ESSAYS ON CALVINISM AND HYPERCALVINISM EVALUATED
Contents
“Andrew Fuller’s Calvinist Soteriology: a brief response to Emir Caner” 1
This eBook is an attempt by those who are followers of Fuller and the low Calvinism (we use this since they call us hypercalvinists “high Calvinists”) to defend the Arminianism of Andrew Fuller, Jonathan Edwards, and all their followers. There are a host of other articles like this. We are called hyper-Calvinists. If that means that we think Calvin was weak on the atonement and election, then we are!
Black = article as written by Haykin
Red = additional documents by other writers who would agree with him
Blue = our comments on what Haykin says
Guillermo Santamaria
Michael A.G. Haykin Professor of Church History and Biblical Spirituality The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
It was extremely gratifying to see Andrew Fuller (1754–1815) cited as a vital theologian at the onset of the modern missionary movement in Dr. Emir Caner’s recent piece on “Historical Southern Baptist Soteriology” that appeared on the SBC Today website.1 Usually, when Baptists are considered in this regard, the name of William Carey2 (1761–1834) alone receives mention, and Fuller,3 who was the theological muscle behind Carey, is forgotten.
There were, however, some surprising aspects to Caner’s treatment of Fuller, especially as it relates to Fuller’s Calvinist soteriology. According to the article, Fuller really cannot be considered a Calvinist (something that would warm the cockles of the hearts of hyper-Calvinist4 critics of Fuller like William Gadsby).5 By 1801, Caner reckons that Fuller had given up the concept of particular redemption for a general redemption,6 affirmed that “faith is not a gift from God,” and rejected “Total Depravity as articulated by some of his contemporary High [that is, hyper-] Calvinists.”[1]
Caner believes that these changes came when Fuller was confronted with the arguments of the General Baptist Dan Taylor (1738–1816),7 who criticized Fuller’s first major work of polemical theology, The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation (1785; pace Caner, who gives the date of publication as 1786). Taylor responded to Fuller’s work, which was a devastating8 critique of hyper-Calvinism, with Observations on the Rev. Andrew Fuller’s Late Pamphlet, entitled, “The Gospel of Christ Worthy of All Acceptation” (1786). The ensuing debate between Taylor and Fuller, which entailed a total of seven publications, including the two editions of The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, is quite convoluted. Suffice it to say that the theological discussion revealed Fuller and Taylor at their best as Christians and as theologians. Fuller was quite prepared to admit, “I never imagined myself infallible,”9 but he was sure of Taylor’s inconsistency when the latter left “out the agency of the Holy Spirit in the act itself of believing” and maintained that “the Spirit is not given till after we have believed.”10 Such a sentiment, Fuller asserted, is “highly derogatory to the honor of the Holy Spirit, and contrary to the tenor of the sacred Scriptures.”11 Fuller turned to biblical texts like Galatians 5:22 and Ephesians 2:8 to support his argument that faith is a creation of the Holy Spirit. Before the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, Fuller argued that even the Lord Jesus, the “greatest of all preachers,…labored in vain.”12 Both individual conversions and those that take place during large-scale revivals are thus evidence of the Spirit’s “sovereign, discriminating, and efficacious grace.”13
Typical of Fuller’s response to Taylor’s argument from Scripture is his treatment of Ephesians 1:13–14, based on which Taylor had argued that the gift of the Spirit follows faith. Fuller understood the sealing of the Spirit in this Pauline text to parallel Paul’s prayer in Ephesians 1:17 that the Ephesian believers be given “the Spirit of wisdom.” Neither texts, in the judgment of Fuller, imply that faith exists apart from the indwelling of the Spirit. As Romans 8:9 decisively affirms, a person not indwelt by the Spirit cannot exercise true faith.14
In other words, Fuller did not deny that faith was a gift of the Spirit. What he did do that was vital for Baptists in his day was to maintain that faith was also a duty. It was not a case of either/or, but both/and: faith was both a gift and a duty.[2] It was from this perspective that he critiqued the hyper-Calvinist view of total depravity: it destroyed human responsibility. But the biblical paradox that Fuller wholeheartedly affirmed was this: though no one can believe without the regenerating work of the Spirit, faith was nevertheless required of sinners. This, then, provided Fuller with a rationale (along with massive amounts of biblical evidence) to preach the gospel indiscriminately to all and sundry.
The other assertion of Caner is that Fuller embraced a “general atonement.” His proof is the examination of Fuller’s view of the atonement by Peter Morden in his study of Fuller,(Offering Christ to the World: Andrew Fuller 1754–1815 and the Revival of Eighteenth Particular Baptist Life; Paternoster, 2003).
