The Traditionalist quips, “The Calvinist God chose to unconditionally elect some, saving them, and leaving the rest to burn in Hell for all eternity. That’s not a loving Father.”
To which, the Calvinist responds, “The Traditionalist God foresaw the free-choices of everyone, and he still chose to create the people who he foreknew would never ever repent and believe, people who he foreknew would suffer His wrath in Hell forevermore. Based on your logic, that’s not a loving Father either.”
If God is all-knowing, if God foreknew me, every free choice I would ever make, and He foreknew that I would never repent and believe, and He still chose to create me, for what purpose did He create me? In the Traditionalist system of theology, would a “loving Father” create children he foreknew that he would send to burn in Hell for all eternity? I literally cannot choose other than God foreknew I would choose when He created me. Thus, since God foreknew every person who would never repent and believe, and still chose to create them, He did not create them to save them, because He foreknew that they would never be saved. Rather, he made them to show His glory in pouring out His wrath on them for all eternity. Therefore, the Traditionalist system of theology does no better than the Calvinist system of theology in answering the difficult doctrine of God’s sovereignty vs. man’s responsibility.
After all, since Traditionalists believe that God foresaw every human’s free-will decisions, God could have chosen to only create those who would freely repent and believe. Or, God could have caused those who would never repent and believe to die in infancy, therefore, sending them straight to Heaven due to His grace in Christ.
Or, “better” yet (I say “better” in quotation marks because whatever God ordains is right; who is the creature to correct the Creator?), God could have given Adam, Christ’s human nature in the Garden of Eden. Just as our loved ones in Heaven are incapable of sinning due to union with Christ, the Holy Spirit, and their new human nature, Adam could have been united to Christ from the beginning. If God can give our loved ones new natures in Heaven in the likeness of Christ’s human nature, and they are incapable of sin but still free, then God could have done this in the Garden of Eden prior to Adam’s sin. God was not forced to give Adam or the angels natures capable of sin in order for them to be free. After all, the elect angels and our loved ones in Heaven cannot sin. If you believe otherwise, then the New Heavens and New Earth will fall like the old one.
In conclusion, getting to the title of the article, neither Traditionalism nor Calvinism provide satisfactory answers to the difficult realities presented by Scripture concerning God’s sovereignty vs. Man’s responsibility. Rather than fight over which of us really believes that God is a loving Father, it’s best to just embrace what the Bible teaches, instead of using self-defeating rhetoric to bolster one’s position. God, not man, not Traditionalism, not Calvinism, determines the definition of a “loving Father.” And the undeniable reality in both positions is that God has chosen to create this world He foreknew, this humanity He foreknew, lost and saved, and no other.
Only the repentant will be saved in both positions.
Only the repentant will experience God as loving Father for all eternity. On this, we agree.
Let’s embrace this reality instead of quipping over our rhetoric and logic.
My site. I’m married with 4 children, an SBC pastor, a TA for Dr. Kyle Claunch & a PhD candidate at SBTS. I’ve authored two books. You can connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and Udemy. I host 2 podcasts: All Truth is God’s Truth (iTunes, Google Play Music, Stitcher, Tune In) & Pop Culture Coram Deo (iTunes, Stitcher, acast, Player.FM).
That’s right. The Gospel is the Gospel. Those that believe in Jesus as Lord are saved. Those that don’t perish.
We agree we are all sinners.
We agree that Jesus is the only hope for sinners.
We agree that only those who place their trust in Jesus will be saved.
Therefore those that agree with those things are my brethren, even if we disagree on lesser, though important, points of theology.
But I have read the trouble isn’t about soteriology as much as it is about power.
My question to all: is that true?
It is about the perceived exclusiveness of Calvinists who seem to consider nonCals less scholarly than their enlightened selves. This leads to a level of clannishness that seems from the perspective of nonCals to be growing more arrogant as the number of Cals in the SBC grows.
I don’t think you can argue that Calvinists have a monopoly on arrogance. Have you read a certain SBC blog? I also believe that David Allen, Malcolm Yarnell, and Richard Land are brilliant. Wrong, but brilliant.
Allen,
Did the Cals tell you that was their perception? The reason I ask is because no Cal I know thinks that way. But then my knowledge is quite limited.
But if one or a few Cals told you that was their perception, it doesn’t mean they are talking for every Cal as if every Cal buys into a monolithic set of beliefs well beyond the 4 or 5 points.
Allen,
Or maybe I read you wrong
Do you mean it’s your and other Trads perceived impression of Cals? That you all are perceiving that Cals think themselves more scholarly?
