For the third time, someone has contacted me concerning many Baptist articles of faith, and why they seem so confusing to us today. A reader asked me about my articles " Sunday School Unions In The History of the Pleasant Grove Baptist Association" as well as "David Benedict's History - Another View".
In both of these articles, it is mentioned that many old Baptist articles of faith are interpreted as being Calvinistic as defined today, yet at the time they were written they were not necessarily seen as such by those who originally adhered to them. In this article, I will attempt to explain why this is the case, and how some Baptists interpreted "calvinistic phrases". The confusion which came from many articles of faith, is also one reason (I believe) that the Campbellites refused to have them.
All historical Baptists that I know of, clearly stated that the Scriptures alone are the final authority for doctrine and practice. However, all Baptist associations usually adopted articles of faith (now known mostly as "Statement of Faith). Many individual churches also had them, even if they were part of a larger association of Baptists, yet some were content on simply using articles or confessions of the larger body. Many associations who adhered to the Philadelphia Confession, also adopted their own more concise Articles of Faith. The same is true today. Some churches in the Southern Baptist Convention simply use the "Baptist Faith and Message" (BF&M), while other SBC churches adopt their own articles or statement of faith. Why the variance? Because some churches and associations within the SBC wish to make a clear statement of being non Calvinist, while others wish to be clear that they are Calvinists. Many who use the BF&M see it as too ambiguous, but others like the ambiguity because there are both Calvinists and non Calvinists within the same association. Churches that belong to the SBC may adopt any statement so long as it does not contradict the BF&M. For instance the BF&M has no opinion on end times views, so there are Amillenials, Premillenials, Post, Pre Trib, Mid Trib, Post Trib and NO Trib views. However the BF&M is clear about eternal security, so Free Will Baptists would be excluded from the SBC. I think this may have also been true in the 18th and 19th centuries, more than is thought by many historians.
The next thing to remember, is that certain words may have the sound of a certain view to us today, but Baptists have always been people of the Book, so many Baptists, both then and now refuse to refrain from using words that are "Bible words". So terms like "predestination", "election", "foreknowledge" are all words found in Scripture, so there was no reason to refrain from using them in their eyes. Baptists were the first to say "Bible words for Bible things" which the Campbellites later adopted as well. Very few Baptist articles of faith use the word "trinity" for example, because that word isn't found in the Bible. Yet all articles and confessions clearly teach the concept.
As an example, let's take the word "predestination". Some Baptists saw this as God actively controlling all that comes to pass, while others saw it as all that God would foresee coming to pass, and by not intervening to change what He foresaw, He had determined that those things would happen by refusing to change it or intervene. Some would see individuals as being predestined, while others would say that your predestination does not begin until you believe the Gospel. Some see predestination as corporate (the Church), so one could choose whether or not to be a part of the corporate body, without changing the fact that the thing predestined would still come to pass. As an example, the Eastern District PB's, the Hiwassee PB's and the Original Tennessee PB's all have a phrase in their Articles of Faith that says "We believe in election according to the foreknowledge of God". A Calvinist might see Calvinism in this phrase, while a non Calvinist might not. The Calvinist would think to himself "those God knew (loved) before hand are predestined by Him to eternal life". The non Calvinist would think "Election is the process decreed by God and all those who place their names on the ballot will be elected because God has already cast His "vote" in favor of any who willingly place their names on the ballot of God's grace." To them, this in no way takes away their belief that those not elected could have placed their names on the ballot, but refused to do so, even tho they may have been called, yet they refused God's call (conviction). Most Calvinists would deny that a non elect person would ever come under "conviction", but not all.
Now if you are a Baptist historian who has no knowledge of a certain group, but only had their articles of faith, look at this article of faith from the Bethel Association of United Baptists, and ask yourself how you would interpret such an article.
"13. We believe converted, born-again believers in Jesus Christ must be faithful in their stewardship until death or until the Lord returns in order to be eternally saved. (Matt 10:22,24,13; Mark 13:13; I Cor. 4:2; Rev 2:10,22:14)."
