What have Baptists traditionally believed about Prevenient Grace?

In “Prevenient Grace: Why it Matters”, Dr Roger Olson (who is himself a Baptist) writes:

What have Baptists traditionally believed about prevenient grace? Well, of course, Particular Baptists (who appeared about forty years after the Baptist founders Smyth and Helwys and were Calvinists) have always emphasized the necessity of supernatural grace for the beginning of salvation. That’s not in debate. The question is: What have non-Calvinist Baptists believed about prevenient grace (which includes the question what have they believed about the incapacity of the will apart from it)?

It very may well be that the majority of Southern Baptists have believed and do believe that Adam’s fall did not result in the incapacitation of anyone’s will to respond to the gospel apart from supernatural grace. I have argued for a long time that semi-Pelagianism is the default theology of most American Christians of most denominations. The Baptist Faith and Message (1925, 1963) does not settle the issue as it does not speak directly to it.

So, let’s look back at the most important statement of faith of early General Baptists. (“General Baptist” is a term traditionally used for non-Calvinist Baptists.) The Orthodox Creed was written in 1678 in response to Second London Confession of Particular Baptists in 1677. The Orthodox Creed was written and signed (initially) by fifty-four messengers, elders and brethren of General Baptist congregations in England. (See W. L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith [Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1959], pp. 295-334)

Most scholars consider The Orthodox Creed a relatively reliable guide to what General, non-Calvinist Baptists believed in the first century of Baptist life. (Or its second century if you count Anabaptists such as Mennonites as baptists and forerunners of Baptists which I do.)

The Orthodox Creeds says that “man,” as a result of the fall of Adam, “wholly lost all ability, or liberty of will, to any spiritual good, for his eternal salvation, his will being now in bondage under sin and Satan, and therefore not able of his own strength to convert himself nor prepare himself thereunto, without God’s grace taketh away the enmity out of his will, and by his special grace, freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, enabling him to will freely and sincerely, that which is spiritually good….” (XX. Article “Of Free-Will in Man” Lumpkin, p. 312)

Clearly, unequivocally, 17th century Baptists believed in the incapacitation of the will due to sin and the necessity of special (supernatural) grace for the first movement of the will toward God.

Why? The consistent, constant testimony of Scripture is that human beings do not seek after (the true) God: Psalm 14 and Romans 3 are stand out passages to this effect. At the heart of Paul’s message is that all boasting is excluded because the person has nothing good that he or she has not received (from God). (1 Corinthians 4:12)

Theologically, semi-Pelagianism is shallow and opens the door to Pelagianism; it does not take seriously enough the helplessness of humanity or humanity’s total dependence on God for everything good. It also attributes an autonomy to the human being that elevates the person too high in relation to God. It also reduces the gift nature of salvation and opens the possibility that salvation can be at least partially earned or merited.

Only the doctrine of prevenient grace matches what Scripture says about the human condition and about salvation and protects the gospel from humanistic dilution.

An Orthodox Creed

An Orthodox Creed: or, A Protestant Confession of Faith, which Dr Olson referenced above, is available online for free in PDF from The Center for Theological Research at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, including a 2006 Editor's Preface by Madison Grace.  Article XX reads in full (link, bold mine):

Of Free-will in Man.

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:196 But Man in the state of Innocency, had such power and liberty of Will, to chuse and perform that which was acceptable and well pleasing to God, according to the requirement of the First Covenant;197 but he falling from his state of Innocency, wholly lost all ability, or liberty of Will, to any Spiritual Good, for his eternal Salvation,198 his Will being now in bondage under Sin and Satan;199 and therefore not able of his own strength to Convert himself, nor prepare himself thereunto, without God’s Grace taketh away the enmity out of his Will, and by his special Grace, freeth him from his natural Bondage under Sin, enabling him to will freely and sincerely, that which is spiritually good,200 according to the tenure of the new Covenant of Grace in Christ, though not perfectly according to the tenure of the First Covenant;201 which perfection of Will is only attainable in the state of Glory, after the Redemption, or Resurrection of our Fleshly Bodies, Rom. 8.23. Ephes. 4.13.

