The Reformation of Doctrine and the Renewal of the Church: A Response to Dr. William R. Estep

Founders ^ | 1997 | R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

[Gamecock]

One of the most promising signs of renewal in Southern Baptist life is the emergence of genuine theological discussion and historical interest. After decades marked by the absence of significant interest in many doctrines, Southern Baptists are awakening to historic doctrinal debates in a new key.

As if awakened from doctrinal amnesia, the denomination faces the promise of both renewal and reformation. In this process, we may recover our theological heritage even as we address our modern context of ministry.

Dr. William R. Estep, one of Southern Baptists' most distinguished historians, has recently directed attention to a resurgent Calvinism in Southern Baptist life. The "Calvinizing" of the Southern Baptist Convention, he fears, is a dangerous development.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to Dr. Estep and to present a very different understanding of what is at stake. Though vitriolic and harsh in tone, his article deserves a respectful and thoughtful response.

First, let me state at the onset that if Calvinism is accurately represented by Dr. Estep's treatment, I will have nothing to do with it. Nevertheless, few of Calvin's friends or enemies will recognize Calvinism as presented in Estep's article.

Calvin and Calvinism

Calvinism clearly draws its name from John Calvin, the sixteenth-century reformer whose towering intellect and biblical preaching gave birth to the "Reformed" tradition as one of the central streams of the Reformation. Calvin's mission was to establish the Church on the basis of Scripture, with its doctrine and practice drawn from Scripture itself.

His Institutes of the Christian Religion, first published in 1536, was his effort to set forth the doctrines revealed in the Bible. Few works have come close to the Institutes in terms of influence in the Church. Elsewhere, Dr. Estep has described the Institutes as "one of Protestantism's greatest attempts at erecting a systematic theology." Calvinism is simply the Reformation tradition which is associated most closely with Calvin.

Dr. Estep presents a very severe portrait of Calvin the reformer, and those looking for severity in Calvin need not look far. He was a sixteenth-century man who bore many of the prejudices and political dispositions common to his day. He would not understand the notion of religious liberty, and he was ready to use the arm of the law to enforce correct doctrine.

No Calvinist I know would advocate Calvin's position on these issues, any more than modern Lutherans would endorse Martin Luther's anti-Semitism. Baptists who quickly reject Calvin's theology because of his shortcomings on other issues must, if honest, reject virtually any influence from previous centuries. This holds true for Dr. Estep's treasured Anabaptists as well.

Calvin is not fairly depicted in Dr. Estep's article, but that is not the real issue. The issue is not Calvin, but the truth or falsehood of the doctrines he taught, and the doctrines now associated with his name.

The Heart of the Matter

The central tenet of Calvinism is the sovereignty of God. This is the starting point and the highest principle of Reformed theology. Calvinism is God-centered and draws its understanding of God directly from his self-revelation in Scripture. The God revealed in the Bible is the sovereign Creator, Ruler and Redeemer. His omnipotence, omniscience and governance over all things set this God of the Bible apart from all false gods.

The God of the Bible is the holy, ruling, limitless, acting, all-powerful God who makes nations to rise and to fall, who accomplishes his purposes and who redeems his people. Arminianism--the theological system opposed to Calvinism--necessarily holds to a very different understanding of God, his power and his government over all things.

Calvinism is most closely and accurately associated with the so-called "doctrines of grace," which summarize the teaching of Scripture concerning the gospel. The Bible teaches us that we are born sinners and are thus spiritually dead. Dead in our sins, we cannot on our own even respond to God's grace. Thus, as Jesus told his disciples, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to me, unless it has been granted him from the Father" (John 6:65).

Further, the Bible makes clear that God has chosen a people "chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father" (1 Peter 1:2). Paul, in writing to the Ephesian church, states that the Father has chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world, and "predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ" (Ephesians 1:3-5). The New Testament resounds with words including "chosen," "election" and "predestination." The issue is not whether these are taught by Calvin, but whether they are taught in Scripture.

We would like to think that we are smart enough, spiritually sensitive enough and responsive enough to choose to confess Christ without the prior work of God in our hearts. Unfortunately for our pride, this is not at all what the Bible reveals. God chooses us before we choose him. As Southern Seminary President E. Y. Mullins stated, "God's choice of a person is prior to that person's choice of God, since God is infinite in wisdom and knowledge and will not make the success of the divine kingdom dependent on the contingent choices of people."

