Although I attended a Southern Baptist seminary steeped in Calvinism, I heard the words “General Baptist” - once in Baptist History class during my MDiv studies a few years back. The only time I heard it, though, was when the professor asked the question, “Is anyone in here a Southern Baptist?” to see who would raise their hands or speak out. I didn’t fall for the trap; I knew I was in a Southern Baptist course on Baptist History. Sometimes, it pays to keep your identity to yourself when in situations where it will be used against you.
I learned a lot about Particular Baptists (or rather, Calvinistic Baptists) at seminary, and was told that General Baptists differ from Particular Baptists in their view of the atonement: General Baptists affirmed a “general” view of the atonement (that Jesus died for everyone), while Particular Baptist affirmed a “particular” or “limited” view of the atonement (Jesus died for the elect alone). Now, history often tries to create nice, neat categories that don’t hold up in reality. Even at seminary, I met a number of believers who were Calvinist but affirmed the general view of atonement. Nevertheless, I always wondered why my denomination was called “General Baptist,” and why it was that my church was registered with the “General Baptist State Convention.” I learned why in that Baptist History course at seminary.
And yet, I knew very little outside of that. The above information about my denomination is so little that it is hardly worth mentioning, but I mention it above to demonstrate that General Baptists themselves are not taught their history in their churches, nor why they are called “General Baptists.” I didn’t learn much about my denomination at seminary, but my good friend J. Matthew Pinson has set the record straight about General Baptists in his latest work, Arminian and Baptist: Explorations in a Theological Tradition.
This work is a collection of essays, appropriately titled, that pertain to the earliest Baptists and their theological positions. “These are mostly essays that were written several years ago. With few exceptions, I have for the most part reprinted them here unchanged,” Pinsons says in his Preface. Part of Pinson’s work on Thomas Grantham I was privy to during his presentation on Grantham during a debate weekend at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary (NOBTS) in New Orleans, Louisiana. That weekend was mostly concerned with the debate between my former New Testament Literature professor and renown atheist Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. Craig Evans. I met Pinson at that time for the first time and the friendship, produced by the Lord, has been a blessing to me ever since.
Since these essays are autonomous in and of themselves, and are unconnected from one to another, the reader is free to pursue them in whatever way he or she wishes. Of course, Pinson prefers to put Classical Arminianism, Reformation Arminianism, or Reformed Arminianism at the forefront of the Arminian Baptist discussion because he himself is Reformed Arminian and has written extensively on the views of James Arminius. This is a good tactic, though, as it allows the reader to see the differences between Arminianism as Arminius espoused it and other flavors of Arminianism.
There are three positions Pinson covers on Arminianism in his work that infiltrated Baptist life: 1) Reformed Arminianism, 2) Wesleyan Arminianism, and 3) Semi-Pelagianism or Pelagianism.
In chapter 1, titled “Jacobus Arminius: Reformed and Always Reforming,” Pinson covers the life of Arminius as well as much of the basic outline of his theology that is today named after him. Arminius held to conditional, Christocentric, and foreknown predestination. For him, the divine decrees regarding election of those who are saved and the reprobation of those who are damned is conditioned upon faith (election) or unbelief (reprobation), not the mere divine whim to save some particular persons and damn other particular persons.
Pinson relates divine sovereignty to these conditional decrees with the statement “God unconditionally decrees that election and reprobation are conditioned on belief or unbelief.” In other words, since God is Sovereign, He decides to save mankind through a plan that is all His own, a plan that is designed by God for His glory. How is His glory reflected in this plan? That man is allowed to accept or reject His Son, Jesus, who becomes the propitiation, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world and purchases salvation for every individual. God’s sovereignty is seen in that He creates the salvation plan, determines the sacrifice (Jesus), and sets the conditions for the appropriation of that salvation to every man and woman.
Election is a doctrine affirmed by Calvinists and Arminius himself, but Arminius disagreed with the Calvinist notion of election: instead of explaining election as the fewness doctrine of Calvinism, Arminius stated Christ was the foundation of election, which the Scriptures, both Old and New Testament, affirm (Isaiah 28:16; 42:16; 1 Peter 2:6), and that those who believe in Jesus are thus elected in Christ before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4).