196  Mat. 17.12.

197  Eccles. 7.29.

198  Rom. 5.6. & 8.7, 8.

199  Joh. 8.44.

200  Ephes. 2.8, 9, 10.

201  Rom. 7.14, 15, 16.

Thomas Helwys congregation's Declaration of Faith

The first English Baptist confession was Thomas Helwys congregation's Declaration of Faith. A copy is available at the Society of Evangelical Arminians' website, including an introduction containing the following excerpt from The Life and Writings of Thomas Helwys:

After breaking with John Smyth in 1610, Thomas Helwys wrote A Declaration of Faith of English People Remaining at Amsterdam in Holland in 1611. Recognized by the majority of Baptist scholars as the first true English Baptist confession of the faith, the purpose of A Declaration of Faith was to differentiate the beliefs of Helwy’s congregation from that of Smyth’s. The confession contains twenty-seven articles. Despite their separation, the confession illustrates Smyth’s and the Mennonites’ influence on Helwys’s doctrine in the denial of limited atonement and the ability for a Christian to fall from grace. A significant difference from Smyth and the Waterlander Mennonites, however, is discernable in Helwys’s Calvinistic insistence on original sin and what was referred to in his time as “free will.” Other difference include Helwys’s denial of succession, which he referred to as Old Testament doctrine, his acceptance of some oaths it they did not compromise one’s Christian life, the bearing of arms in self-defense, and the ability for a church member to participate in the government. The only original copy known to exist is in the York Minister Library.

It is available in PDF here: Thomas Helwys' Confession of Faith - The First Baptist Confession.  Article 4 states (bold mine):

That notwithstanding this, men are by nature the Children of wrath, (Ephesians 2:3) born in iniquity and in sin conceived. (Psalm 51:5) Wise to all evil, but to good they have no knowledge. (Jeremiah 4:22). The natural man perceives not the things of the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 2:14). And therefore man is not restored unto his former estate, but that as man, in his estate of innocence, having in himself all disposition unto good, & no disposition unto evil, yet being tempted might yield, or might resist: even so now being fallen, and having all disposition unto evil, and no disposition or will unto any good, yet GOD giving grace, man may receive grace, or may reject grace, according to that saying; (Deuteronomy 30:19) I call Heaven and Earth to record. This day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: Therefore choose life that both thou and thy seed may live.

(Also note Article 5 on predestination, election and reprobation).

Other General Baptist Confessions

In their presentation, "Baptist Confessions & Theology” (available from NOBTS here), Dr Rex D Butler and Dr Lloyd A Harsch, both from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, list two other early General Baptist confessions in addition to the Orthodox Creed (1678) and Thomas Helwys' Declaration of Faith (1611): Faith and Practice of Thirty Congregations (1651) of which they note article 25 "Rejects free will unaided by God", and Standard Confession (1660).

Article 25 of the Faith and Practice of Thirty Congregations (1651) states, "That there is not, neither ever was any man endued with any abilities and power to do the revealed will of God, but it was given him from above. Jam. 1. 17." (link).

Further Reading:

• J Matthew Pinson, "The First Baptist Treatise on Predestination: Thomas Helwys's Short and Plaine Proofe".
• Scott Culpepper, "What Have Southern Baptists To Do With Anabaptists?", especially Part 3.

Related Posts:

• Calvinism vs Arminianism in the context of Historic Christianity;
• A New Book by Dr J Matthew Pinson, "Arminian and Baptist: Explorations in a Theological Tradition";
• An Introduction to Prevenient Grace;
• A Concise Description of Prevenient Grace from a Surprising Source (spoiler: it’s John MacArthur);
• Prevenient Grace in the Hebrews Warning Passages;
• What's the difference between Reformed Arminianism and Wesleyan Arminianism? Three scholars answer.

Dr Roger Olson and Dr Ben Witherington in Dialogue

I have been enjoying the ongoing series, "Roger Olson's 'Arminian Theology'" at Dr Ben Witherington's blog, The Bible and Culture.  The series began June 14 (link) and is a dialogue between Dr Roger Olson and Dr Witherington about the major topics raised in Dr Olson's book, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Google Preview, or Find in a Library).

Here is an except from part 8 (link):

BEN: On p. 89 you talk about the idea of nominalistic voluntarism, which is to say the idea that God is free to do anything he chooses to do, without being constrained or limited by the divine character. This idea is denied by Arminius, but seems to be affirmed by various Calvinists, especially those who see God’s will as his primary attribute, and even his knowledge is based entirely on what he had already preordained. What are the problems with nominalistic voluntarism? Does this concept suggest God can be arbitrary if He desires, and doesn’t have to act in accord with his moral character? Would this even imply that God could sin if he wanted to do so? Why is Arminius’ assertion that “God is not freely good, because he is good by nature” a better and more Biblical understanding of the character of God? 

