Critical Response to The Traditionalist Statement: Part 4 (Article 3)

By Mark W. Christy, PhD

This article is the fourth in a series designed to carefully consider the theological position against Calvinism taken by those who have signed what is called A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation (released in 2012). In short form, this document is commonly known as the Traditionalist Statement (TS) among Southern Baptists. Presently, comments will be made in response to Article 3 of the TS:

“Article Three: The Atonement of Christ

We affirm that the penal substitution of Christ is the only available and effective sacrifice for the sins of every person.

We deny that this atonement results in salvation without a person’s free response of repentance and faith. We deny that God imposes or withholds this atonement without respect to an act of the person’s free will. We deny that Christ died only for the sins of those who will be saved.

Psalm 22:1-31; Isaiah 53:1-12; John 12:32, 14:6; Acts 10:39-43; Acts 16:30-32; Romans 3:21-26; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:10-14; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:13-20; 1 Timothy 2:5-6; Hebrews 9:12-15, 24-28; 10:1-18; I John 1:7; 2:2”

This article is commendable to the extent that it affirms the exclusivity of Christ in the salvation of people along with His penal, substitutionary death. Furthermore, it avoids the charge of universalism by adding a denial that essentially limits “every person,” as mentioned in the affirmation, to only those who make a freewill response to the gospel. This limitation, however, creates quite a theological conundrum because it essentially claims that Christ’s sacrifice is “effective” in regard to the salvation of “every person” and yet remains ineffective apart from a freewill response. Given this issue, it would seem that the effectiveness is limited by response.

When the efficacy of Christ’s atonement is applied to all people, all people have their sins paid for by Jesus Christ. In other words, He becomes the substitutionary sacrifice who receives the punishment for their sins. If, indeed, Jesus does pay the penalty for everyone’s sin, then everyone should be deemed righteous and justified in the presence of God because they possess no uncovered sin. It is in exactly this position that the framers of TS (via Article 3) wish to place all people, and yet somehow they wish to leave room for a freewill response.

Unfortunately, their language of universal atonement, despite their efforts to avoid the charge, renders a freewill response devoid of any efficacy itself. Simply put, a person who sins have been atoned for hardly needs to respond to God in repentance and faith to have their sins atoned for. Perceiving the foolhardiness of this position, the signatories of TS attempted to avoid this dilemma. Despite their efforts, further revision will be required so as to avoid this charge.

In response to views proposed in this article, Calvinists hold to belief that Christ’s atoning work is effective for those who God intends to save through Christ (i.e., the Elect). God chose them in Christ before the beginning of the world in such a way that their salvation was known by Christ while He suffered on the cross. In this way, one could say that Jesus personally died for the Elect. These Elect receive from God His regenerative work via saving grace that leads to the divine gifts of faith and repentance being distributed (according to God’s will) to those being saved in such a way that they willingly respond to the gospel.

Charles Spurgeon, a famous Baptist preacher who still is quoted often in many Baptist pulpits, has this to say regarding the efficacy of Christ’s Atonement:

“Now, you are aware that there are different theories of redemption. All Christians hold that Christ died to redeem, but all Christians do not teach the same redemption. We differ as to the nature of atonement, and as to the design of redemption. For instance, the Arminian holds that Christ, when He died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person, and they teach that Christ’s death does not in itself secure, beyond doubt, the salvation of any one man living. They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, or that by the doing of something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life, consequently, they are obliged to hold that if man’s will would not give way and voluntarily surrender to grace, then Christ’s atonement would be unavailing. They hold that there was no particularity and specialty in the death of Christ. Christ died, according to them, as much for Judas in hell as for Peter who mounted to heaven. They believe that for those who are consigned to eternal fire, there was as true and real a redemption made as for those who now stand before the throne of the Most High. Now we believe no such thing. We hold that Christ, when He died, had an object in view, and that object will most assuredly, and beyond a doubt, be accomplished. We measure the design of Christ’s death by the effect of it. If anyone asks us, “What did Christ design to do by His death?” we answer that question by asking him another—“What has Christ done, or what will Christ do by His death?” For we declare that the measure of the effect of Christ’s love, is the measure of the design of it. We cannot so belie our reason as to think that the intention of Almighty God could be frustrated, or that the design of so great a thing as the atonement can by any way whatever, be missed of. We hold—we are not afraid to say what we believe—that Christ came into this world with the intention of saving “a multitude which no man can number,” and we believe that as the result of this, every person for whom He died must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, be cleansed from sin, and stand, washed in His blood, before the Father’s throne. We do not believe that Christ made any effectual atonement for those who are forever damned, we dare not think that the blood of Christ was ever shed with the intention of saving those whom God foreknew never could be saved, and some of whom were even in hell when Christ, according to some men’s account, died to save them.”[i]

For his detractors, Spurgeon adding these words to his aforementioned sermon:

“Now, beloved, when you hear anyone laughing or jeering at a limited atonement, you may tell him this. General atonement is like a great wide bridge with only half an arch, it does not go across the stream, it only professes to go half way; it does not secure the salvation of anybody. Now, I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford, which went all the way across, than on a bridge that was as wide as the world, if it did not go all the way across the stream.” Upon reviewing Spurgeon’s comments, he seems to have had the same misgivings of the views expressed in TS Article 3 as those noted earlier in this article. Along with these contentions, Spurgeon adds another concern. Specifically, the nature of the atonement outline in TS Article3 essentially strips believers of their assurance of salvation because the foundation of that assurance becomes grounded in the will of a person and not the will of God.

[i][i]Charles H. Spurgeon, Particular Redemption, Sermon #181, The New Park Street Pulpit (February 28, 1858), Available at: http://www.spurgeongems.org/tulip-3.pdf.