I think non-cals feel this way because of seminaries like Southern and Southeastern now using the Abstracts of Principles for hiring purposes which seems to systematically remove all non-cals from teaching as non-cals retire. Maybe I’ve understood that wrong–but I wonder if Southern has hired any non-cals to teach in the last years. I told a friend that I think it would be really hard in good conscience to sign the Abstracts if you’re not a Calvinist.
Jim,
Isnt that Abstract a founding document for Southern?
Isnt there other fine SBC universities to go to?
Help me understand why it is a problem.
Yes. theologically superior.
Allen,
Color me confused brother.
If you think another is theologically superior, how are you any different than the arrogant Calvinist you are standing against?
Yes it is. And because they believe strongly that their understanding is THE right one it generates, IMHO, a fair amt of clannishness and arrogance. Most Trads I know do not believe they know it all or even have it all right.
Allen,
Let me see, based on what you are saying, most Trads could be wrong in their understanding.
Maybe you dont have it figured out? Thus maybe you are wrong in your understanding.
Now what about SW and NO, do theyhave it figured out? Yes? or No?
Yes? Well then how is it different than Southern and Southeastern? In thiscase, again, you seem to be hypocritical here. Explain to me how that isnt so.
No? Yet you claim that they are theologically superior.
And you still haven’t explained how your statement of theologicalsuperiority isnt arrogant, if you are willing to say that others who differ than you are arrogant for projecting the same idea.
I’m off to SS. have a great Sunday brother.
Allen,
Im a 5 pointer.
The only schooling I have had after high school was a year and a half at a secular business college, now a university.
I do not know greek or hebrew.
I certainly dont think I am more scholarly than anyone else.
From my perspective, C’s should not be arrogant since they proclaim that they are rebel sinners saved only by the choice of God. What do they have to be boastful about? Well…nothing. Nothing but Jesus Christ. They can’t even say they are saved because they chose God.
They should agree with the Scripture that says that they were helpless and still sinners when God demonstrated His love to them by the death of the Son.[Romans 5] They should confess that they were blind to the Gospel until God opened their eyes [2nd Cor. 4]. They should boldly proclaim that God is the author and finisher of their salvation [Hebrews 12]. And they should consider that God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble [James 4].
Pleasd remind our brothers of these things if you find they are thinking too highly of themselves or acting in arrogant ways.
Blessings.
Mike, do you have time for a quick question? And it is kinda on topic
Benny,
Yes.
Mike I respect your demeanor on line, and I am not a “C”,
But I am truly trying to understand Calvinist soteriology, so with that being said, with Calvinist soteriology, your and your tribe are monergestic, in belief that in justification/regeneration that it is 100% God, man has nothing to do with ( other than hearing the gospel) . Man has nothing to do with it at all.
On the work of sanctification, is that monergestic totally as well, or is there any synergy in our sanctification???
If I am off on any of this please correct me, and I can re ask the question, thanks in advance
Benny,
First, I dont speak for all Cals.
Thus I am only giving you what I believe.
Man has faith. But why? and how?
Now I don’t know your answers to those questions but I can give you mine. In fact I have already given some of the Scriptures that point to the answers.
Here is another one: 2nd Cor. 4:3-6
“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.”
Note that those perishing, which we agree are those who do not believe, are blind to the light of the Gospel. It says they are blind and do not see it. Now they dohear it but they don’t see the light or the truth of it. They are blind to it. And being blind to it, how can they, from the heart, embrace the glory of Christ in it?
Answer: they can’t.
How then can anyone be saved?
And the Word tells us : ..God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.”
Now God shines the light into the heart. Is that person still blind? Of course not. Thus they are no longer an unbeliever that is perishing but a believer who sees the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
The difference between those perishing and blind and those who see is God. He opens the blind eyes of the heart and saves.
Now as to sanctification, we read from Phillipians 2:
“So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.”
Now we see. God has opened our eyes. We have the Spirit to comfort and guide. And yet we stumble in sin. Our minds have to be renewed [Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. Romans 12].
But now we are no longer enemies of God [Romans 5, Ephesians 2] but children and friends. Thuswe are being raised up to become like Christ as we read in Romans 8: “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;” God is conforming us to be like Jesus. He is at work in us both to will and to work…
Hit the limit.
…for His good pleasure. So once we were rebels and enemies of God, but now through His mercy and grace we are His children and we desire, by our new nature, to walk in the Spirit. So knowing the holiness of God and how he hates sin, we work out the salvation we have received.
Trad here, I can live with that. Close to what I teach on the subject. We cannot perfectly know God’s mind, so why draw lines in the sand? I teach what I believe, disagree with the Cal view, but try to fairly present both sides when dealing with scripture that talks of election. I certainly don’t major on the subject though. Regardless of the view, the bible is clear, the gospel is the power unto salvation. Let’s preach and teach that and leave the saving up to God. His decisions will be absolutely perfect
Jeff P.
Amen!
