Calvinism or Just a John 3:16 Kind of Guy III

Calvinism or Just a John 3:16 Kind of Guy Part III

This is the third and final installment of this series.  This will finish up part I and part II and my review of Dr. John Compton’s sermon “What is Calvinism?”  I want to take a look at Dr. Compton’s three concerns, his theology of salvation on John 3:16 and offer some final thoughts.

Three Concerns

Dr. Compton, referencing again the Founders “Movement,” shares three concerns about going back to Calvinism. Those are 1. anti-missionary movements, 2. de-emphasis on evangelism and 3. full disclosure by pastors with the search committee.

1. Anti-missionary movements – The past is referenced about how some baptists became anti-missionary. These folks today, claims Compton, are called Primitive Baptists so why apply this to the SBC if those folks have separated all ready? This is the sound of a false alarm. Why doesn’t Compton quote some Calvinists on their positions on missions? Wouldn’t that prove his case instead of referencing a Christianity Today article from January 2008 which has been answered? Why not call up John Piper or John MacArthur who pastor large churches and ask about their missionary activities?

2. De-emphasis on evangelism – Compton starts off asking why he would present the Gospel to someone if they can’t respond. Maybe because Romans 1 tells us that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation? I have a hard time with this question, especially, when a pastor asks it. I want to ask if their being serious. Do folks who ask this question believe God does anything in salvation? The other strawman from Compton is that God is going to save people with or without evangelism. Scripture in Romans 10 tells us that the Gospel must be sent and preached so people can hear, respond and be saved. Calvinism says no different which explains the rich history of Calvinistic missionaries.

The largest irony in point 2. is when Compton asks why pray if someone is all ready predestined. Wow! I would ask Dr. Compton the same thing. Why pray for God to do anything concerning man’s will and heart? This just leaves me scratching my head.

Now Compton brings up John Ryland’s comment to William Carey concerning missions. Ryland told Carey to sit down and not to worry about missions because God will convert the heathen without our help. Does this accurately represent Calvinism? William Carey helped form a missionary society named Particular Baptist Society for the Propagation of the Gospel among the Heathen. You might argue what’s in a name, however, Carey was part of the Particular Baptists. Carey was a Calvinist himself. Why would Compton chose this one quote? I think we know why. What does one early biographer of Carey have to say?

FALSE CALVINISM OPPOSED TO MISSIONS.
The Baptists, who had stood alone as the advocates of toleration, religious and civil, in an age of intolerance which made them the victims, had subsided like Puritan and Covenanter when the Revolution of 1688 brought persecution to an end. The section who held the doctrine of “general” redemption, and are now honourably known as General Baptists, preached ordinary Arminianism and even Socinianism. The more earnest and educated among them clung to calvinism, but, by adopting the unhappy because misleading and unscriptural term of “particular” Baptists, gradually fell under a fatalistic and antinomian spell. This false calvinism, which the French theologian of Geneva [John Calvin] would have been the first to denounce, proved all the more hostile to the preaching of the Gospel of salvation to the heathen abroad as well as the sinner at home, that it professed to be an orthodox evangel while either emasculating the Gospel or turning the grace of God into licentiousness. (Source:The Life of William Carey, D.D. by George Smith, ll.d. c.i.E., 1885, p. 47)

Not only would John Calvin himself be opposed to the form of Calvinism that began to emerge during Carey’s time, but Smith calls it “false Calvinism.” This is what we call hyper-Calvinism. We also see that theology doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The General Baptists preached Arminianism and Socinianism both of which are not Southern Baptist distinctives. Might I point out that Dr. Compton isn’t taking hold of either of these positions from the General Baptists which he claims?

3. Full Disclosure by Pastors – I don’t have much disagreement on full disclosure though I don’t believe too many Southern Baptists are versed enough in Calvinism to understand it. And if they are going to learn from a presentation like Dr. Compton’s here then we will be in worse shape than if they knew nothing. Are pastoral candidates really keeping their Calvinism a secret as if they have some secret agenda? I’m not so quick to impune such men with this broad brush. To his credit Compton does commend those who are upfront about their Calvinism.

We also hear in this section the splitting of churches by pastors who sneak Calvinism in. Where are all of these churches? I’m not saying this hasn’t happened, but where are the abundance of reports if this is such a problem? Especially, with less than 10% of SBC pastors being Calvinistic.

Compton tells us that many people are asking why we are sending CP money to certain seminaries where 26% of graduates are Calvinists. Why send money since they are teaching Calvinism instead of John 3:16. Wow! I’ve still yet to be shown by Dr. Compton that Calvinism is opposed to John 3:16. Does he not know that many of these Calvinist graduates are going into the mission field?

Theology of Salvation John 3:16

Compton put’s forth five points.  I will try to keep my comments to a minimum since this is all ready longer than I wished.

1. God loves us -The assertion is made that John 3:16 gives us the full nature of God and that nowhere does Scripture say that God is wrath.  I’m sure he was making a rhetorical point here, however, no Calvinist that I know of claims that God is wrath.  He quotes v. 17 that Jesus did not come to condemn the world pointing out that this goes against double-predestination.  What he misses is the context as v. 18 shows us which is that people were all ready condemned.  God didn’t have to do anything since people were in this state of condemnation.

He also mentions Ephesians 1 where it is stated that God predestined us in love.  Of course, God is working in love when He predestines people.  No argument there.  Then, claiming that he believes in the biblical teaching of predestination without telling us what that is.  He finishes this point claiming man still has the ability to respond to God, however, he says nothing of what role God’s grace plays here either.