This article certainly is meant to convey "perseverance". Would you say this article describes it as a Calvinist or as an Arminian view? Does this sound as though the Bethlehem Association believes a believer is eternally secure, or does it sound as though salvation may be lost? United Baptists hold to eternal security, yet when I presented this article to a Free Will Baptist, who had no knowledge of what group it belonged to, he viewed it as being in total agreement with what the Free Will Baptists believe. So you can see how a sloppy historian may group the United Baptists in with Calvinists or Arminians based on his own perception of how he views it, and not necessarily based on how the group itself means it to be understood. If I preached that "repentance" was required for salvation, one person may see repentance to mean that someone must walk away from sin in order to be saved, while another may see that you merely see your sin for what it really is, which causes you to know beyond doubt that you have no hope unless Christ saves you. "Repentance" sometimes means "to have a change of mind" and sometimes it means "to turn around". I believe the former, that the repentance that is required, means you know without a doubt, you have no hope of saving yourself, because you have no power to turn from sin, until AFTER you have been born again. Once born again however, you must "repent" everyday, or turn from the flesh on a daily basis, but the failure to do so will not cast you into a lost state, but will most certainly cast you into broken fellowship with the Father, who will indeed discipline the child of God. The "perseverance" within a saint is that constant reminder of who you belong to, and a desire to do His will. But the will of the flesh is also present, and just one step away from God's will places you in a position to heed whatever the flesh desires. The true believer however, will never forget whose child he is, and his conscience will be tormented until he returns to fellowship, or until the chastisement of God brings him to repentance or even death.
The next question I was asked was how could a non Calvinist interpret articles that most see clearly as Calvinistic, such as the Articles of Faith of the Pleasant Grove Association, which is non calvinist, yet may have been at one time, this is unclear. Now however they are not, yet use articles of faith that sound very Calvinistic to many, me included. So how do the Pleasant Grove Association churches interpret these articles? I will attempt to "explain" how a non Calvinist could see these articles. I will focus on the three articles which one could question.
Article 3 states "We believe in the fall of Adam and the imputation of his sin to his posterity in the corruption of the human nature and the impotency of man to recover himself by his own free will and ability." The non Calvinist could say that by the phrase "corruption of the human nature" means we inherit imperfection just as a baby inherits defects because its mother drank while pregnant, without being guilty of the mother's sin. So the non Calvinist might say that Adam's fall caused the whole human race to become corrupted and defective without necessarily being counted guilty of Adam' s sin. They would say each person is held guilty of their own sin, and not the sin of their father, as stated in Ezekiel 18:20. This corruption does ensure that we will sin, because of our weakness, thus "imputation", but the fathers guilt is not necessarily transferred to us. Calvinists believe we inherit not only a nature inclined to sin, but we are actually held guilty of Adam's sin because he is the federal head of the human race. Officially, the Catholic Church and her daughter churches still affirm that we are born guilty, hence infant baptism, which "washes away Adam's guilt". At one time, these churches did teach unbaptized infants go to hell, but most have back tracked on that belief. Some Calvinists do affirm that many who die in infancy go to hell, because they are "born guilty", and Augustine did teach this belief.. Some Calvinists reject the idea of infants being in hell, but still affirm that all are born guilty. (Non Calvinists are divided on the issue of whether we inherit Adam's "guilt", but none would take it to the point that an infant could go to hell).
Article 4 states "We believe in the everlasting love of God to His people and the eternal
election of a definite number of the human race to grace and glory, and
there was a covenant of grace and redemption made between the Father and
Son before the world began in which their salvation is secure and they
in particular are redeemed." A non Calvinist could say of course the Father and Son agreed that Christ would die for us before the foundation of the world, because He knew we would fall. Thus the covenant of grace had already been decided. Also, because the Father and Son always knew who the bride of Christ would be (the Church), that God has an everlasting love for her, yet the corporate body of the Church is still open to all who willingly believe. Also, since God knows when time will end, the number of the elect is already fixed, because none can come to Him after the final judgement. Even tho I was raised in a non Calvinist Baptist church, my pastor used to always say, "when the last lost one comes, it's all over. Is He waiting for you?" The phrase "they in particular are redeemed" is one that appears in almost all Calvinist articles of faith, yet to a non Calvinist, it could be taken to mean, that while Christ did atone for the sins of all, the "particular" ones are those that believe. The non Calvinist would see this word as synonymous with "especially". This (to them) echoes the meaning of 1 John 2:2 which says "He is the propitiation for OUR sins (particularly, especially) and not for OURS only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
Article 6 states " We believe that all those chosen in Christ will be effectually called
by the spirit and power of God so that they shall persevere in grace and
not one of them be finally lost." A non Calvinist would agree that to be "chosen" in Christ, one must be effectually called. But they would also say "many are called, but few are chosen", which to the non Calvinist means many who fall under conviction of sin will willingly refuse God's offer of salvation, but those who accept it, come into a GROUP that has already been chosen, the corporate body or the Church. The bride has been chosen or the "team" has been chosen to win, but anyone is free to join that team. Their acceptance or refusal of God's offer to be on His team does not in any way negate the victory that the team will one day win, which has already been decided. If the non Calvinist were writing this article to convey what a Calvinist means, he would say "We believe the ONE chosen in Christ..." to refer to the belief that God singularly chooses who will be saved.