Jared,
Now for a practical question, if you were to become president of The SBTS would you hire Trad professors like David Allen, or Malcolm Yarnell if you needed to hire new professors?
Could they in all honesty sign the Absract?
Doesn’t the original SBTS charter require all professors to sign that they will teach in “accordance with and not contrary to the Abstract of Principles” pledge to do so “without hesitation or mental reservation?”
And Ron, if you were president of SWBTS would you hire Calvinist professors?
Doesn’t both SW and NO have Calvinst professors already? May be mistaken but I believe they do
They may indeed already have Cal professors. I was asking Ron whether if HE were president if HE would hire Cal professors. Seems like a fair question since he asked Jared. I’ll be pleasantly surprised if Ron comes back and answers though. He usually makes one comment and then doesn’t come back.
Les, I’ve been visiting in the hospital this afternoon. I’ve been waiting for Jared’s reply. I’ll answer after Jared. BTW, SWBTS does have Calvinist professors. Blessings!
Hope your visits went well. I know that the folks you visited were blessed by your pastoral care.
I do know that SWBTS has Calvinists. I was asking whether if you were in charge of hiring at a seminary would you hire Calvinists. Would you hire full 5 pointers to teach theology for instance? I understand you are waiting on Jared. That’s fine. Blessings to you.
Ron, If I was President of SBTS, I would hire qualified people who could sign the Abstract of Principles. But, I don’t understand that this hypothetical question has to do with this article.
Jared,
Thanks for the article by the way, it seems like you are seeking to bring a sense of fairness to the who issue.
Maybe my point is: Since both systems do not “provide satisfactory answers to the difficult realities presented by Scripture concerning God’s sovereignty vs. Man’s responsibility” … and since Southern Baptists have voted that the Baptist Faith and Message has been our historic statement of faith (not the AP), why shouldn’t both Calvinists and Tradtionalists be allowed to teach at all six seminaries?
To me … my question does relate to your article.
Blessings!
Really? SWBTS has Calvinist profs?
Maybe they do – Why would a Cal want to teach there – the President has repeatedly advised Calvinists to leave both the Seminary and convention and even heralded a pastor from Alabama who shared an anti-cal screed in chapel after being invited to come for that purpose. .
Why wouldn’t they want to teach there? Isn’t one of the purposes of education to explore all sides of issues so that you can draw your own conclusions? Isn’t that what we decry on secular campuses that so often this doesn’t happen. Maybe instead of going after Patterson, again, acknowledge he’s allowing this at the school he is President of
Tarheel,
I recognize that this is just as an assumption, but the time before last that I attended the expository preaching conference at SWBTS, one of the new professors who was introduced had come there from Reformed Theological Seminary. And I have also been to workshops at that same conference with known Calvinists like Brian Chappell, formerly president of Covenant Theological Seminary.
Now here is something we all should consider.
I am a 5 point Cal because I think that best reflects Gods Word. I am willing to go to the Scriptures and defend my beliefs and point out why I hold them as I do. That isnt arrogance.
Likewise, I am sure any Trad holds their beliefs because they think that their beliefs best reflects God’s Word. That doesn’t make them any more or less arrogant than the Cal.
In holding my beliefs, it automatically says that Not-my-beliefs is a less accurate way of understanding God’s Word. It doesn’t mean that the other guy is less of a Christian, or that he or she loves Jesus and the Body any less, or any more. To think along those lines, by anybody, is to fall into a Pharisical trap. For we read:
Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you? You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. [2 cor 3]
Now we who have believed in Jesus have received the Spirit. If we seek to define every aspect of Christian life by the letter, we are walking in the paths of death, not life. But we know that it is the Spirit who gives us life, the life of God, and as we all agree, undeserved by us.
Nevertheless, there is a line that should and must be drawn: that is the Gospel. Those who have a false Gospel are still perishing, but we who have the true Gospel, are alive evermore. So brothers, and sisters, let us not divide over anything less than the Gospel. If you think one who proclaims Jesus as Lord has a flse Gospel, present your case, and let us decide. Otherwise let us seek to walk together in unity as befitting a family and as the children of God.
I heard it said a long time ago, that a man’s position on many things depends on which set of proven facts he chooses to ignore. I think the same is true for Christian “sub-divisions”. And that makes sense … in view of Scripture’s infinite scope and man’s limited comprehension. I am a Pentecostal Southern Baptist Calvinist and am keenly aware that we all see only darkly through the glass, as it were.
Robert,
And things change as do our understandings.
example, Cleveland used to be the largest city in Ohio, bit now it is not.
I used to be an Arminian who thought we could lose our salvation, and now I am not.
But what should not change and also what unifies us SBCers is the Gospel.
Thanks, Jared. I appreciate what you have to say.