By Mark W. Christy, PhD

This article is the second 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 1 of the TS:

Article One: The Gospel

We affirm that the Gospel is the good news that God has made a way of salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ for any person. This is in keeping with God’s desire for every person to be saved.

We deny that only a select few are capable of responding to the Gospel while the rest are predestined to an eternity in hell.

Genesis 3:15; Psalm 2:1-12; Ezekiel 18:23, 32; Luke 19.10; Luke 24:45-49; John 1:1-18, 3:16; Romans 1:1-6, 5:8; 8:34; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Galatians 4:4-7; Colossians 1:21-23; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; Hebrews 1:1-3; 4:14-16; 2 Peter 3:9

The first line of this statement should be affirmed by every Bible-believing Southern Baptist (not to mention all Christians) were it not for the last few words: “for any person.” For this to be true, Jesus would have had to die even for the sins of those who are in hell. If this is their meaning, then those who do end up hell would be essentially paying for sins that have already been completely covered by Christ.

Another problem with this wording (“for any person”) is that its employment essentially de-personifies one’s salvation. If they are correct, Jesus did not die personally for anyone but merely so that salvation would be available to everyone should they wish to respond. This complication also gives rise to the issue of the curse of the law being finally and completely removed before a convert even responds in repentance and faith. According to their view (at least it seems), the curse of the law has been removed from all persons such that they need only to respond in faith. Since Jesus has become the curse of the law for them even before the response of repentance and faith, all persons must essentially exist in a state whereby they are no longer really under the law.

Beyond the potential double payment for sin, the de-personification of the atoning work of Christ, and the removal of curse of the law even for the unsaved, a final concern with the initial sentence in the affirming portion would be the apparent declaration that Christ’s work on the cross is somehow unfinished. Basically, if the atoning work of Christ is still awaiting the responses of the living and these responses are not by God’s sovereign election but by mere act of human will, then the extent of Christ’s atoning work has yet to be established. While some framers of this TS may object, the only other option would lead them right back to the first problem addressed where those in hell pay for sins already paid for by Christ.

The second sentence in the affirming part is held by the majority of Calvinists as well. Scripture affirms at multiple times that God takes no pleasure in sending people to hell. Nevertheless, He does indeed send people to hell, so His kindly desires must not be seen as a controlling factor of His will. Rather, it would seem that the opposite should be in view where His will directs His choices. The denial in Article 1 suffers greatly because it seems to assert the Elect (the Chosen of God) are those “capable of responding to the Gospel.” Given that this statement is a theological stance against Calvinism, one wonders why they chose wording that would be rejected by their opponents. As most parties to this debate (and all who are serious) should know, Calvinists uphold the doctrine of total depravity, which teaches that all people are conceived dead in their sins and incapable (in and of themselves) of responding to God in a saving manner. Holding to this view, Calvinists claim that God sovereignly elects those He chooses unto salvation. Therefore, human capability is not a mitigating factor, and this statement’s wording should be deemed distracting and unhelpful at best.