Now, the reality again is far more complex than a simple adoption of a “general atonement.” Morden maintains that in the second edition of Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation (1801), Fuller distanced himself from traditional Calvinism by softening his view of particular redemption and employing governmental atonement language, then popular with the New Divinity disciples of Jonathan Edwards. Morden interprets Fuller’s view of Christ’s death as being unlimited in provision, but by design limited in its application, which is the classic view of the Synod of Dort: sufficient for all, but efficacious for the elect.8
In fine, Caner’s overview of Fuller’s soteriology is a misread of the great English divine. He never abandoned his Calvinism, but came to see and powerfully articulate a Calvinistic soteriology that was profoundly missional. And for the latter, both Dr. Caner and I are tremendously grateful, for it made of the Baptists in the North Atlantic in the nineteenth century a people passionately committed to global evangelism.[3]
This article by Dr. Haykin first appeared on the blog site for the ANDREW FULLER CENTER at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Dr. Ergun Caner has published an article by this title in the latest National Liberty Journal. I hesitate even calling attention to it because I know that what he says will provoke many who regularly read this blog. Provocation is so easy to come by these days that I hate to be another carrier. But, obviously, my hesitations were not enough to hold me back. They were overcome by other motivations.
First, the tone of this article is so much better than the comments that Dr. Caner left on my blog a few months ago, I am tempted to be encouraged that the prospect of a reasonable debate on the issues over which we disagree is possible. I realize that the last sentence is a study of caution, but I am somewhat encouraged. Dr. Caner quotes a Director of Missions who fears that “the Reformed movement will not go away” but is “slowly taking over some major churches” (I guess this is in contrast to the “minor churches” that this DOM thinks we *should* be pastoring). Dr. Caner responds:
Is his concern justified? Is Calvinism1[5] slowly overtaking Baptist churches?[6]
To be fair, I must admit I have been vocal on this issue. Very vocal.
I could hardly be viewed as an “unbiased” source on the issue. I have preached it in the Thomas Road Baptist Church pulpit, and have stated it emphatically in my classes.
Though those who have kept up with this blog or Caner’s ministry might think this disclaimer to be unnecessary, it is encouraging to see him concerned with fairness. In fact, he goes on to make this appropriate admission:
Also for the sake of fairness, I must add that one cannot solely blame our Reformed brothers,[7] either. Baptists are notorious for “fighting and fussing” over such issues as the color of the carpet and the location of the water fountains. This is not the first scuffle into which we have walked and it certainly will not be the last.
And this:
Thirty years ago, however, we could not blame all Pentecostals for the discord in our churches, and neither can we blame every Calvinist for the growing discord today. Those who instigated the fights that ultimately led to splits did not represent every Pentecostal. Neither do the most strident of the Reformed-leaning Baptists represent all Calvinists today.1
I welcome the tone that these admissions can set in discussing the issues of Reformed theology. And I would likewise admit that not every Fundamentalist is guilty of misrepresenting the doctrines of grace or spewing forth the kind of venom and deception that characterized the now defunct Baptistfire website.[8] Many of our Fundamentalist brethren are just as interested in accurately representing those with whom they disagree as most Reformed Baptists[9] are.
A second reason that I have chosen to address this article despite my hesitations has to do with my genuine desire to understand what Dr. Caner and those who follow his line of reasoning hear when they listen to the doctrines of grace articulated. Often, after reading the descriptions of Calvinism by its critics I find myself recoiling in horror with the thought that such beliefs ought to be cast back into hell from which they originated. I hate what they describe as much as they do. But what they describe is not historic, evangelical Calvinism. It is not the Calvinism of the 293 delegates who met in Augusta, Georgia in 1845 to form the Southern Baptist Convention. It is not the Calvinism of Spurgeon,[10][11] Edwards,[12] Carey, Judson,[13] Boyce,[14] Mell, or Dagg.[15] And it is certainly not the Calvinism of Founders Ministries.[16]
So a question lingers in my mind, “Where do such descriptions come from?” Is there something that those of us who are unapologetically reformed in our understanding of the Bible’s teachings on salvation are doing to misrepresent our views? In our advocacy of the truth are we detracting from it in the way that we communicate it? I know that the truth is offensive, and Jesus spoke plainly about it dividing even close relations. Paul said that the preaching of the cross is a scandal and an offense to many. Those are simple facts that all who are loyal to Christ must acknowledge and prepare to live with. But are we in the Reformed camp unwittingly giving unnecessary offense by our attitudes and actions when we uphold our convictions? No doubt that is true of some on many occasions and perhaps of many on some occasions. That still does not justify misrepresentations because the 9th commandment doesn’t have an exception clause attached to it.
Here is an initial attempt at understanding all of this. I think Dr. Caner is alarmed by the worst that he has seen in Calvinism and Calvinists. Further, I believe that he is fully convinced by his reading of Scripture that those who are reformed are simply wrong about moral inability, unconditional election, definite atonement, and effectual calling. What I am not certain about is this: does he think that the strident, repulsive image of Calvinism that some Fundamentalists construct is inherent to the actual doctrinal convictions of reformed theology or is it an aberration of it? At this point, I genuinely don’t know the answer to that question, though the caricatures are so clear to me that the answer is obvious.