Arminius engages Calvinists who use Romans 9 as their prooftext (they still do today!) in his Analysis of the Ninth Chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, arguing that those who the Lord elects are those who the Lord foreknows will believe. If 1 Peter 1:2 is to be believed, believers are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” In other words, foreknowledge plays a role in election, but Calvinism has no place for it. The reason? Calvinism says that God simply knows what creatures will do because He foreordains it. Foreknowledge, thus, implies free decisions by free creatures who, though free with limits, are under no constraints to make decisions. If one acknowledges 1 Peter 1:2, the student of Scripture will find Calvinism to be unbiblical.
Arminius, contrary to claims made about him, held to election, predestination, original sin, and the Reformation doctrines of Sola Gratia (grace alone) and Sola Fide (faith alone). Arminians have been said to be semi-Pelagian or Pelagian in their views of human depravity, but Arminius believed that man is radically depraved and that he cannot receive Jesus in salvation apart from divine grace: “The Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such are excited by divine grace.”
Since Christ has come for all individuals, since God gave His Son for the world (not just a part of it, see John 3:16), and He is the propitiation not only for the sins of believers but of the sins of the entire world (1 John 2:2, among others), then it’s clear that the Lord gives all the opportunity to be saved by the condition of faith. No matter how 5-point Calvinists spin it, the word “world” can never be interpreted as “elect” or “a few out of the world.” It’s just a futile and impossible attempt.
Arminius held to an Augustinian notion of radical depravity, but what many who have yet to read Arminius know is that he also held to original sin and justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ. On original sin, Arminius said the following: “the whole of this sin...is not peculiar to our first parents, but is common to the entire race and to all their posterity, who, at the time when this sin was committed, were in their loins, and who have since descended from them by the natural mode of propogation.” Arminius held strongly to Paul’s teaching on the imputation of Adam’s sin in Romans 5, where Paul writes that “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because all sinned” (Romans 5:12).
Due to the death sentence on every man because of Adam’s sin, there must be justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ: that is, that Christ took on our sin so that we can have His righteousness; in salvation, when we believe on the name of the Son of God, His righteousness is imputed to the believer. Arminius wrote that “I believe that sinners are accounted righteous solely by the obedience of Christ, and that the obedience and righteousness of Christ constitute the only meritorious cause through which God pardons the sins of believers and accounts them as righteous, as if they had perfectly fulfilled the law.”
Of course, holding to the notion of imputed righteousness involves the doctrine we know today as Penal Substitutionary Atonement or Penal Substitution, where Christ takes on the penalty for our sins, the innocent for the guilty, the righteous for the unrighteous. When someone believes on the name of Jesus, the righteousness of Christ is imputed (Greek word logisthenai) to believers. We are counted as righteous before God not because of our own works righteousness, but the work of Jesus, His meriting salvation for us. Arminius’s belief in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is a doctrine on which he and John Wesley (known for Wesleyan Arminianism) differ. Arminius believed that Christ’s righteousness is imputed, but Wesley believed that the idea of imputation was absurd:
“Here, Wesley diverged from the mainstream penal satisfaction theory of atonement, insisting that the efficacy of Christ’s atonement subsists primarily in His passive obedience, or His bearing the divine penalty for sin, rather than in His positive fulfillment of the law...‘Although I believe Christ fulfilled God’s law, yet I do not affirm that he did this to purchase redemption for us. This was done by his dying in our stead.’”
As the gospel song “Justified By Faith” says, “When God looks at me, He looks at me through Jesus.” Like the Israelites in the Old Testament who applied the blood of the lamb to their doorposts and kept the death angel back (the Passover event), believers today apply the blood of Jesus to the doorposts of their hearts by faith. In the words of Arminius, “I affirm that it [salvation] was obtained for all the world, and for all and every man; but applied to believers and the elect alone.” Salvation is for all, faith is the condition that explains why some are saved and others are damned, and those who receive it also receive the righteousness of Christ by faith.
In Chapter 2, titled “The Nature of Atonement in the Theology of Jacobus Arminius,” we find Arminius’s views on the divine wrath, divine justice, satisfaction, and payment. Arminius believed that there is a two-fold nature to God’s love: a love for the world, for His creation, and a love for justice. While the Lord loves the world, He loves righteousness and justice. In His love for the world, He sends His Son to die; in His love of justice, He demands that the penalty of sin be paid because of humanity’s transgression of the divine law.
While the Lord loves His creation, humanity, He loves His own justice even more - such that He will not simply “pardon” the sin and the debt He demands, as those such as Hugo Grotius held to in what is known as the Governmental Theory of the Atonement. The Governmental Theory of the Atonement says that the Lord forgives sin as a Governor does: He merely pardons it without exacting a debt or payment for sin in return.
