact thoughtfully and respectfully on this issue, bringing all of their theological formulations to the bar of careful biblical exegesis.

This is from Maranatha. Of course it is; because all things noble and theologically astute come from Watertown!

I like it, mostly.

There are ways to accommodate different views on a question without saying/implying the question is unimportant.

Isn’t it a sign of maturity when we have enough confidence in our beliefs and their basis that we’re inclined to listen generously to opposing views? Correct beliefs only get stronger if we go to the trouble to understand​ the views we’re rejecting.

This is a bit off the beaten path, but during my time at Maranatha Seminary I remember Dr. Fred Moritz’s kind and balanced approach to soteriology (in the only module class I actually went on campus for!). He presented both sides fairly and honestly, and it was very refreshing to me, because I’d never been exposed to anything like Calvinism before.

And, in another example, I’ll always remember Dr. Andrew Hudson patiently spending two days of class time fielding questions from students about textual criticism during his NT Intro course. He advocated the NA28, but patiently and calmly handled honest questions from students who’d grown up their whole lives living and breathing the TR. He even recommended a book from a TR advocate, even while pointing out where he felt the author was wrong, and was extraordinarily gracious.

There is a way to be gracious, state and defend a position, and still be cordial. This principle of basic fairness and kindness in the midst of disagreement is why I believe Millard Erickson’s systematic theology is probably the best systematic Baptist pastor can own.

…not sure which, someone state that most of the folks he encountered, who claimed to be opposed to particular redemption. were actually opposed to conditional election, rather than particular redemption.

Thanks, John, for a thought-provoking statement. I’m still thinking it through. Not sure I’m quite where you are yet on this one, but I may be before the day’s over.

I hate to try to add to what Tyler noted, but it strikes me that one thing I’ve noticed about most theological arguments about the doctrines of grace are done by people who have read little, if anything, by Calvin and Arminius. I don’t know that you need to read and comprehend all 46 volumes, as Spurgeon famously joked, but one has to wonder what would happen if disputants were told “why don’t you read the Institutes?” (and whatever Arminus wrote)

It also strikes me that a plea for unity is timely, as I’m at least under the impression that a LOT of fundagelicals, especially those in the SBC, are being increasingly tempted to join with Reformed Baptists, and not just the “oatmeal stout” wing.

Dr. Oats did a workshop at the FBFI meeting this past summer on the SBC past and present. He demonstrated that the SBC has never been about doctrinal unity. It’s worth a listen

https://www.proclaimanddefend.org/sermons/the-sbc-what-has-changed-not-changed-and-needs-to-change/

I left out the UN in my original post. It should have read:

“…actually opposed to UN-conditional election…”

that’s what I get for typing too fast and not proof-reading!

[TylerR]

Dr. Fred Moritz’s kind and balanced approach to soteriology … Dr. Andrew Hudson patiently … fielding questions from students … There is a way to be gracious, state and defend a position, and still be cordial.

I also have benefited from the teaching ministry of both these men.

John, thanks for the correction. Now it makes sense, and I think I agree with you, at least as it relates to many people. However, I have encountered a good many who believe in unconditional election, yet hold tightly to universal atonement. It seems a bit strange, but that is the case. I’ve concluded, after observing many such over the years, that they fall into two categories. Four point Calvinists who are leaning toward three, and four pointers who are leaning toward five. The latter category often end up as five pointers eventually. The first group can hardly be distinguished from Arminians in their philosophy and methods of ministry. Doctrine does make a difference.

Bro. Barkman, behold … the multi-intentioned view of the atonement (see the contribution by John Hammett).

Thanks, Tyler. I hope to read Hammett at some point. Without having read him, I don’t know what he means by “multi-intentional”, but I have always believed in a multi-intentional view in the sense of redeeming the entire cursed universe back to God. That is a second purpose for the atonement beyond the redemption of sinners to eternal life. That, however, is not the same as providing an atoning sacrifice for sinners to secure their eternal redemption. I cannot accept a view of the atonement that posits God’s intention to potentially save everyone from Hell. If He intended to save everyone, then everyone will be saved. (which contradicts Scripture) If He intended to save the elect, then He accomplished exactly what He intended to do.

To be honest, the multi-intentioned view makes the most sense to me. I agree with the remorseless logic of the limited view, but I strongly believe (based on passages like Jn 15:22 and the context; I love the KJV’s rendering here!) that Christ’s atonement serves as the final “nail in the coffin” for those who reject Him. It’s the final, damning bit of evidence against them. The multi-intentioned view makes the best sense of all the evidence, I believe.

If I hadn’t run across this view, I’d likely embrace a tepid view of limited atonement.