A third reason I call attention to this article is because it confuses categories and definitions in ways that I find unhelpful to honest dialogue. For example, Caner says this:
The real problem we face is a new form of Hyper Calvinism, that I call “Neo-Calvinism.” Neo-Calvinists are not just “hyper;” they are obsessed.
He goes on to make this point of “clarification:”
So I will not be misunderstood, let me define the term. A Neo-Calvinist is a Hyper Calvinist with a twist.[17] He cannot discuss anything without referencing Calvinism. For the “Neo-Calvinist,” you are either Reformed, or you are teaching heresy. It is the prism through which every doctrine is filtered.
First, it is if Calvinism is being judged along a continuum with “hyper” to the right and “neo” to the far right–like someone who is “really, really, serious about his Calvinism.” Of course, his use of “neo” notwithstanding, this is historically inaccurate.
Hyper-Calvinism has a history. It can be defined. It is not Calvinism on steroids. As Spurgeon said, speaking of Calvinists, it is not that we believe any less than those who are hyper, we believe more. We believe in duty-faith and repentance. We believe in the absolute responsibility of unbelievers to trust Christ and be saved. When “hyper-Calvinism” is thrown around without distinguishing it from evangelical Calvinism, understanding is not advanced, confusion is.
Additionally, Dr. Caner’s 5-fold definition of what he calls “neo-Calvinism” (hyper-Calvinism) is unhelpful.
1. “Double Predestination.” Calvin believed this. Are we to label him a hyper-Calvinist? John Bunyan believed this. Is he a “neo-Calvinist?”
2. “Not all babies who die go to heaven. They do not say outright that ‘non-elect babies who die go to hell.’ They simply say that they leave such issues to the sovereignty of God. This raises the issue of the very nature of God, doesn’t it?” Yes it does raise that issue, which is exactly the point, from my perspective. God is “too wise to be mistaken, too good to be unkind.” The cross proves this beyond all doubt. For the record, I have never heard anyone argue that any baby that died in infancy went to hell. What I and others have said is that God has not told us clearly in His Word how all that works. We bow in humility and leave what He has not chosen to reveal in His all-wise, all-loving hands. This, it seems to me, is far better than trying to equate theologically t he nature of a child with the nature of a dog (check the 6th bullet point)–neither of which are accountable to God for sin.
3. “God’s “love for mankind” must be redefined.” Not “redefined,” but simply defined. There is a reason D.A. Carson named his book, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. Passages that speak of God hating sinners were not surreptitiously edited into the Bible by “neo-Calvinists.” We must deal with those texts along side the ones that speak of God’s universal love and grace.
4. “Invitations are an insult to the sovereignty of God. Disturbing as this may sound, some ministers of this stripe have stopped giving invitations in their services.” Here Dr. Caner equates “altar call” with “invitation.” The Gospel cannot be preached without an invitation because the call to come to Christ is inherent in the message. The fact that some Calvinists do not want to use the altar call system, what we might call “neo-invitationalism,” should not be misconstrued to suggest that they are against inviting people to Christ. In addition, Rick Warren does not use an “invitation” and teaches against it. Should he also be labeled a hyper-Calvinist?
5. “Calvinism is the only Gospel.” Granted, Spurgeon did say that Calvinism is the Gospel. But anyone who has read his sermons or books knows that by that he did not mean that simply articulating the 5 points is proclaiming the Gospel. I think Dr. Caner has a point here. When Calvinists quote Spurgeon on this it tends to confuse as much as clarify. As my own concerns over the loss of the Gospel in our churches has grown in recent years I have become more careful not to speak like this, and here is the reason why. I know of Calvinists who preach careful doctrine but who do not preach Christ so well. And the Gospel is all about Jesus Christ, who He is, what He has done and why that matters.
Dr. Caner appeals uncritically to the Anabaptists as his spiritual forbears in distinction to the magisterial reformers. I will let that historical debate slide for the moment. But I found much with which to agree in this paragraph:
In our history, Free Church believers have never been adherents to one particular system or philosophy. We certainly have not been locked to a scholastic movement that was formed by men. We are Biblicists. We believe the Bible is inerrant, not because a particular creed forces us to do so, but because we see Scripture as plain on that issue. We are adamant that Jesus Christ — virgin-born, living a sinless life, crucified, buried, physically resurrected and soon returning — is the only Savior because the Bible states it, regardless of the whims and wishes of men.
Of course, the existence of both the Particular Baptists (Calvinists) and General Baptists (Arminian) betrays his first sentence, but his main point is well-taken. It is precisely because we are a people of the book that we should be willing to look honestly and rigorously at what that book says. And wherever and however we disagree on other points, we must all agree on the exclusivity of Jesus Christ as the Savior of sinners.