As Romans 3 says:
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Chapter 3, titled “Sin and Redemption in the Theology of John Smyth and Thomas Helwys,” is attributed to the lives of these two theologians. John Smyth was known as the Father of the Baptist movement. He was educated as a Puritan Calvinist and ordained by the Bishop of London, though he was moderate in his Puritanism. Not seeing the reformation in the Church of England that he longed for, Smyth eventually became persuaded to leave the Church of England and became a Separatist leader who argued that the church consisted of only two or three believers (page 59). After leaving the Church of England as a moderate Puritan, he declared himself Baptist and “baptized himself and the other members of his newly formed fellowship, having been unable to find anyone to baptize him…” Smyth’s views moved away from Calvinism to Arminianism, but Smyth questioned his baptism as well as the baptism of his followers (that he administered) when he met the Dutch Waterlander Mennonites.
The Mennonites held to a belief of “the succession of baptisms” or the apostolic succession, a principle that says that every believer must be baptized by someone linked to the original apostles. Smyth, having baptized himself, could not claim apostolic succession because he wasn’t officially baptized by anyone else; his members couldn’t claim apostolic succession because they were baptized by Smyth - whose own baptism was questionable and thus, theirs were, too. Even Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, so self-baptism was not endorsed by Jesus in any way. And Smyth felt that his self-baptism was not biblical, but he desired a valid believers’ baptism and wanted to join with the Mennonites. The succession of baptisms states that one needed to be baptized by someone else to baptize others.
Smyth’s greatest student, Thomas Helwys, had a similar Puritan Calvinist background like Smyth, but he disagreed with the succession of baptisms because he believed that John the Baptist wasn’t baptized of anyone. In the end, Smyth and Helwys didn’t get along when it came to the issue of the Mennonites, but Smyth died before he could ever achieve the Mennonite membership he desired for himself and his congregation.
Thomas Helwys took up the mantle and headed back to English soil to plant the first Baptist church in England in 1612. Just four years later in 1616, Helwys would die in prison.
Smyth and Helwys were the two first historical Baptists on record, but these men moved from Puritanical Calvinism in completely different directions. “Like the Waterlanders, Smyth not only abandoned the more objectionable, arbitrary features of Reformed predestinarianism, but he also jettisoned the entire Augustinian-Calvinist edifice, including original sin and justification, sola fide and Solo Christo. Helwys, like Arminius, attempted to salvage as much as he could from Reformed theology, clinging to a strictly Augustinian approach to the nature and extent of human depravity and redemption.” Smyth came to believe that original sin was meaningless in one place, but then claimed that Christ’s death “stopped the issue and passage of original sin.” Also, his Creationist view of the soul said that God created the soul, and everything God makes is good, so the soul couldn’t be tainted with sin. Along with this, Smyth affirmed that the will of man wasn’t damaged in the slightest from the Fall, that mankind in his day was as free as Adam to choose righteousness or sin.
In contrast, Smyth’s student, Thomas Helwys, went in the opposite direction, clinging to his Reformed views of the human will and depravity, while arguing against Calvinist notions of predestination, election, and reprobation. He disagreed with Smyth’s views about the will of man being undamaged and completely free even after the Fall, Smyth’s claim that original sin is nonexistent or myth, and so on. In his view of justification, he transitioned from having once embraced a purely imputated righteousness by faith in Christ to a view that embraced “part” imputation and “part” impartation:
“The justification of man before the Divine tribunal...consists partly of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith, and partly of inherent righteousness, in the holy themselves, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, which is called regeneration and sanctification.
What Smyth meant by this statement is that man is justified not only by faith in Christ, but by faith in Christ and works of his own (“inherent righteousness”). If man needs the Spirit of God in his life to do good, then can he have any “inherent righteousness”? No, absolutely not! Regeneration is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works so that no man can boast, Paul says in Ephesians 2:8-10.
In Helwys’s work An Advertisement or Admonition, the theologian claimed that, if man’s will is as free to choose the good today as Adam’s will was before the Fall, then there must be a second Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. To suppose this leads to an absurdity, thereby making Smyth’s view of original innocence (which was his substitute doctrine for original sin) invalid and heretical.
Chapter 4 concerns Thomas Helwys’s view on predestination and his first Baptist treatise titled Short and Plain Proofe by the Word and Workes of God that Gods decree is not the cause of anye Mans sinne or Condemnation. And That all Men are redeamed by Christ. As also, That no Infants are Condemned. Yes, that is the complete title of the work; while the work may be short, the title is long.