Calvinism is nothing more and nothing less than the simple assertion that salvation is all of grace, from the beginning to the end. God saves sinners. Jesus Christ died for sinners. As Scripture promises, all those who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

The God of the Bible saves sinners and holds those he has redeemed to the end. The vast majority of Southern Baptists hold to the doctrine known as the "perseverance of the saints," but that precious promise makes sense only in terms of the "doctrines of grace." Our choice of Christ is indeed necessary, but he has first chosen us--and he will keep us to the end.

Many Southern Baptists find predestination and other doctrines difficult to understand and even offensive to our pride. But we cannot read the New Testament without coming again and again to these doctrines.

Calvinism and Evangelism

Dr. Estep charges that a revival of Calvinism will lead to a lessening of evangelistic commitment and missionary vision. This is a common charge, but it is reckless and without foundation. Indeed, many of the most significant missionary and evangelistic movements in the history of the Church have been led by those who held to the very doctrines Dr. Estep laments.

These have included Charles Spurgeon, the greatest Baptist preacher of the last century, whose ministry at London's Metropolitan Tabernacle was among the most evangelistic in the history of Christianity. Spurgeon openly and consistently advocated all the distinctive doctrines of Calvinism and publicly identified himself as a Calvinist. In a day of doctrinal decline, Spurgeon sounded the alarm for a recovery of biblical truth and the "doctrines of grace." When asked how he reconciled his Calvinism and fervent evangelism, he responded, "I do not try to reconcile friends."

Dr. Estep claims Andrew Fuller as an opponent of Calvinism, yet Fuller also held to the "doctrines of grace." He clearly advocated the doctrine of election. In The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, cited by Dr. Estep, Fuller affirms that "none ever did or will believe in Christ but those who are chosen of God from eternity."

William Carey, the father of modern missions, was himself a Calvinist, as were leaders such as Jonathan Edwards and the great George Whitefield. The Evangelism Explosion program used by so many Southern Baptist churches was developed by a Calvinist.

If Calvinism is an enemy to missions and evangelism, it is an enemy to the gospel itself. The Great Commission and the task of evangelism are assigned to every congregation and every believer. The charge that Calvinism is opposed to evangelism simply will not stick--it is a false argument. The "doctrines of grace" are nothing less than a statement of the gospel itself. Through the substitutionary work of Christ, God saves sinners. The great promise is that whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Calvinism and the Southern Baptist Convention

Even the opponents of Calvinism must admit, if historically informed, that Calvinism is the theological tradition into which the Baptist movement was born. The same is true of the Southern Baptist Convention. The most influential Baptist churches, leaders, confessions of faith, and theologians of the founding era were Calvinistic.

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was born of this Calvinistic tradition, as reflected in its Abstract of Principles. James P. Boyce, in calling for the seminary's founding, charged it to oppose all heresies, including Arminianism.

It was not until well into the twentieth century that any knowledgeable person could claim that Southern Baptists were anything but Calvinists. In referring to early Southern Baptists (especially James P. Boyce), Dr. Estep charges that they misunderstood Calvinism. This is a strange and innovative charge, considering that Boyce, for example, had been trained at Princeton Theological Seminary--the fountainhead of Calvinism in nineteenth-century America.

Boyce's colleague John A. Broadus--the greatest Baptist preacher of his day--was so certain that Calvinism was revealed in the Bible that he challenged those who sneer at Calvinism to "sneer at Mount Blanc." Broadus was certain that the doctrines known as Calvinism were those preached by Paul and the other apostles, and were revealed in Holy Scripture.

Other Southern Baptist leaders were also well-identified Calvinists. These included J. B. Gambrell and B. H. Carroll, the founder of Southwestern Seminary.

Calvinism was the mainstream tradition in the Southern Baptist Convention until the turn of the century. The rise of modern notions of individual liberty and the general spirit of the age have led to an accommodation of historic doctrines in some circles.

Dr. Estep is correct in noting the modifications to Calvinism which have occurred among Southern Baptists. Most Baptists hold to at least part of Calvinism, while generally unaware of the whole.

As Southern Baptists seek to recover our theological inheritance and the essence of biblical Christianity, I believe we will see a return to a more Calvinistic understanding of the gospel and a recognition of the absolute sovereignty of God.

Nevertheless, my main concern is not that Southern Baptists return to Calvinism--or to any human theological system. Our main concern must be to see Southern Baptists return to theological health and biblical fidelity. This theological and biblical reformation will, I am certain, also lead to a blazing recovery of missionary zeal and evangelistic fervor--and to the renewal of our churches and denomination. Southern Baptists will truly be headed for a well-deserved dunghill only when we retreat from biblical truth and withdraw from evangelism and missions.