Near the beginning of the article Dr. Caner makes these statements:
I am not a Hyper Calvinist. I am not an Arminian.
I am a Baptist, ….
Though I am under no delusions that we mean the same things by these terms, I can also affirm those statements. I am not a hyper-Calvinist. I am not an Arminian. I am a Baptist, a historic Southern Baptist, which means I am committed to the reformed, Calvinistic understanding of salvation.
Final note: My treatment of this article is not an invitation to take shots at Dr. Caner in the comments. Engage his arguments, raise questions, objections or agreements, offer clarifications or support, but do not attack his person.
1. Emir Caner, “Historical Southern Baptist Soteriology, pt.2/3” SBC Today (http://sbctoday.com/historical- southern-baptist-soteriology-pt-23/; accessed April 22, 2014).
2. Apparently in this hagiography of Andrew Fuller we might the following on William Carey. Negative Comments and Criticisms of William Carey
3. Criticism from Hyper-Calvinists (like us)
4. Hyper-Calvinism is a branch of Protestant theology that places a strong emphasis on God's sovereignty at the expense of human responsibility. It is at times regarded as a variation of Calvinism, but critics emphasize its differences from traditional Calvinistic beliefs. Hyper-Calvinism distinguishes itself from traditional Calvinism when it comes to the "sufficiency and efficiency" of Christ's atonement. Predestination in Calvinism traditionally argues that only the elect are able to understand Christ's atonement, but that the sufficiency of the atonement stretches to all humanity, while Hyper-Calvinism argues the atonement is sufficient only to the elect.[1]
5. William Gadsby (1773–1844) was an English Strict Baptist pastor, hymn writer and church planter .[1] He is often seen of a father of the Strict and Particular Baptist movement in England.[1][2] Although he was not formally educated, Gadsby was regarded by his contemporaries as an excellent preacher and pastor who championed the cause of social justice and opposed the established Elizabethan Church.[3]
6. What was Fuller’s view of the atonement?
7. Dan Taylor (1738–1816) was a General Baptist minister and a key figure in the New Connexion of General Baptists in England. He played a crucial role in revitalizing General Baptist churches, which had declined due to theological drift and internal disputes.
8. Devastating? Hardly! The Commercial View of the Atonement, associated with Andrew Fuller, is a modification of the penal substitution theory that explains Christ’s atoning work in terms of a transaction or payment. This view sought to balance Calvinist doctrines of definite atonement with the universal offer of the gospel.
9. A Defense of a Treatise entitled The Gospel of Christ Worthy of All Acceptation: Containing a Reply to Mr. Button’s Remarks and the Observations of Philanthropos in Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1845), II, 417
10. Defense of a Treatise in Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, II, 463.
11. Defense of a Treatise in Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, II, 463.
12. Defense of a Treatise in Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, II, 464.
13. Defense of a Treatise in Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, II, 465.
14. Defense of a Treatise in Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, II, 469.
[1] Andrew Fuller's views on Total Depravity differed from Hyper-Calvinists primarily in his emphasis on human responsibility and the duty of all sinners to believe in Christ. While both Fuller and Hyper-Calvinists affirmed that human nature is corrupt and that sinners are incapable of coming to God without divine grace, Fuller made a crucial distinction that set his theology apart.
Key Differences Between Andrew Fuller and Hyper-Calvinists on Total Depravity
Natural vs. Moral Inability
Hyper-Calvinists: Often conflated total depravity with a kind of absolute inability, suggesting that because sinners are utterly depraved, they bear no responsibility for failing to believe in Christ unless they are regenerated.
Andrew Fuller: Made a distinction between natural inability (which means lacking the physical or intellectual capacity to believe) and moral inability (which means lacking the desire or willingness to believe due to a sinful nature). Fuller argued that sinners can believe in Christ in terms of their natural faculties but are morally unwilling because of their sin.
The Duty of Sinners to Believe in Christ
Hyper-Calvinists: Many rejected the idea that preachers should call all sinners to repent and believe in Christ. They argued that since faith is a gift of God given only to the elect, it was improper to exhort all people to believe.
Andrew Fuller: Believed that the Gospel should be freely offered to all people and that all sinners were morally obligated to repent and believe in Christ, even though they lacked the moral ability to do so without divine grace.
Evangelism and Gospel Invitations
Hyper-Calvinists: Opposed evangelistic appeals and mission work, believing that God would save the elect without human effort.
Andrew Fuller: Advocated for active evangelism and missions, arguing that preachers must call all people to believe in Christ and that this was the means God used to bring the elect to salvation. His theology fueled the modern missionary movement, influencing figures like William Carey.