In Short and Plain Proofe, Helwys demonstrates just how much his views matched those of James Arminius and Classical Arminianism as a theological system. First, Helwys argued for general, universal atonement, not particular atonement that Calvinism limits to the elect alone. The general atonement view is why Helwys’s Baptist churches were known as General Baptist churches. As for the origin of evil, Helwys argued that the free will of man before the Fall is responsible. “Helwys faulted the Calvinists of his day, who wrongly ‘enter into the secret counsels of God’ (sig. A4r). Helwys saw this as vain philosophy that ‘measur[es] God’s thoughts by their thoughts and his ways by their ways’ (sig. A4r).”
Helwys stood with Arminius on nearly everything, from his view of faith as the condition for salvation, to the fact that the Lord offers grace to every individual, to the fact that the Lord does not foreordain evil to come to pass, that all men have sinned in Adam and bear the sentence of original sin. Even in his view of infant salvation, he matched Arminius - stating plainly that children could not exercise free will and thus, would not be damned in their deaths or prevented from the blessing of heaven and eternal life.
Even in his view of unconditional election, Helwys’s views aligned with Arminius. He believed that unconditional election (and hence, eternal security) bred complacency, presumption, and moral laxness in the Christian life: “If men can but once get a persuasion in themselves that God has elected them, then they are secure. They need not work out their salvation with fear and trembling. For God having decreed them to be saved, they must be saved. They need not fear: If they increase and grow in knowledge and grace, it is well but if they do not, it is all one, for it is decreed they must be saved, and this causeth all slothful, careless, and negligent profession….But for all their presumption, it shall be said unto them, I know you not. Depart from me all you workers of iniquity. Luke 13.26, 27 (sig. B3v).”
Thomas Grantham takes after the theology of Thomas Helwys in Chapter 5, titled “Thomas Grantham and The Diversity Of Arminian Soteriology,” even down to his view of apostasy concerning faith and the loss of it rather than sin. John Goodwin is to Thomas Grantham in Chapter 5 what John Smyth is to Thomas Helwys in Chapter 4: a counterpart, whose views are more in line with semi-Pelagianism than anything else. Goodwin held to the Governmental Theory of the Atonement, a view propagated by Hugo Grotius that says that God merely pardoned sin rather than exact a penalty for it. Thus, Goodwin held to a “Radical Arminianism” that stretched closer to Pelagianism than Arminius ever held to.
Many believe that this English Arminianism is what all Arminians embrace, but this isn’t the case historically. Grantham held to the imputation of Adam’s sin and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, but John Goodwin, once a former Puritan Calvinist, finally embraced a theology that, unfortunately, took him away from Reformed theology towards the type of man-centered, humanistic theology that James White and other Calvinists accuse even Reformed Arminians of today (which is rather unfortunate because Arminius is the farthest “free will” scholar from man-centered humanism that evolved through history up to this point).
John Goodwin believed that Jesus was a penalty for sin, but that the Lord did away with the Divine Law when Jesus was offered up such that there was no Law violation because it had been “set aside” without a need for punishment because of the transgression of the law. Think about that: there was no “transgression of the Law” in the Governmental Theory of the Atonement because the Father “pardons” it, simply does away with it without having to require a penalty for it.
“Goodwin rooted his doctrine of justification in his perspective on atonement. Inasmuch as God can, in His government, set aside the penalty for sin since it does not of necessity have to be suffered, God can freely forgive the believer, and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is not necessary. Nor is it desirable, for to impute Christ’s righteousness to the believer would be to admit that God did not set aside the demands of the law after all...it would be erroneous to posit that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer, for this would be admitting that God’s free acquittal or pardon of the sinner is not enough.”
“Goodwin would have heartily agreed with Grotius’s statement that ‘the law is not something internal with God or the will of God itself, but only an effect of that will. It is perfectly certain that the effects of the divine will are mutable, or that divine law is promulgated by God as ‘a positive law which at some time he may wish to relax’,” Pinson writes.
Notice the phrase that God can “set aside the penalty for sin since it does not of necessity have to be suffered”? This alone is problematic, for it says that 1) the sacrifice for sin did not have to suffer, which makes God out to be the Divine Torturer, and 2) that the Lord can set aside the penalty of sin without consequence, can pardon it without demanding anything. First, if the Lord did not have to sin, why would the Father send His Son to die on the cross?
