Critical Response to The Traditionalist Statement: Part 9 (Article 8)

By Mark W. Christy, PhD

This article is the ninth 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 8 of the TS:

Article Eight: The Free Will of Man

We affirm that God, as an expression of His sovereignty, endows each person with actual free will (the ability to choose between two options), which must be exercised in accepting or rejecting God’s gracious call to salvation by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel.

We deny that the decision of faith is an act of God rather than a response of the person. We deny that there is an “effectual call” for certain people that is different from a “general call” to any person who hears and understands the Gospel.

Genesis 1:26-28; Numbers 21:8-9; Deuteronomy 30:19; Joshua 24:15; 1 Samuel 8:1-22; 2 Samuel 24:13-14; Esther 3:12-14; Matthew 7:13-14; 11:20-24; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 9:23-24; 13:34; 15:17-20; Romans 10:9-10; Titus 2:12; Revelation 22:17

Based on the previous eight posts in this series, it should have been clear to the discerning reader that the controlling hermeneutic with which the TS framers have built their theology upon is their assertion of a libertarian free will (at least in regard to salvation) for all humanity. Such a freewill operates beyond God’s control and even His regenerative influence within a person’s inner being before the saving response to the gospel is made. According to the affirmation in TS Article 8, God has established a libertarian free will (“the ability to choose between two options” in terms of one “accepting or rejecting…salvation”).

In a work designed to defend TS, one writer, Braxton Hunter, admits those who support TS “typically hold to some form of libertarian free will” and admits that TS Article 8 is indeed a defense of this position.[i] Despite his admission, he then tries to limit this theological stance behind TS to what he calls “soft libertarianism” in his attempt to avoid the charge of semi-Pelagianism.[ii] Basically, a semi-Pelagian charge against the TS framers would be correctly made if they are proposing that humanity has any capability in their unredeemed flesh to deliver a good and right response to the gospel through their own volitional effort entirely. Despite Hunter’s efforts (or those of his contemporaries), he fails to show how humanity can operate beyond God’s control in such a way that their response to the gospel does not become a good work which they themselves can be credited for.

In his defense of soft-libertarianism, Hunter appeals to Paul Himes’ comments on 1 Corinthians 10:13. His commentary, however, becomes invalid even before any careful analysis is made because this passage refers to God’s work among the converted and not those yet to convert. His usage of this passage seems to be due to a somewhat flawed understanding of compatibilism, the position taken by most Calvinists.

Compatibilism holds that the whole person, including the flesh, mind, desires, and emotions, is under complete bondage to sin in such a way that no one has the capacity in and of themselves to respond rightly to the gospel proclamation. Given this predicament, it holds that God Himself must do a regenerative (saving) work within the believer whereby they are enabled to respond to the proclamation. This saving work, they maintain, directly affects and changes the desires of a person in such a way that they desire the truth which the gospel offers. Furthermore, this work also includes the supernatural enabling of person to respond by God’s apportioning the gifts of repentance and grace to those who are being saved. To put this simply, compatibilism teaches, for those being converted, God changes the heart so that the will is empowered (made free) and enabled to respond via repentance and faith.

In his earlier discussion, Hunter seems to understand the basic tenets of the compatibilist view as just mentioned. His reasoning, however, becomes faulty when he tries to undermine this view by employing a verse which is directed to believers. While he acknowledges that this verse is indeed focused on sin, he fails to understand that the believer’s plight against sin is much different than that of the uncoverted if one takes the compatibilist position. According to this view, those unsaved are locked in bondage in such a way that a free will response is impossible apart from regenerative work of God before salvation (see previous paragraph). After they are made free to respond and thereby attain salvation, their wills become divinely enabled to choose to obey even while the desires of their old selves war against them. With this in view, one could say that the compatibilist offers a divinely enabled libertarian free will that is generated by the regenerative work of the Lord whereby the saved are delivered from the bondage of the will. In response, Hunter will still likely still maintain his charge that “the proof texts typically offered as evidence of compatibilism hardly suffice upon close examination.”[iii] While his bias is understandable, the many resounding and systematic defenses of compatibilism could scarcely be labelled “proof texts”. To name a few, compatibilism has been defended by many scholars including D. A. Carson, R. C. Sproul, James White, and Scott Christensen.[iv] The author of this article has also posted a few times in support of the compatibilistic view.[v]

[i]Braxton Hunter, “Commentary on Article 8: Free Will of Man,” in Anyone Can be Saved: A Defense of “Traditional Southern Baptist Soteriology, ed. David L. Allen, Eric Hankins, and Adam Harwood (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016), 121

[ii]Ibid., 122

[iii]Ibid., 123

[iv]Christensen’s work on this subject, What about Free Will?: Reconciling Our Choices with God’s Sovereignty is praised and recommended by John Macarthur.

[v]See The Divine Escape from the Bondage of the Will at https://battlehardenedbeliever.com/?p=1942 and The Deciding Factor in Our Salvation at https://battlehardenedbeliever.com/?p=2007.