Conclusion
Fuller’s view of total depravity retained the idea that sinners are completely dependent on God’s grace for salvation, but he rejected the Hyper-Calvinist tendency to downplay human responsibility. By affirming that all sinners are morally responsible to repent and believing, he laid the foundation for evangelistic preaching and missionary work, shaping the theology of Reformed Baptists and beyond.
[2] How can it be a duty when it is a gift supernaturally given?
[3] By this is meant the “free offer” to all men that God really wants to save them but won’t do it, due to their refusal to believe. The clearest examples of this doctrine is when preachers say, “…the only thing that prevents you from being saved is your refusal to believe.” This is deceptive at best. There is no mention as to the New Birth, and the individual’s election!
[4] Tom Ascol has served as a Pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, FL since 1986. Before moving to Florida, he served as pastor and associate pastor of churches in Texas. He has a BS degree in sociology from Texas A&M University (1979) and has also earned the MDiv and PhD degrees from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth, Texas. He has served as an adjunct professor of theology for various colleges and seminaries, including Reformed Theological Seminary, the Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, African Christian University, Copperbelt Ministerial College, and Reformed Baptist Seminary. He has also served as Visiting Professor at the Nicole Institute for Baptist Studies at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida. Tom serves as the President of Founders Ministries and The Institute of Public Theology. He has edited the Founders Journal, a quarterly theological publication of Founders Ministries, and has written hundreds of articles for various journals and magazines. He has been a regular contributor to TableTalk, the monthly magazine of Ligonier Ministries. He has also edited and contributed to several books, including Dear Timothy: Letters on Pastoral Ministry, The Truth and Grace Memory Books for Children, and Recovering the Gospel and Reformation of Churches. He is also the author of Suffering with Joy, As the Darkness Clears Away, From the Protestant Reformation to the Southern Baptist Convention, Traditional Theology and the SBC and Strong and Courageous. Tom regularly preaches and lectures at various conferences throughout the United States and other countries. In addition, he regularly contributes articles to the Founders website and hosts a weekly podcast called The Sword & The Trowel. He and his wife Donna have six children along with four sons-in-law and a daughter-in-law. They have twenty-one grandchildren.
[5] Of course they name themselves after a man! We doubt if Calvin would have approved of this!
[6] We have seen this firsthand. And when we research the Internet, others think the same as we do. The question of whether Calvinists in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) are "sneakily" introducing Calvinism into Arminian-leaning churches is a matter of debate and perspective. There are concerns from both Traditionalist (Non-Calvinist) and Calvinist Southern Baptists regarding theological shifts within the denomination.
Concerns from Non-Calvinists (Traditionalists/Arminians)
Some Traditionalist Baptists (who reject Calvinism) argue that:
Response from Calvinists in the SBC
Calvinists within the SBC deny that they are being deceptive but argue that:
Conclusion
While there have been tensions over Calvinism within the SBC, the idea of a covert campaign to "sneak" Calvinism into Arminian churches is likely an oversimplification. However, theological differences have led to real conflicts, with some non-Calvinist churches feeling blindsided by doctrinal shifts. Ultimately, clear communication between churches and pastoral candidates is essential to maintaining unity within the SBC.
[7] Our Reformed Brothers? Is Ascol talking about the Reformers who persecuted the Anabaptists our forbears?
[8] As of now, the website baptistfire.com appears to be inactive or no longer accessible. Historically, it was known as a platform that expressed strong opposition to Calvinism within Baptist circles. The site featured articles and resources critical of Reformed theology, aiming to counter its influence in Baptist churches.
While specific details about the site's origins, authors, and the exact duration of its activity are limited, it served as a voice for those within the Baptist community who were concerned about the rise of Calvinistic doctrines. The content often addressed theological debates, church practices, and the perceived implications of adopting Calvinist beliefs in traditionally non-Calvinist congregations.
It's important to note that the discussions and debates surrounding Calvinism within the Baptist tradition have been longstanding and multifaceted. Various groups and individuals have contributed to this discourse, each bringing their perspectives and concerns to the table.
For those interested in exploring the historical context and content of baptistfire.com, archived versions of the site may be available through web archiving services like the Wayback Machine. These archives can provide insights into the site's articles, discussions, and the broader conversation about Calvinism within the Baptist community during its period of activity.
[9] Reformed Baptists 19th century America In 19th-century America, Reformed Baptists, often referred to as Particular Baptists, experienced significant developments in terms of growth, theological education, and missionary endeavors. Key Developments: Educational Advancements:
The establishment of institutions such as the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1859, founded by James P. Boyce, provided formal theological education grounded in Reformed theology. Boyce, a prominent Reformed Baptist theologian, played a crucial role in shaping Baptist theological education in America.
Missionary Efforts:
Building upon the missionary zeal of earlier figures like Adoniram Judson, 19th-century Reformed Baptists continued to engage in global missions, spreading their theological perspectives worldwide.