Next, if the Lord set aside sin without exacting payment for a debt each human owed him by the transgression of the law, what would that say about God? It wouldn’t show His righteousness, which is the point of the Father sending Jesus. So to simply set aside the law and punishment is to eliminate what makes the Lord’s character as consistent as it is: His righteousness, the divine righteousness. The Lord cannot set aside the divine law without setting aside His own character. He passed over former sins, Paul says in Romans 3, which is why He gives Jesus “to demonstrate His righteousness” at the present time, Scripture says.
Goodwin would’ve held to a view that says that “the law is not something internal with God or the will of God,” but this is a dangerous statement: it could imply that God’s law is designed by His whim, that He could act in a way other than that which He commands in His Law. For example, the Lord could say “do not murder,” but then He’d be free to murder because the Law doesn’t reveal His character. God’s character could remain a mystery while He forces people to adhere to a law that doesn’t have to reflect Him. I’m a believer that the Law of God reflects His character, since, for example, the Lord tells man after the Flood not to murder man because he is made in the image of God (see Genesis 9:6). The prohibition of homicide exists because of how God made man: when He made man, He gave man His seal of approval to live. God didn’t give man the right to take life (that belongs to Him and Him alone).
Additionally, against Goodwin, Scripture is clear about the imputation of Christ’s righteousness when Jesus Himself says that He came not to do away with the Law but to fulfill it:
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20)
Matthew 5:17-18 tells us what we need to know: Jesus did not come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. He did not come to simply set aside or do away with the words of Scripture, but rather, to fulfill them. “Till all is fulfilled” (v. 18) tells us that Jesus looks to fulfill all the words of Scripture, not some of them. And, since the Old Testament tells of His holy Law, then Jesus says He would fulfill the Law, not do away with it. Now, here’s the million-dollar question: why would the Lord Jesus even be concerned about fulfilling the Law if the Lord set aside the Law? The whole reason the Lord Jesus came to die was to fulfill the Law, and the whole reason why men and women must continue to believe upon the name of the Lord Jesus for salvation is because God’s Law remains. If God’s Law is an extension of His character, then it remains because He remains. The Word of God stands forever, Peter says (1 Peter 1:23-25), so the Law of God stands forever.
The Law of God is not set aside, for, if it were, then why did Jesus need to fulfill it?
This alone shows that Goodwin’s theology leaves much to be desired. Between John Goodwin and Thomas Grantham, Grantham was the more well-studied theologian.
Chapter 6, titled “Atonement, Justification, And Apostasy In The Theology Of John Wesley,” is devoted to the theology for whom Arminianism has become popular and well-known. Arminius died at 49 before the Synod of Dortrecht, so he didn’t get to exert the kind of influence over the theology that bears his name as much as he would have liked. John Wesley took over Arminianism and provided his own unique contribution to it.
Wesley has had a smorgasbord of influences that shaped his theology. He has been called “Calvinist Wesley,” “Catholic Wesley,” “Anglican Wesley,” and “Eclectic Wesley,” but approaches that attempt to define Wesley as one label or another don’t do justice to the myriad of influences in his life and thought. Wesley does not always quote his sources, which means that one can only study Wesley by reading his theology. Two independent influences on Wesley were John Goodwin and Richard Baxter. As we’ve said above, though, Goodwin’s views on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and the Governmental Theory of Atonement aren’t biblical. While Wesley held to penal substitutionary atonement, he modified it from the Reformed stance and, like Goodwin, argued that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness was a logical absurdity. Wesley’s mother moved him to read the work of Jeremy Taylor, another radical Arminian whose views matched those of Goodwin.
Wesley affirmed his stance against the imputation of Christ’s righteousness:
“Although I believe Christ fulfilled God’s law, yet I do not affirm that he did this to purchase redemption for us. This was done by his dying in our stead.”
In Wesley’s view, Christ’s fulfillment of the divine law had nothing to do with purchasing redemption for humanity. But, if it didn’t, then why did He fulfill the Law? After all, Jesus is perfect; He didn’t need to fulfill the Law without regard to humanity because the Law is an expression of Himself. Yes, He died so that our sin would be taken away, but why is it that His death “stilled the wrath of God” and gave us peace with God the Father (Romans 5:1)? He says that Christ’s death alone purchased redemption, but why did He have to die? Because of sin. And yet, that very sin for which He died was a transgression of the divine law by humanity? That transgression committed by humanity is referred to as such in Romans 5:14, but it is also referred to as an “offense” in Romans 5:15-18, 20. In Romans 5:19, the “offense” is called “disobedience,” which alerts us that a divine command had to be rebelled against for a transgression to be committed. Again, if fulfilling the Law is not expected of every man before God, then why place faith in Christ “because we can’t fulfill it but He did” - if it isn’t necessary that the Law of God be fulfilled for us?