ROGER: This takes a lot of unpacking. I’ve done it on my blog several times. I do suspect that nominalistic voluntarism, the claim that something is automatically good just because God does it and that God does not have a moral character that governs what he can do, lies in the background of much Calvinism. In my conversations with Calvinist, when I push hard on the issue of the morality of double predestination and the Holocaust, etc., eventually my Calvinist conversation partners end up appealing to “whatever God does is good just because God does it” and “God is not limited to our ideas of good” by which they mean that God’s “goodness” is whatever he decides to do. This is a huge problem. It makes God not only predictable but untrustworthy. Why trust the Bible if God might be lying to us? Nominalistic voluntarism inevitably portrays a “hidden God,” a God behind God revealed in Jesus Christ—an unknown and unknowable God who might be anything. On such a basis, in such a philosophy, we cannot be absolutely certain God will keep his promises; he doesn’t have to.

You can find Part 1 here.


Also see:

Here are some of Dr Olson's posts where he discusses voluntarism:

• "C. S. Lewis Said It: God’s “Goodness” Cannot Be Wholly Other";
•  "The Almost Completely Unknown Difference that Makes All the Difference (between Christians and Culture and between Christians and Christians)"; and
• "A much neglected basic choice in theology" and part 2, "More about the basic choice in theology (voluntarism versus realism)".

Where Did All These Arminians Come From?

In an earlier post I asked, “What’s contributing to the increase in X-Calvinists?” (Link). There I suggested two answers (or 3, if you include the obvious “there are more Calvinists”...): (1) Calvinism is not as deep and robust a theology as its leaders portray, and (2) Young Calvinists are growing up.  In this post I want to look at the other side.  That is, just because someone is post-Calvinist doesn’t mean they will embrace Arminian theology, yet many (maybe most?) do. Why?

Of course the real reason is a movement of God’s Spirit; the Spirit who “will guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13) -- this is the only explanation I can give for my own journey.  God cares when His holy character is maligned, and most Christians do too.  So the question, “Where did all these Arminians come from?” is really, “What means is God using to re-awaken Christians to Arminian theology?”[1]  Here are some of the suggestions I have come across:

    (1) “The slumbering Non-Calvinist ‘silent majority’ is starting to awake” (Kevin Jackson)

Back in 2008, Kevin Jackson, who blogs at Wesleyan Arminian, made a list of 4 "Signs of the growing Arminian Web presence".  Here is his list:

1) An Explosion in Arminian Blogs: A year ago Arminian blogs were few and far between. Roy Ingle’s Arminian Today was the first one I ever remember running across, and it took me a while to find that one. Now there are so many Arminian blogs I can’t keep up with them all. This is a fantastic development. For example, check out this list of blogs and resources that Billy from Classical Arminianism has come up with. A year ago I would have done a cartwheel for the list like that.

2) Networking: Arminians are starting to find each other, and outside of our respective denominational “silos”. Some of this is due to the blogging I mentioned above. Some it is also unfortunately due to excessively negative interactions with Calvinists. We have had to learn to defend ourselves. (May we be graceful in the process.)

3) A dedicated Arminian resource site: Evangelical Arminians. This site is beginning to make an impact. I hope that over time it will become the monergism.com for Arminians.

4) The slumbering Non-Calvinist “silent majority” is starting to awake: This seems particularly evident in the Southern Baptist denomination, with the Building Bridges conference, and now the upcoming John 3:16 Conference. Limited Atonement is not an easy thing to get Bible believers to buy into (for obvious reasons). As insulated Christians become aware of this terrible doctrine, they will have a strong reaction against it. This awakening is starting to take place.

These factors are exactly what introduced me to Arminianism.  When I first told my Reformed friends that I could no longer consider myself a Calvinist, they challenged me to answer a stack of proof-texts.  It was Arminian blogs, and websites like Evangelical Arminians, that provided me with answers to their challenge.  On top of these, NOBTS Baptist Center for Theology & Ministry of the SBC (who don’t call themselves “Arminians”) introduced me to Arminian scholars like Robert Picirilli and J Matthew Pinson, not to mention the classic writings of Thomas Grantham.

Roger Olson’s blog was another significant influence for me.  For example, it was because of his endorsement of William Klein’s book The New Chosen People that I finally understood Corporate Election (Dr Olson called it, “The best Arminian exegesis of Romans 9” [Link], so I requested it through the University Library. Before this all I knew about C.E. came from John Piper's critique).