2.  Resistible grace – The typical blanket statement against Calvinism is given on this point.  This is that Calvinists say we cannot resist God’s grace, yet Scripture shows us that people can resist.  Compton misses the distinction between the effectual call, which he mentioned earlier, and the general call of God.  When the Holy Spirit moves to change your heart as was done with Lydia in Acts 16 is an example of irresistible grace.   Spurgeon has a good sermon on the effectual call too.

Compton goes on to give examples of Jesus telling people they must believe and that they refuse to come to Him.  Again, without making the case for his position he merely assumes it.  John 6:44 tells us we can not come to Chris on our own.  Besides, even though Compton needs to understand that even his “resistible grace” is irresistible as I’ve stated in the past.

3.  Christ died for all – The claim here is that John 3:16 says Christ died for all.  But John 3:16 does not say this.  The verse says that only the believing ones will be saved.  We’re also told the Calvinist wrongly claims Christ only died for the sins of those who are going to be saved, the elect. Well, since  Dr. Compton is equivocating on terms, I’d have to ask if he believes unbelievers will be saved.  And just who the elect are?

Compton also does not use the word “atonement” nor explain what Christ actually accomplished upon His death.  He quotes 1 Timothy 2:4 about all men being saved.  If he would have just done a little research he would have seen that all Calvinists don’t take the same understanding of that verse.  And to say that God gave His Son to the entire world to be saved and forgiven, on the surface, sounds like universalism.

4.  Accept through faith -  According to Compton, Calvinism says we have no choice in whether or not we want to be saved.  Then, and this is the biggest misrepresentation and understanding, he says that John 3:16 says that anyone who believes can be saved.  Um…..exactly!  What Calvinist says differently?  This is exactly what the Calvinist says!  The real question is, “Who will believe?”

“Cooperation” between “God’s sovereign predestination” and man gets thrown in here.  Compton believes in “God’s sovereign predestination” yet doesn’t explain what he means.   We move to Romans 9 to Jacob and Esau.  For an excellent over view of Romans 8 & 9 see the p.p.s. at the bottom.  The claim is that God elects nations and not individuals because man has the freedom to choose.  This would be an example of elevating man’s will above what God can, would and does do.  Funny, Compton says doesn’t understand how God’s predestination and man’s free-will work together.  Yet, some how, he knows just enough to know that Calvinism is wrong!  All the while Compton defaults back to mans choice and it’s importance.

On faith, Compton posits that salvation always come after faith.  It seems he is misunderstanding regeneration as salvation.  And now we’re back to John 3:16 and “whoever” believes which he repeats a few times as if an assertion makes the point.  Whoever believes means anyone who believes to which Calvinists agree!  How many times do Calvinists have to say that we believe that “whoever believes” will be saved?

Here’s a quote from John Calvin on John 3:16 show his agreement.

It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. …deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; …And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life. (Source: Commentary on John, Vol. 1)

5.  Security of the believer – Compton mistakes “perseverance of the saints” with “once saved always saved.” I wish he would have fleshed this out more among other positions.  It sounds like he’s saying once you “believe” then that’s it your saved eternally.  In the barest terms, this is different from persevering where not only will you believe, but God will keep you enduring until the end.  Once saved always saved may be put in terms of you “got saved” and you just always will be regardless of whether or not you actually continue in the faith.  Whereas with perseverance of the saints, God saves you and despite any backsliding, He will keep you in the faith as the author and finisher of your faith (Hebrews 12).

Southern Baptists hold to perseverance of the saints as seen in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation. (Source)

Final Thoughts

There is nothing in the verse John 3:16 that is opposed to Calvinism.  What we’ve seen and heard in this sermon is from a biased stand point with many assertions.  If we are to build more unity as a convention, Southern Baptists need to move beyond this type of criticism.  Healthy, exegetical debate combined with a fair view of history makes for a better approach.  Imagine a Calvinist pastor using the history of some General Baptists and their theological positions to illustrate the dangers of the non-Calvinist position.  I can hear the cries of unfairness now over the crashing of lead balloons.

How about a better approach?  Let’s attempt to stand on the shoulder’s of giants when they are actually moving toward God.  Let’s learn from Calvinist leaders today by going to today’s Calvinist leaders since that’s who we are directly dealing with.  However wrong John Ryland was isn’t going to directly affect me since he is no longer with us.  I believe we can learn from the past by standing in the present while looking to the future and this sermon isn’t the way.  How then?  We can look back and learn what not to do from Calvinists like John Ryland and we can learn what to do from Calvinists like Charles Spurgeon.  We need to deal with what is happening today with Calvinism not what happened 100 years ago.  For starters, take a look at this list of modern day Calvinists for a more accurate picture of Calvinism today.

I hold no ill will towards Dr. Compton.  He is a brother in Christ, a pastor and fellow Southern Baptist.  I just wish he were a little more careful in his explanation of Calvinism.  He could have painted a more accurate and positive picture of Calvinism while disagreeing with it.  The historical record stands in favor of Calvinists with their contributions to the church through theology, commentaries, hymns, missions, evangelism, etc.  Check here for examples of these contributions.  Maybe I will save a little money and send Dr. Compton the Amazing Grace: History of Calvinism DVDs.

For what it’s worth…

Mark

p.s. I will be at the John 3:16 Conference so if anyone wants to look me up just use my “contact me” link.

p.p.s. If anyone would like to hear an exegetical critique of the non-Calvinist Southern Baptist position you can do so here: Part 1 & Part 2. In case anyone wonders how I felt about Adrian Rogers take a look.

p.p.p.s. Baptist scholar Roger Olson says “…I agree with critics who say that American evangelical Christianity is by and large semi-Pelagian-in the sense that they believe we take the initiative.” (Source) I wonder what Dr. Compton would say to that?

About the author

Mark is a Christian, husband and father. He is a businessman attending seminary in the off hours working on his M.Div. preparing for vocational ministry.

The above article was posted on October 22, 2008.