Wesley also went on to argue that for God to judge believers according to the righteousness of Christ and His fulfillment of the Law, to honor believers as though they have fulfilled the Law perfectly themselves (though they haven’t, in actuality) is a logical absurdity:
“[justification] does by no means imply that God judges concerning us contrary to the real nature of things, that he esteems us better than we really are, or believes us righteous when we are unrighteous. Surely no. The judgment of the all-wise God is always according to truth. Neither can it ever consist with his unerring wisdom to think that I am innocent, to judge that I am righteous or holy, because another is so. He can no more, in this manner, confound me with Christ than with David or Abraham.”
In the mind of Wesley, we could not be treated as righteous when we are unrighteous. But, if Wesley is right, it’s unlikely that he could’ve ever explained why it is that all of humanity was counted guilty in Adam’s sin - why it is that Adam’s sin was imputed to every single human being that will ever walk on this earth. After all, Romans 5 tells us that there were many that the imputation of Adam’s sin was “over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam” (v.14). In other words, the fleshly union with Adam and the spread of his own sin to all of humanity seems “absurd” to the contemporary mind: if Adam is the one who sinned in the garden, how then could his sin be passed to all of humanity? And yet, it appears as though, if one must believe the truth about the imputation of Adam’s sin, then the imputation of Christ’s righteousness doesn’t seem as absurd as Wesley believes it to be. Wesley wanted to argue against the imputation of Christ’s righteousness based on logical absurdity, but there are a lot of things that seem logically absurd to the human mind that the Bible proclaims: among them, that God became man (John 1:14-15) and is “begotten” (John 3:16), and that God is one God but three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, see Matthew 28:19). If these are absurdities and they shouldn’t be believed because of how they appear to the human mind, then who would ever believe the gospel?
Wesley says that it is absurd that God would judge us righteous because another is so. And yet, that is why we must be “justified by faith” in Jesus, is it not? What do we need an Advocate for (see 1 John 2:1) if we aren’t expected to fulfill the Law of God as creatures that are accountable to Him? The fact that we have to be justified by faith in Jesus and His atonement for sin shows that humanity bears the weight of its sin. Jesus had to become man for the sole point of fulfilling the Law of God for us. The transgression of Adam’s sin implies that there is a divine law, and the death sentence laid upon humanity shows that humanity was expected in the beginning to fulfill the Law of God. In the end, humanity will stand before the Lord and be judged for everything each individual has done. This is also the teaching of Scripture:
9 Therefore we make it our aim, whether present or absent, to be well pleasing to Him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. (2 Corinthians 5:9-10)
Man will be judged for all that he has done (key emphasis on the phrase “he has done”), implying that the Law still stands (“the deeds of the law” is a phrase used in Scripture). This alone implies that the divine law still stands, that, despite man’s helplessness to fulfill it, he will have to account for his sin before God. And those who don’t believe on Jesus will have to give an account for their transgression of the divine law. They who do not believe in Jesus have no Advocate and thus, no way to escape divine judgment. As Jesus says in John 3:18, those who do not believe are “condemned already” because they have not yet believed in Jesus. That condemnation implies a sentence, a judgment, a ruling, from the Divine Judge Himself.
What we do know from Scripture, however, is that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is a doctrine of Scripture:
20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Corinthians 5:20-21)
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:1-4)
Jesus became “sin for us,” so that we would have the opportunity to “become the righteousness of God” in Christ. What does this mean? It means that He took on our sin and bore the weight of our sin unto death so that, since He has risen, we can have His righteousness by faith. If this doesn’t mean “imputation of Christ’s righteousness” for those who were once sinners, us, sinful humanity, then what does 2 Corinthians 5:21 mean? Despite how “absurd” this verse may be to John Wesley, it is no less true. If something seems absurd but is the teaching of Scripture, what are we to believe: vain philosophy or the Word of God?
As for Romans 8 above, the phrase “He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us” shows that the purpose of the death of our Lord was to “fulfill the righteous requirement of the law.” By faith in Jesus, the fulfillment of the law is imputed to us as righteousness, such that we are seen in God’s eyes as the Father sees Jesus Himself. We are not Jesus, but we are seen as though we’ve never sinned because of our union with Christ by faith. The righteous requirement of the law was fulfilled in Christ, but again, it didn’t need to be fulfilled by Jesus for His own sin because He didn’t sin, is perfect, knew no sin, had done no wrong. Jesus’ fulfillment of the law is transferred to us when we believe on His name. And we are saved in Him, with the Holy Spirit in our lives, to “walk after the Spirit” and to deny the lusts of the flesh.