And more organizations continue to spring up.  Seedbed, for example, is another excellent online resource which I assume wasn’t mentioned in Kevin Jackson's list because it wasn’t around yet.

   (2) “Significant contributions to . . . the ‘Arminian Renaissance’ in contemporary theology” (Roger Olson)

Not only has the impact been online, but it has also been in scholarship.  I’ve already mentioned William Klein and the Baptist Center, which hosts the Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry (and we could add to this all the contributors to Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism).  In addition to these, Brian Abasciano of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary has written what is probably the most intensive study of Romans 9 from an Arminian perspective in his three books in the Library of New Testament Studies series.[2]

In his post on Don Thorsen’s book Calvin vs Wesley,[3] Roger Olson credits Thomas Oden and Ben Witherington for what he calls “the renaissance of Arminian/Wesleyan theology and its emergence into mainstream evangelical theological life”:

One thing that excites me about Don’s work here and in other books (he’s authored several) is the evidence it provides that Wesleyan evangelicals are breaking out of their insularity and joining the larger evangelical conversation about theology and Christian life. When I was a beginning student of theology it wasn’t easy to find good Wesleyan theology for non-Wesleyans. Most Wesleyan theology was published by little known “Holiness” publishing houses operated by Holiness-Wesleyan denominations. Abingdon was publishing mostly liberal theology. Most evangelical theology was written by Reformed theologians. Exactly when and how that began to change is difficult to tell, but changing it is. I think that Thomas Oden has much to do with the renaissance of Arminian/Wesleyan theology and its emergence into mainstream evangelical theological life. Other Wesleyan scholars such as Ben Weatherington [sic] have done much to convince non-Wesleyan evangelicals that Wesleyans have much to offer evangelical scholarship.(Link)

In another post, while responding to two new books on Arminius, Roger Olson wrote:

These two books are significant contributions to what I call the “Arminian Renaissance” in contemporary theology. For centuries Arminius’s theology and Arminianism have been defined by their critics, mostly in the Reformed camp.

[...]

Henceforth, after the publication of these books, no person who claims to know what he or she is talking about should dare to criticize Arminius’s theology without reading these two books first. Of course, one can hope such critics would also read Arminius himself! But these two books are scholarly guides to his theology that must not be ignored or overlooked. Of course, Arminians should also read them. As especially Gunter points out, many self-identified “Arminians” know little or nothing about Arminius’s own theology; before calling themselves Arminians they should at least know the theology of the man himself. Either one or both of these volumes will guide them in that endeavor. (Link)

We can also look forward to the upcoming release of David Allen's book on the atonement,[4] as well as the reprinting of Thomas Grantham's works by Mercer University Press.

(3) Hopefully, and with much prayer, soon I will be able to add “Church planting” as a third factor, but I’m not sure we’re there yet (Link, and Link).

Endnotes:

[1] This question, as well as the title for this post, are both adapted from Mark Denver’s list “Where did all these Calvinist’s come from?” at The Gospel Coalition.  Dr Denver posits his list as “12 sources God has used to reinvigorate Reformed theology in this generation”.

[2] These are:

• Brian J. Abasciano, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.1-9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis (available online);
• Brian J. Abasciano, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.10–18: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis; and
• Brian J. Abasciano, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.19-33: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis.

[3] Don Thorsen summarizes some key points from his book here.
[4] David Allen’s chapter-by-chapter review of From Heaven He Came And Sought Her which ran on his blog from June-October, 2014 was also a great help to me.  The complete list is available here.

Related Posts:

• Dr Thomas Schreiner reviews Dr Abasciano's book on Romans 9;
• The Complete List of Dr David Allen's Chapter-by-Chapter Review of "From Heaven He Came and Sought Her";
• What’s contributing to the increase in x-Calvinists and some testimonies.

What’s contributing to the increase in “x-Calvinists” and some testimonies

What’s contributing to the increase in “x-Calvinists”?

We have seen a number of testimonies recently of Christians abandoning Calvinism.  The latest that I have seen is from Leighton Flowers, adjunct Professor of Theology at Dallas Baptist University, who shared his testimony on his website www.soteriology101.com.  William Birch, who blogs at I, Jacob Arminius, has noted, “The more stories like this we are reading over the last two years is indicative of a trend: the historical ebb and flow of Calvinism is ebbing.”  

