Recently, the charge of semi-Pelagianism was leveled against
the signatories of the statement on the traditional Southern Baptist view of
salvation. Please allow me to respond with a clear denial of the charge and an appeal
for anybody entering this conversation to, first, clearly substantiate any inferences
and claims, primarily appealing to Scripture, and, second, rise above
inflammatory rhetoric.
First,
regarding “semi-Pelagianism.” What is it? It is a postbiblical issue. According
to The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian
Church (2nd edn), the semi-Pelagianism of the 4th and
5th centuries “maintained that the first steps toward the Christian
life were ordinarily taken by the human will and that Grace supervened only
later.” It is worth taking a minute to reread that definition. (Did you read it
again? Okay, let’s continue.) Semi-Pelagianism was condemned at the second
Council of Orange in 529. While such a council does not carry ecclesial or
theological authority whatsoever for Baptists, I believe most Baptists,
including the Statement’s signatories, would agree with that council’s
condemnation, which is later called “semi-Pelagianism.” Moreover, it is very instructive
that the same council also condemned the doctrine that God predestined men for
evil. I would agree with the council’s condemnations on both of these counts
and invite all Baptist theologians to join me in agreement. (By the way, all
Baptists are theologians.)
Note here
that we doubt the comments of Herman Bavinck, who has been cited as an
authority on semi-Pelagianism by a group known as “The Gospel Coalition,” are particularly
helpful in this free church conversation. Bavinck scorned Anabaptists, Pietists,
Methodists, and, yes, Baptists for being too pious and for, inter alia, taking such biblical
passages as the Sermon on the Mount literally. Bavinck, moreover, said Baptists
erred in shifting the focus “from baptism itself to the believer’s acceptance.”
(Guilty! See chapter two of my The
Formation of Christian Doctrine for more interaction with Bavinck.) Finally,
Bavinck argued that the Baptist idea that original sin does not entail original
guilt is part of semi-Pelagianism. The
Baptist Faith & Message itself in article three then would likely be classified
a “semi-Pelagian” document under such a partisan definition. Our confession
states clearly that Adam’s “posterity inherit a nature and an environment
inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action,
they become transgressors and are under condemnation.” If our common Southern
Baptist confession is “semi-Pelagian,” then we are all “semi-Pelagian,” whether
we are Calvinist or something else, at least according to Bavinck, the Dutch
Reformed self-professing opponent of Baptists.
Second, the
authors and signatories of the statement have made it clear that they affirm
the priority of divine grace in nearly every article of the statement,
including article two. Indeed, article two itself states, “While
no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we
deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s
drawing through the Gospel.” Moreover, article four, on “The Grace of God,” states,
“We affirm that grace is God’s generous decision to provide salvation for any
person by taking all of the initiative in providing atonement, in freely
offering the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit, and in uniting the
believer to Christ through the Holy Spirit by faith.” A careful reading of the
document thus indicates that the signatories believe that faith comes to human
beings as an act of divine grace, just as the cross and the proclamation of the
gospel are acts of divine grace. Personally, I have always taught my students
that divine grace has the priority in salvation, from beginning to end, and I
will continue to do so.
We
do not claim to know all the details of how divine sovereignty relates to human
responsibility, because we do not believe Scripture reveals all those details.
We do claim, however, that God is sovereign and gracious and that man is simultaneously
responsible to believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ, because these things are
revealed in Scripture. We approach theology this way because we are satisfied
that the Word of God is the sufficient and unique authority for Christian
theological reflection. Church history is helpful as a laboratory for the
exposition of Scripture, which is our authority, but the Christian tradition
with its condemnatory councils and burnings of human beings does not carry any
authority for us “traditionalist” Baptists. (Honestly, for this reason, I don’t
really care for the term “traditionalist,” and prefer “Biblicist” or “Baptist,”
but others object to our use of those terms.) Systematic theology is also
helpful, but it is a human response to divine revelation, and not authoritative
in and of itself, as I recently discussed elsewhere.
Now,
the appeal for clarity: Please, as you enter this conversation, whatever
position you take, clearly substantiate your claims. Substantiation helps with
clarity in definition and discussion. Feel free to use tradition as part of
your substantiation, if you must, but please join it primarily with direct appeals
to Scripture. The statement cites plenty of Scripture and we are ready to
engage those texts and any biblical text from a Christ-centered perspective. I
would covet your engagement with me in the holy writ. I am more comfortable and
happier there than anywhere, for the Bible is God’s Word and He talks to me
there deeply in my heart (Romans 10). Please also clearly state where you stand
on an issue. I have stated my position, and I would like to hear what you
believe Scripture says. We can learn from each other that way.
Alongside
this appeal for clarity, I ask you to join me in a commitment to charity. Paul
says that we should be at peace with all men, “as much as is in you” (Romans
12:18). I know that my sinful flesh is at war with the spirit in me, and I hope
you will join me in committing to letting the Holy Spirit, who brings joy and
peace within, reign within. As part of this commitment, it would be helpful if
all of us refrain even from the appearance of speaking evil of our brothers,
including the use of inflammatory words like “heretic,” “hyper-Calvinist,” and
“semi-Pelagian.” This will only be possible as a work of grace, but I still
hope we will respond responsibly to His grace. Peace to you, my brothers in
Christ, Calvinist or otherwise.