Wesley also went on to claim that having the righteousness of God in the lives of believers provided an excuse to live in sin:
“A man has been reproved, suppose for drunkenness: ‘O,’ said he, ‘I pretend to no righteousness of my own; Christ is my righteousness.’ Another has been told, that ‘the extortioner, the unjust, shall not inherit the kingdom of God:’ He replies, with all assurance, ‘I am unjust in myself, but I have a spotless righteousness in Christ.’ And thus, though a man be as far from the practice as from the tempers of a Christian; though he neither has the mind which was in Christ, nor in any respect walks as he walked; yet he has armour of proof against all conviction, in what he calls ‘the righteousness of Christ.”
Wesley’s statement says that there are many who aren’t even growing in sanctification and resisting sin who will gladly claim “the righteousness of Christ” so as to avoid resisting sin and persevering in good deeds. In other words, the imputed righteousness of Christ is used as a means by which to sin with a divine “safety blanket.” And yet, we know that Scripture tells us we have been given the righteousness of Christ for the very purpose of doing good deeds, not to deny our God-given responsibility and use the grace of God as a license for sin:
10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:10)
8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men. (Titus 3:8)
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together. (Romans 8:12-17)
We are “debtors” to God, to live according to the Spirit and put down the flesh, Paul says in Romans 8. Titus 3:8 says that believers should “be careful to maintain good works,” which we are created in Christ Jesus for (see Ephesians 2:10). We are created “unto good works” or “for good works” as a result of our union with Christ by faith, so good works are expected of those who are saved. We get the righteousness of God so that we can walk in the plans He has for us: to do good works to bring glory to Him. Whereas “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” in themselves, those who have come to Christ by faith are transformed from the inside out to know God, love God, and follow after God. Even having the righteousness of God, we’re given His Spirit so that we can do those things that are pleasing in His sight and pursue “His righteousness.”
In his benediction to the Jewish Christians to which he wrote, Paul prayed that the Lord would aid the Jewish Christians to do good works to please Him:
20 Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, 21 make you complete in every good work to do His will, working in you what is well pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. (Hebrews 13:20-21)
Doing the will of God is all about good works, and Paul prays that the Lord would “work[ing] in you what is well pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ” (Hebrews 13:21).
18 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. 19 And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him. 20 For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. 21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God. 22 And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. 23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment. (1 John 3:18-23)
So, contrary to Wesley, no one can biblically use their new state before God as an excuse to sin. The Lord demands that we “endure to the end,” and despite our claims that we are saved, sanctified, and a partaker of the Holy Spirit, ultimately it is God who judges us all. We have to stand before Him, not ourselves. He tells us to “seek first the kingdom and His righteousness” (Matthew 6:33), so we are saved in order to do good works that please the Lord. We stand by our faith, and we labor in the faith because we have faith.
Wesley’s view on perseverance could be assumed to mimic that of Arminius, since the two did agree on apostasy with regard to being enlightened and having fallen away. And yet, Wesley modified apostasy as articulated by Arminius: whereas Arminius believed that one could fall away and could never return to salvation again (be “irremediably lost,” as Pinson has said in his work), Wesley believed that there was another type of apostasy: that of willful sin:
“To explain this by particular instance: David was born of God, and saw God by faith. He loved God in sincerity…’he was walking upon the roof of his house,’ (2 Sam. 11:2) probably praising the God whom his soul loved, when he looked down, and saw Bathsheba. He felt a temptation; a thought which tended to evil...The Spirit of God did not fail to convince him of this. He doubtless heard and knew the warning voice; but he yielded in some measure to the thought, and the temptation began to prevail over him. Hereby his spirit was sullied; he saw God still, but it was more dimly than before. He loved God still; but not in the same degree; not with the same strength and ardour of affection. Yet God checked them again, though his spirit was grieved, and his voice, though fainter and fainter, still whispered ‘Sin lieth at the door; look unto me, and be thou saved.’ But he would not hear: He looked again, not unto God, but unto the forbidden object, till nature was superior to grace, and kindled lust in his soul. The eye of his mind was now closed again, and God vanished out of his sight. Faith, the divine, supernatural intercourse with God and the love of God, ceased together: He then rushed on as a horse into the battle, and knowingly committed the outward sin.”