A few bloggers have suggested reasons which I believe help to explain this shift and which resonate with my own story.  Here are two:

1. Calvinism is not as deep and robust a theology as its leaders portray...

Of course, the main reason there are more x-Calvinists is because there are more Calvinists.  While this might seem obvious, hear me out. This comment from Internet Monk, though in another context, stood out to me:

[Reformed theology] is often a first step away from generic evangelicalism, especially for more analytical types. It was for me when I left Bible college and at times during my seminary career and throughout periods of my ministry. Michael Spencer also embraced a form of calvinism for a time until he came to see its limitations...

(Link)

This was certainly true for me: Calvinism was a good first step into a deeper study of theology, but I know now that it was only a step.  When I first embraced Calvinism, the impression I had was that Calvinism was the end of the road, or the top of the theological mountain. Eventually, however, I was forced to confront its implications, particularly for the character of God.  As more Christians study their Bibles through a Calvinistic lens, I expect that more will also be convicted of the inconsistency between Calvinism and the God of the Bible, just as I was.

When I began reading the testimonies of Arminians, I was surprised at how many are former Calvinists (including Arminius, himself).  If you are beginning to see Calvinism’s limitations, I want to encourage you to keep climbing.  (I hope to compile a recommended reading list in a later post, but for now I would recommend A.W. Tozer, especially The Pursuit of God, Knowledge of the Holy, and That Incredible Christian, and be sure to check out the resources available from SEA and Baptist Centre for Theology and Ministry).

2. Young Calvinists are growing up...

A second reason, also true of my own story, was suggested in a post by Roger Olson:

It’s pretty easy for a young, unmarried or not-yet-parent Young, Restless, Reformed person to embrace double predestination, but when he has a child and gazes on it as his own beloved son or daughter he [begins] to change (or should if his love is real and deep). Could this beloved child be predestined by God our Father to eternal torture in hell? Sure, some very iron clad Calvinists will not let that sway them, but many will. (Link)

I left Calvinism soon after the birth of my second child.  The question facing every Calvinist parent, if they will allow themselves to face it, is “Does God desire my child to be saved (1 Tim 2:4), or does He desire their destruction for His glory?” (at least if you hold to a Piper/Edwards view of Calvinism).

A. W. Tozer wrote, “If our faith is to have a firm foundation we must be convinced beyond any possible doubt that God is altogether worthy of our trust” (Link).  The Calvinist depiction of God with a “secret will” which often contradicts His Word[1] is a far stretch from “the humble, other-oriented, self-sacrificial God revealed in Jesus Christ”[2].  (In his sermon on Romans 9, Greg Boyd discusses this same objection in his own journey away from Calvinism, Link).

Here are some of the testimonies which have especially stood out to me since I left Calvinism:

• Leighton Flowers, The five points that led me out of Calvinism;
• Former PCA pastor Keith Coward, Calvinist Pastor Turns from Calvinism to Arminianism after 20 Years as a Calvinist and Intensive Study;
• Scot McKnight, Calvinism: My History 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7; and see his comments on Keith Coward’s story, here;
• Zach Hoag, Breaking Wesleyanabaptist: A Story of (Resistible) Grace;
• Arminius: see William Birch’s sketch of Arminius (and his own testimony) here;
• X-Calvinist Corner includes a number of testimonies;
• And of course, take a look at Austin Fischer’s testimony in his book, Young, Restless, No Longer Reformed: Black Holes, Love, and a Journey In and Out of Calvinism.

Also check out:

• Zack Hunt, Dear John (An Open Letter To John Calvin)

Endnotes:

[1] I think especially of passages like Ezekiel 18:32: can God take "no pleasure" in that which brings Him the most glory?  Or put another way, can God take "no pleasure" in that which He decreed/ordained, and rendered certain because it brings Him the most glory?

[2] This is a quote from Greg Boyd’s endorsement of Austin Fischer’s book.

* On the second reason, also take a look at: William Birch, A Love Greater Than That of God Himself.

** John Piper, a prominent Calvinist leader, has addressed this regarding his own children (Link):

But I am not ignorant that God may not have chosen my sons for his sons. And, though I think I would give my life for their salvation, if they should be lost to me, I would not rail against the Almighty. He is God. I am but a man. The potter has absolute rights over the clay. Mine is to bow before his unimpeachable character and believe that the Judge of all the earth has ever and always will do right.

Notice how painful this is to his conscience: in Piper's view, at the end of the day if his sons are not believers it is not because they have rejected the Gospel, but rather it is because God has rejected them.

Related Posts: 

• "Zach Hoag, Jesus shows me that God is a Father I can trust" (Feb 8, 2015)
• “Where Did All These Arminians Come From?” (Feb 27, 2015)