Theological Publications:
The publication of systematic theological works, such as "Manual of Theology" by John L. Dagg in 1857, provided comprehensive theological frameworks for Baptists, reinforcing Reformed doctrines within the Baptist tradition.
These developments contributed to the establishment and growth of Reformed Baptist theology and practice in 19th-century America, leaving a lasting impact on the broader Baptist movement.
[10] Charles Spurgeon’s Opposition to Hyper-Calvinism
Charles Spurgeon, a leading 19th-century Baptist preacher, strongly opposed Hyper-Calvinism, a theological stance that he believed misrepresented the Gospel by limiting its free offer. While Spurgeon was a committed Calvinist, he firmly rejected the Hyper-Calvinist position that the Gospel should only be preached to the elect.
Spurgeon’s Criticisms of Hyper-Calvinism:
Spurgeon's Key Work Against Hyper-Calvinism:
One of Spurgeon’s most notable critiques of Hyper-Calvinism was his sermon "A Defense of Calvinism." He also opposed the Hyper-Calvinist influence of figures like James Wells and the Gospel Standard Strict Baptists, who held to a rigid, high Calvinism that excluded free offers of the Gospel.
Famous Quotes by Spurgeon on Hyper-Calvinism:
Conclusion:
Spurgeon’s Evangelical Calvinism contrasted sharply with Hyper-Calvinism. While he affirmed the doctrines of grace, he rejected the idea that the Gospel should not be freely preached to all people. His balance of divine sovereignty and human responsibility remains a hallmark of Reformed Baptist theology today.
Charles Spurgeon, a leading 19th-century Baptist preacher, strongly opposed Hyper-Calvinism, a theological stance that he believed misrepresented the Gospel by limiting its free offer. While Spurgeon was a committed Calvinist, he firmly rejected the Hyper-Calvinist position that the Gospel should only be preached to the elect.
Spurgeon’s Criticisms of Hyper-Calvinism:
Spurgeon's Key Work Against Hyper-Calvinism:
One of Spurgeon’s most notable critiques of Hyper-Calvinism was his sermon "A Defense of Calvinism." He also opposed the Hyper-Calvinist influence of figures like James Wells and the Gospel Standard Strict Baptists, who held to a rigid, high Calvinism that excluded free offers of the Gospel.
Famous Quotes by Spurgeon on Hyper-Calvinism:
Conclusion:
Spurgeon’s Evangelical Calvinism contrasted sharply with Hyper-Calvinism. While he affirmed the doctrines of grace, he rejected the idea that the Gospel should not be freely preached to all people. His balance of divine sovereignty and human responsibility remains a hallmark of Reformed Baptist theology today.
[11] Charles Spurgeon held Andrew Fuller in high esteem, often crediting him with revitalizing evangelical Calvinism and defending the Gospel against both Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism. Spurgeon regarded Fuller as a key theological influence, particularly in shaping a balanced, Christ-centered Calvinism that emphasized both divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
Spurgeon’s Praise for Fuller
“I have long considered [Andrew Fuller] to be the greatest theologian of his century.”
Spurgeon admired Fuller’s ability to uphold Reformed theology while still advocating for evangelistic preaching and missions.
Conclusion
Spurgeon viewed Andrew Fuller as a reforming force within Baptist Calvinism, someone who restored balance to Reformed theology by rejecting both Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism. He saw Fuller’s theology as a model for bold Gospel proclamation, influencing his own preaching at the Metropolitan Tabernacle and shaping the future of Reformed Baptists.
[12] Jonathan Edwards, a prominent 18th-century Reformed theologian and preacher, affirmed the classic Calvinist doctrine that Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all but efficient for the elect. This position maintains that while Christ’s sacrifice is of infinite value and could save all humanity, it is only applied to those whom God has chosen for salvation.
Sufficiency of the Atonement
Edwards upheld the belief that Christ’s atoning work possessed infinite merit because Christ, being fully divine, provided a sacrifice of infinite worth. This sufficiency meant that, in principle, the atonement was enough to redeem every human being if God had decreed universal salvation.
He echoed the broader Reformed tradition in arguing that the atonement’s sufficiency provided the basis for the universal offer of the Gospel—that preachers could genuinely call all sinners to repentance because Christ’s work was sufficient for any who would believe.
Efficiency of the Atonement
Despite its infinite sufficiency, Edwards maintained that Christ’s atonement was only efficient (or effective) for the elect. That is, while Christ’s sacrifice was powerful enough to save all, it was applied only to those whom God predestined for salvation. He held to the Reformed understanding of particular redemption (definite atonement), arguing that God’s sovereign decree determined who would ultimately receive the saving benefits of Christ’s death.