We stand at an historic threshold. Now is the time for Southern Baptists to stand together on the great truths of God's Word and on the front lines of God's redemptive purpose. As Charles Spurgeon reminds us, we should rejoice whenever the Gospel is preached and shared--whether by a Calvinist or non-Calvinist.

My personal agenda is not driven by Calvinism, but by the hope that Southern Baptists will embrace, confess, preach, and teach the truths of God's Word--and share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with every man, woman, and child on the earth. In this hope and vision we should all stand together.

As a dear friend has well stated, the real issue is not whether John Calvin is your personal theologian, but whether Jesus Christ is your personal Savior. By God's grace, may we see genuine reformation and renewal in our churches--and a Great Commission vision in our hearts.

[George W. Bush]

Every succesful Calvinistic soul winner preaches like an 'Arminian' one.

And every repentant Arminian prays like a Calvinist. So much for the usual accusations. They're quite tiresome after a certain number of repetitions.

You may be aware that Spurgeon's predecessor at the Metropolitan Tabernacle was John Gill, the writer of the one great Baptist commentary. Although Gill was a thorough Calvinist, Gill's commentary, in much the same way as Calvin's, was not particularly Calvinistic but instead a learned commentary filled with information on Hebraisms, variants of scripture phrasing from various ancient versions and historical insights on ancient life among Jews in the Roman Empire. I use it very often for the insights in ancient life.

Gill also bragged that in his decades as pastor, he had never once given an altar call. But he was also quite successful, though not to the extent Spurgeon was.

Spurgeon is sweeter and easier to love but there is no denying he was a thorough Calvinist and stated it forthrightly on many occasions. While ill and elderly, he fought against the creeping liberalizing Arminian influence among Baptists and English churches in general. Spurgeon lived and died a thorough Calvinist.

[fortheDeclaration]

Every succesful Calvinistic soul winner preaches like an 'Arminian' one. And every repentant Arminian prays like a Calvinist. So much for the usual accusations. They're quite tiresome after a certain number of repetitions.

What accusation?

I would accept the idea that a truely repentant believer would pray like a Calvinist, that is, he acknowledges he is a sinner who needs grace.

But the plea of the Gospel is 'whosoever'(Jn.3:16) and no Calvinist can preach that and be consistent with Calvinism.

And no Arminian can preach the Gospel and not preach that man is a condemned sinner going to a real hell (as do the modern neo-evangelicals) and need the saving work of Christ to save them.

Maybe the best way to approach this is stop dividing between 'Calvinist' and 'Arminian' and start looking at Biblical vs non-Biblical views.

You may be aware that Spurgeon's predecessor at the Metropolitan Tabernacle was John Gill, the writer of the one great Baptist commentary. Although Gill was a thorough Calvinist, Gill's commentary, in much the same way as Calvin's, was not particularly Calvinistic but instead a learned commentary filled with information on Hebraisms, variants of scripture phrasing from various ancient versions and historical insights on ancient life among Jews in the Roman Empire. I use it very often for the insights in ancient life.

Yes, I am aware of Gill, Gail Riplinger has noted some of his comments on certain subjects.

, Gill also bragged that in his decades as pastor, he had never once given an altar call. But he was also quite successful, though not to the extent Spurgeon was. Spurgeon is sweeter and easier to love but there is no denying he was a thorough Calvinist and stated it forthrightly on many occasions. While ill and elderly, he fought against the creeping liberalizing Arminian influence among Baptists and English churches in general. Spurgeon lived and died a thorough Calvinist.

No question that Spurgeon was a Calvinist, but his soul winning appeals were not 'Calvnistic', they made individual appeals for the individual to make a personal decision.

My own personal opinion is that we have gone to 'Arminian' on appealing to souls.

The Bible never speaks of asking someone to make a 'decision for Christ'.

We have become enarmored with 'numbers'.

Paul said that he planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase (1Cor.3:6), so my view of 'soul-winning' is really more 'Calvinistic' (like Gill) put out the Gospel and let the individual make a decision when they are ready to do so.

I think 'pressing for a decision' (a result of D.L.Moody and Finny) has led to many false professions.

[fortheDeclaration]

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us” (2 Thess. 3:6). Sound teaching and aptly quoted. I've always wondered if this verse justifies second-degree separation among Baptists. I have separated from my local church, no longer able to ignore the heretics and the dramatists and other confused persons there. They resist any teaching of sound doctrine and are simply too ignorant of scripture and Baptist history to operate a Baptist church. But I'm not certain if second-degree separation is fully scriptural.

Yes, in context, that verse is speaking of those who are really immoral (do not work), not with those who we have some doctrinal differences.

However, in the case of the modern neo-Evangelical movement, with its compromises with the World, I do think biblical separation is called for.