Now is it wise to promote Articles of Faith that one must constantly have to explain? Not in my opinion. But many Baptists of the 19th century were so worried that they might be thought of as "Arminian", that they used language that many Arminians would not use. Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries were in the extreme minority about the eternal security of the believer, as all churches, except the Presbyterians (Reformed/Congregational), were Arminian. The Baptists (except for the Free Wills) wished to be clear that they were not Arminian. Even the calvinistic Baptists wished to distance themselves from the Covenant Theology taught by Reformed churches, hence their rejection of infant baptism, and the rejection of a "church" replacing Israel. Over the years, many non Calvinist Baptists would get more clear in how they stated what they believed, but they would always refuse to do away with words clearly found in Scripture.
Many Baptist confessions, such as the New Hampshire Confession, uses the word "our" as way of speaking of those who are already saved and in the church. In this way, both the Calvinist and non Calvinist could agree "whose" sin is covered without causing dissension between those who accept general atonement versus particular atonement. Notice how it states the following:
"We believe that the salvation of sinners is wholly of grace; through the Mediatorial
offices of the Son of God; who by the appointment of the Father freely took upon him OUR
nature, yet without sin; honored the divine law by his personal obedience, and by his
death made a full atonement for OUR sins;"
So the Calvinist could see this as an expression of limited atonement, but the non Calvinist could see this as an agreement among those already saved, that we have laid claim to that atonement for ourselves. If a non Calvinist wanted to go further, he could add "but not for ours only, but the sins of the whole world". If a Calvinist wanted wanted to go further, he could add "in particular".
In the end, we should be clear about what we believe, while also being clear of what views we can fellowship, while not necessarily embracing. Too much ambiguity leaves room for charlatans to sneak in and preach a doctrine we don't believe, and causing havoc in the church. I for one, would not be too detailed about end time views, as that is not super important to me, even within the same church, yet another church may find dispensationalism or the denial of it so important, that they would include a specific end time view.
When stating what we believe in statements or articles of faith, confessions, etc, we need to be very clear in my opinion. No room should be left for someone to sneak in and try to take over a church. If your church is fine with more than one view, spell out the views that you are willing to accept, and be clear that those who have differing views will never be excluded from teaching or holding positions within the church. Many Baptist associations in the 1700's and 1800's who were majority Calvinist, were indeed willing to accept churches which did not hold those views. They adopted statements that said "the teaching that Christ tasted death for every man shall be no bar to communion" as a footnote to their articles of faith, which were calvinistic.
I suspect that if you could go back in time to the early 1800's, the average person could discern very little difference between a Calvinist and a non Calvinist Baptist preacher when hearing them. I suspect that many associations, while stating what they believed, were more concerned about preaching the Gospel than in splitting hairs. Why else would a Regular Baptist Association accept a church like those started by the Campbells, knowing full well they did not accept many articles stated in the Philadelphia Confession? Why else would some Separate Baptist associations who were largely non Calvinist, merely state their belief that one must believe and accept the Gospel to be saved, while never stating who is to be saved? Even among the Free Will Baptists, the variance is not as large as many historians portray them. Are the major differences? Yes, of course. But the Free Will Baptists are just barely over the border into Arminianism. Most of them do not believe salvation can be lost as easily as is portrayed by those who write about them. The ones I know, do not believe salvation may be lost due to a long period of backsliding as most Arminians do. They believe one must formally and consciously renounce faith in Christ, after of course, a period of sin and rebellion against God. Notice this statement in their articles of faith.
"We believe there are strong grounds to hope that the saved will persevere unto the end and be saved because of the power of divine grace pledged for their support."
It almost seems they are leaving the door open on the eternal security issue. If you omitted the words "there are strong grounds to hope" then the rest of the article could be included in any other Baptist confession.
In closing, let me just say that we need to go beyond what our eyes read before making a determination about others' beliefs. Especially to those of us who value history, we must be diligent to not automatically see what we want to see, or what has been told to us by others. If you love history, you should also love the truth, even if it is not what we had hoped it would be. After all, history is a study of the past, and does not negate or nullify what we may now believe. People in the past have been wrong. People in the future at times, will be wrong. For the present though, we cannot control those things, but we can control our pursuit of truth, proclaim what we believe the Scripture to teach, and leave the rest in God's sovereign hands.
No comments:
Post a Comment