Edwards’ Writings on the Subject
Relation to Reformed Theology
Edwards’ view aligns with theologians like John Owen and Francis Turretin, who also articulated the distinction between sufficiency and efficiency. This framework allowed Reformed theologians to uphold:
Conclusion
Jonathan Edwards’ stance on the atonement maintains the balance of Gospel proclamation and sovereign election. He affirmed that Christ’s atonement was infinite in merit, making it sufficient for all, but it was only applied to the elect, ensuring that God's sovereign purpose in salvation was fully accomplished. This doctrine remains a foundational tenet of Reformed theology and has continued to shape Baptist and Presbyterian theological traditions.
[13] We have the text of the following letter from written in 1831, titled, “Letter on Ornamental and Costly Attire”, addressed to the female members of the Churches of the United States. Some have said that Judson was not actually asking the Christian ladies to contribute Jewely and dresses to save souls: We will let the read judge for himself:
In the posture you have assumed, look up and behold the eye of your benignant Savior ever gazing upon you, with the tenderest love - upon you, his daughters, his spouse, wishing above all things, that you would yield your hearts entirely to him, and become holy, as he is holy, rejoicing when he sees one and another accepting his pressing invitation, and entering the more perfect way; for on that account he will be able to draw such precious souls into a nearer union with himself, and place them at last in the higher spheres, where they will receive and reflect more copious communication of light, from the great fountain of light, the uncreated Sun.
4. Surely you can hold out no longer. Thanks be to God, I see you taking off your necklaces and earrings, tearing away your ribbons and ruffles and superfluities of head-dress, and I hear you exclaim, What shall we do next? An important question, deserving serious consideration. The ornaments you are renouncing, though useless, and worse than useless in their present state, can be so disposed of as to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, relieve the sick, enlighten the dark-minded, disseminate the holy scriptures, spread the glorious gospel throughout the world. Little do the inhabitants of a free christian country know of the want and distress endured by the greater part of the inhabitants of the earth. Still less idea can they form of the awful darkness, which rests upon the great mass of mankind, in regard to spiritual things. During the years that you have, been wearing these useless ornaments, how many poor creatures have been pining in want; how many have languished and groaned on beds of abject wretchedness; how many children have been bred up in the blackest ignorance, hardened in all manner of iniquitiy; how many immortal souls have gone down to hell, with a lie in their right hand, having never heard of the true God and the only Savior. Some of these miseries might have been mitigated; some poor wretch have felt his pain relieved; some widow’s heart have been made to sing for joy; some helpless orphans have been rescued from hardened depravity, and trained up for a happy life here and hereafter; some, yea many precious souls might have been redeemed from the quenchless fires of hell, where now they must lie and suffer to all eternity, had you not been afraid of being thought unfashionable, and not like other folks! had you not preferred adorning your persons and cherishing the most seductive feelings of vanity and pride! O, christian sisters, believers in God, in Christ, in an eternal hell! and can you hesitate and ask what you shall do? Bedew these ornaments with the tears of contrition; consecrate them to the cause of charity; hang them on the cross of your dying Lord. Delay not an instant; hasten with all your might, if not to make reparations for the past, at least to prevent a continuance of the evil in the future. And be not content with individual exertion. Remember that union is strength. Take an example from the Temperance Societies, which are rising in their strength, and rescuing a nation from time brink of destruction. unite christian sisters of all denominations, and make an effort to rescue the church of God from the insidious attacks of an enemy, which is devouring her very vitals. As a counterpart to the societies just mentioned, may I respectfully suggest that plain-dress societies be. formed in every city and village throughout the land, recognizing two fundamental principles - the one based on 1 Tim. ii. 9: - All costly attire to be disused; the other on the law of general benevolence - the avails of such articles, and the saving resulted from time plain dress system, to be devoted to purposes of charity. Some general rules in regard to dress, and some general objects of charity may be easily ascertained and settled. Minor points must, of course, be left to the conscience of each individual, yet free discussion will throw light on many points at first obscure. Be not deterred by the suggestions, that in such discussions you are conversant about small things. Great things depend on small; and in that case, things which appear small to shortsighted man are great in the sight of God. Many there are who praise the principle of self-denial in general, and condemn it in all its particular applications, as too minute and scrupulous and severe. Satan is well aware that if he can secure the minute units, the sum total will be his own. Think not any thing small which may have a bearing upon the kingdom of Christ, and upon the destinies of eternity. How easy to conceive, from many known events, that the single fact of a lady’s divesting herself of a necklace for Christ’s sake, may involve consequences which shall be felt in the remotest parts of the earth, and in all future generations to the end of time; yea, stretch away into boundless eternity, and be a subject of praise millions of ages after this world and all its ornaments are burnt up.”