[fortheDeclaration]

I think two issues are being confused.

One Baptism by immersion and two, local church membership.

If Piper is saying that a child baptism is a legimate substitute for adult Baptism that is compromising the Baptist view on the meaning of water Baptism (identifying with the death, burial and resurrection of of Christ)

If someone doesn't understand why they need to be 'rebaptized' then it is Piper's responsiblity to explain what the Bible teaches on it.

Charles Stanley had a good lesson on it last Sunday on his T.V. station.

Don't think I am commending Stanley.

I have critcized him to my Wed. night prayer meeting/bible class as compromising on the Bible issue and walking around the platform with a Bible in his hand that he never references (a NKJ at that!)

[George W. Bush]

I agree completely.

There are Baptist churches that will not accept the baptism of any other church. Landmark Baptists are this way. If you want to be a member, it is understood that you will be baptized by them. Period. And you will not be eligible for sharing in the Lord's Supper in their church unless baptized by them.

Beyond that, Piper's poor discipline here encumbers his church with petty troublemakers and 'special cases'. Again, we would need to know more about how Piper's church is run and whether he has the sole authority in this matter. He probably doesn't as we Baptists don't generally elevate our clergy to papist thrones. I doubt Piper is a pope and, if he were, he might have maintained proper Baptism practice. I'd like to know before I accuse him.

It does not appear that the persons rejecting anabaptism are at medical risk or anything. And we assume they're modern Americans and shower every day and also swim and jump in hot tubs and water-ski pretty often. So they're not afraid of water. It appears they're afraid of following Christ's simple commandment to believe and be baptized as were all the baptized in the New Testament, including Christ Himself.

People who are reluctant to be baptized are suspicious and should never be admitted to any church's membership. Naturally, they should also expect that they will undergo examination of their doctrinal views by the pastor and deacons. Generally, I've come to conclude that a Baptist should not be allowed to vote on church matters unless he understands Baptist distinctives and a minimal amount of Baptist history and his church's constitution. Ignorant persons are almost an inevitable source of problems among the membership.

Although I have been baptized, if I desired to join a church, I wouldn't reject being baptized again.

Once is sufficient. But repetition for the sake of belonging to a church with a sound membership is no burden to either the church or to any believer. However, I would not consent to being baptized by 'laying back' as I don't believe it is scriptural and is merely a stupid and pietistic notion of some nineteenth century preachers who thought it looked nice or was somehow more symbolic than the simple scriptural act of immersion in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, the only standard commanded by scripture. To exceed that simple standard or to impose additional requirements is to add to scripture. If a church attempted to force anyone into their laid-back baptisms, I would consider that church to be scripturally unsound and in violation of its proselytes' Baptist liberties.

Oh, yeah, and none of those stupid swishy white choir robes either. Just dunk 'em.

[George W. Bush]

Maybe the best way to approach this is stop dividing between 'Calvinist' and 'Arminian' and start looking at Biblical vs non-Biblical views.

True enough. Labels are sometimes dogmatic stumbling blocks. We always need to turn to scripture.

No question that Spurgeon was a Calvinist, but his soul winning appeals were not 'Calvnistic', they made individual appeals for the individual to make a personal decision.

And yet, his sermons were Calvinistic. They were preached for the sake of the believers and for their edification. Although his church could never accommodate all the 'seekers' that showed up, his sermons were not 'seeker-friendly' (a recent topic here as you know).

And still, he had a really sweet winsome approach and a passionate call for those who would to believe and to place their full trust in our Savior.

Spurgeon's passion for Christ was his most winning quality, I think. But I don't consider him one iota less a Calvinist than was Gill. It was a difference in style and sensibilities. Gill was more old-school.

I found this recently, an invitation given by George Whitefield, a great evangelist and Wesley's (sounder) colleague. He was also a flaming Calvinist:

"I offer you salvation this day; the door of mercy is not yet shut, there does yet remain a sacrifice for sin, for all that will accept of the Lord Jesus Christ. He will embrace you in the arms of his love. O turn to him, turn in a sense of your own unworthiness; tell him how polluted you are, how vile, and be not faithless, but believing. Why fear ye that the Lord Jesus Christ will not accept of you? Your sins will be no hindrance, your unworthiness no hindrance; if your own corrupt hearts do not keep you back nothing will hinder Christ from receiving of you. He loves to see poor sinners coming to him, he is pleased to see them lie at his feet pleading his promises; and if you thus come to Christ, he will not send you away without his Spirit; no, but will receive and bless you. O do not put a slight on infinite love–he only wants you to believe on him, that you might be saved. This, this is all the dear Saviour desires, to make you happy, that you may leave your sins, to sit down eternally with him at the marriage supper of the Lamb. Let me beseech you to come to Jesus Christ; I invite you all to come to him, and receive him as your Lord and Saviour; he is ready to receive you. I invite you to come to him, that you may find rest for your souls. He will rejoice and be glad. He calls you by his ministers; O come unto him–he is labouring to bring you back from sin and from Satan, unto himself: open the door of your hearts, and the King of glory shall enter in. My heart is full, it is quite full, and I must speak, or I shall burst. What, do you think your souls of no value? Do you esteem them as not worth saving? Are your pleasures worth more than your souls? Had you rather regard the diversions of this life, than the salvation of your souls? If so, you will never be partakers with him in glory; but if you come unto him, he will supply you with his grace here, and bring you to glory hereafter; and there you may sing praises and hallelujahs to the Lamb for ever. And may this be the happy end of all who hear me!"

Now tell me, is there anything there that any clergyman should have a problem with? Theology be hanged, that is a sweet and scriptural appeal for sinners to trust in Christ alone!

My own personal opinion is that we have gone too 'Arminian' on appealing to souls. The Bible never speaks of asking someone to make a 'decision for Christ'. We have become enarmored with 'numbers'.

Among the SBC, there has been some debate on whether altar calls and 'walking the aisle' should be the focus of worship services. The clergy are rumbling a bit about it, wondering why so many of these persons are so disappointing. And then why some people who were convicted simply by reading the Bible have much more spiritual tenacity and discipline. As a layman, I can appreciate their quandary.

It's easy for me to point at Gill and Spurgeon and act like it's all so easy for clergymen. But modern people are not what the people of that time were. And Gill and Spurgeon didn't have to compete with the same popular culture and the entertainments of a libertine culture like modern Europe or America.

Even so, I know you and I share a confidence that people are still hungry for the truths of scripture, no less than during the Reformation era. And we need not compromise scriptural truth and doctrine to accommodate modernism.

Perhaps this is one place where Calvinism is a source of comfort. We Calvinists rely so utterly upon God to bring men to repent. We know it is not due to our own merit or persuasiveness. We want them convicted under the spirit of the Word, not under our mere human influence or oratory. And we never have to worry that any soul God tried to save ended up in hell because we weren't persuasive enough. We may fail due to our human weaknesses but our God never does because He will save all who He has willed to save. To put it simply, He cannot fail.

It is very comforting. And I don't think it dampens enthusiasm for evangelism. Quite to the contrary when one looks at the great missionary efforts of Baptists, the greatest leaders of which were always, yep, Calvinists. These were the founders of Baptists missions, people like William Carey, Luther Rice, and Adoniram and Anne Judson, Lottie Moon. More of those blasted Calvinists who are supposed to be so lazy about evangelism.

We could be lazy Calvinists as we are sometimes accused of being. But it doesn't seem to work that way. I discovered the local Baptist church was sitting on about $20,000 in their bank account with no debts but only giving $25 a month to the convention's missions. I started earmarking all my donations for missions since the local leadership had no concern for them and instead blathered about spending money on worldly entertainments and renting theaters for Passion Of The Christ or country western music with a little Christian testimony thrown in. But only a pittance for Baptist missions. It was shameful IMO.

[fortheDeclaration]

I believe that a person can declare he has been baptized as an adult by immersion and that is sufficent.

I believe that the Lord's Supper should be open to all believers.

No Baptist church should state that it acceptable to be baptized in any other manner other then immersion and as an adult, making a profession of faith in Christ.

[George W. Bush]

I believe that the Lord's Supper should be open to all believers.

Open communion? Hmmm... Open to the unbaptized? All those at the Last Supper, including Jesus, were baptized believers.

No Baptist church should state that it acceptable to be baptized in any other manner other then immersion and as an adult, making a profession of faith in Christ.

They really are departing from Baptist tradition otherwise. I do think that teenagers and older children can be saved as well. Babies and tykes? Not really. I think that a saving faith in Christ is not for kids who still believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

[fortheDeclaration]

I believe that the Lord's Supper should be open to all believers. Open communion? Hmmm... Open to the unbaptized? All those at the Last Supper, including Jesus, were baptized believers.

Not exactly, Judas was there also.

No Baptist church should state that it acceptable to be baptized in any other manner other then immersion and as an adult, making a profession of faith in Christ. They really are departing from Baptist tradition otherwise. I do think that teenagers and older children can be saved as well. Babies and tykes? Not really. I think that a saving faith in Christ is not for kids who still believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

When someone is old enough to understand his own profession of faith, then he should receive water baptism.