But then he speculates that if this had been done earlier, which are now in hell could have been saved:
“Some, yea many precious souls might have been redeemed from the quenchless fires of hell, had you not been afraid of being thought unfashionable,” &c. He further writes:
“Since this letter to females on useless ornaments was published, we have had our eye on the results, and though we have kept no account, yet we are within bounds in saying that hundreds of articles of jewelry and extravagance have been sent into the treasury of the Lord. By the minutes of the Charleston, S. C., Association, it appears that on reading Dr. Judson’s letter in a public meeting at Columbia, fifty-three articles of jewelry were sacrificed on the spot. This is the kind of nullification we like - pride and extravagance keep the treasury of benevolence poor.” : https://welshtractpublications.blogspot.com/2018/08/sot-reprints-adoniram-judsons-letter.html
Judson, responding to criticism about this Arminian statements, responds in the Baptist Register of July 28, 1833
EXTRACTS FROM CORRESPONDENCE.
MAULMEIN, July 28, 1833.
‘DEAR BROTHER ALLEN: - I have received yours of June 15, 1833, and the valuable donation of tracts, almost all of which I have disposed of to excellent advantage. If you should please to remember us again, permit me to say that there is a great call for ‘Pengilly,’ ‘Wisdom's Voice,’ and other Temperance tracts, the letter on female dress, and the memoir of Mee Shwayee.
Please to tell your friend who objects to the “heterodox” sentiment contained in the sentence: “Some, yea many, precious souls might have been redeemed from the quenchless fire of hell,” &c., that he must take it in a popular, not strictly theological sense, and not make a man an offender for a word. Pray remember that I was writing a letter to the ladies, and not a supplement to ‘Calvin’s Institutes.’
I rejoice to hear of your increasing prosperity, but have only time to say so, and remain
Your affectionate brother,
A. JUDSON.
Rev. Ira M. Allen.’” https://welshtractpublications.blogspot.com/2018/08/sot-reprints-adoniram-judsons-letter-2.html
[14] Yes, James P. Boyce—a key figure in Southern Baptist theology and the founder of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary—affirmed the classic Reformed doctrine that Christ’s atonement was sufficient for all but efficient for the elect.
Boyce’s View on the Atonement
Boyce’s Theological Writings
In his work Abstract of Systematic Theology (1887), Boyce explicitly articulated the distinction between sufficiency and efficiency. He argued that while the atonement possessed infinite merit, it was not applied indiscriminately to all people but rather secured salvation only for the elect.
Relation to Other Reformed Thinkers
Boyce’s views closely align with John Owen, Francis Turretin, and Andrew Fuller, all of whom upheld a universal sufficiency but particular efficacy framework. Like Fuller, Boyce also emphasized the free and universal offer of the Gospel, maintaining that while only the elect would be saved, the Gospel call should be extended to all people.
Conclusion
James P. Boyce clearly upheld the sufficient for all, efficient for the elect doctrine within Reformed Baptist theology. His teachings reinforced Southern Baptist Calvinism, affirming both the universal offer of the Gospel and God’s sovereign election.
Would you like me to add a section on Boyce’s view to your existing document on Edwards?
[15] John L. Dagg on the Atonement: Sufficient for All, Efficient for the Elect?
John L. Dagg, a 19th-century Southern Baptist theologian, largely adhered to the Reformed Baptist understanding of atonement, which aligns with the doctrine of "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect."
Dagg’s View on Sufficiency and Efficiency
Dagg’s Writings on the Atonement
Relation to Reformed Baptist Theology
Dagg’s view followed closely in the footsteps of Andrew Fuller, Charles Hodge, and John Gill, who all upheld a universal sufficiency but particular efficiency framework. Like Fuller, he rejected Hyper-Calvinism, which denied the free offer of the Gospel, and instead emphasized the necessity of evangelistic preaching.
Conclusion
Dagg did believe that Christ’s atonement was sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect—a hallmark of classic Reformed soteriology. His theology reinforced the Southern Baptist commitment to Calvinism while encouraging the free proclamation of the Gospel.
[16] Yes it was the Calvinism of those men, that we reject! A New School Baptist was a term used in the early 19th century to describe Baptists who embraced theological and methodological innovations, particularly in areas such as missions, theological education, and revivalism. They were distinct from Old School (or Primitive) Baptists, who rejected these innovations as unbiblical and contrary to traditional Calvinistic Baptist beliefs.
Key Characteristics of New School Baptists:
[17] I do not think that Ascol understands the meaning of the term, Neo-Calvinism has nothing to do with hypercalvinism. Definition of Neo-Calvinism
Neo-Calvinism is a theological movement that emerged in the 19th century, primarily associated with Dutch Reformed theologian Abraham Kuyper. It extends classic Reformed theology beyond personal salvation to all areas of life and society, emphasizing the lordship of Christ over every sphere of human existence.
Key Features of Neo-Calvinism:
Difference from Traditional Calvinism
Influence and Legacy
Neo-Calvinism has influenced Christian education, politics, economics, and social ethics. It continues to shape Reformed thought in institutions like Calvin University and movements such as theonomy and Christian reconstructionism.