Wesley’s quote above is certainly a very good thought-provoking, creative approach to David’s sin. There seems to be some truth to it (there is truth to it), but the ending is the hardest part because he claims that faith and the love of God “ceased altogether,” which is what I find troubling. After all, what does David say when he repents of his sin in Psalm 51? “Renew a right spirit within me” (Psalm 51:10), and “restore to me the joy of Your salvation” (v.12), all while saying “The God of My Salvation” (v.14) and “do not cast me away from your presence” and “do not take your Holy Spirit from me” (v.11). Why would David pray that he not be thrown out of God’s presence if his faith and love of God had ceased? If David no longer loved God and the light of Christ had been extinguished in his life, why does the Lord even send the prophet Nathan to David? After all, when Saul continued to sin, the Lord got to a place where He tore the kingdom away from Saul and the Holy Spirit departed from him (1 Samuel 16:14). The Lord did not depart from David, though David prayed “Do not take your Holy Spirit from me” (Psalm 51:11). He realized how terrible sin is to God, sure, but we don’t ever read of David experiencing the same thing as Saul.
Wesley says this because he holds to a view called “apostasy through willful sin,” a second form of apostasy that requires the person to not only be forgiven, but to actually be saved again and again and again: “Thus, Wesley emphasized the necessity of personal holiness and continual penitence for continuance, asserting that individuals fall from grace by committing sins and must repent to be restored, thus reappropriating the benefits of the atonement.”
The first form of apostasy is irremediable and can’t be forgiven, but the second form of apostasy involves continued repentance and continued “salvation” because every time someone commits this form of apostasy, he or she must repent and have the benefits of the atonement appropriated again. And yet, Scripture doesn’t teach this idea of apostasy. There is only one form of apostasy, one form of falling away or making shipwreck of one’s faith: that is, to have one’s heart hardened through the deceitfulness of sin (Hebrews 3:13) and to then choose one’s sin over God. To fall away means to “go away from,” “depart from the faith,” renounce God, and so on. And yet, this form of apostasy from Wesleyan theology clashes with Scripture: there is only one form of apostasy in Scripture: that of Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10: a willful “trampling underfoot the Son of God, counting His blood as a common thing, insulting the Spirit of grace.” This is the willful sinning of Scripture that is apostasy: a renunciation, a “shrinking back” or “drawing back” from the faith, what Paul also calls in Hebrews a “shrinking back” or “drawing back to perdition” (Hebrews 10:39).
The restoration issue of sin is one that we should address: the Lord tells us that, when we sin, we can confess our sins and He is faithful and just to forgive us and cleanse us from our sin (see 1 John 2:9). At the same time, however, we must remember that restoration is different from inauguration. When someone is “inaugurated” into the family of God, he or she is saved and comes into salvation. When a person is restored, he or she is renewed in their faith to a former place before their sin or straying or backsliding (to use Wesley’s word. And yet, for Wesley even “backsliding” was a sign that the person had apostatized:
“Wilt thou say, ‘But I have again committed sin, since I had redemption through his blood?’...it is meet that thou shouldst abhor thyself...But, dost thou now believe?...At whatsoever time thou truly believest in the name of the Son of God, all thy sins antecedent to that hour vanish away...And think not to say, ‘I was justified once; my sins were once forgiven me:’.....beware thou suffer thy soul to take no rest, till his pardoning love be again revealed; till he ‘heal thy backslidings,’ and fill thee again with the ‘faith that worketh by love’.”
Wesley’s most interesting words are boldened in the above quote. He believed that despite having been saved before (“I had redemption through his blood”) and having been justified by faith unto salvation once (“I was justified once; my sins were once forgiven me”), a person must receive God’s “pardoning love” once more, to “fill thee again with the faith that worketh by love.” In other words, justification by faith, in Wesleyan theology, is something that can be lost and regained. And yet, nowhere in Scripture do we read that justification can be obtained more than once. Of course, Wesley believed individual sins could cause someone to “lose their salvation” and regain it, so his views on justification aren’t really all that shocking. Unfortunately for Wesley, Reformed Arminians see little value in this view, particularly because the Bible says nothing along these lines. Remember, Paul says in Hebrews that those who apostatize from the faith “crucify afresh the Son of God” (Hebrews 6:4-6) - an impossibility, considering that Christ has already died “once for all” and need not die again. His blood is efficacious, still saving souls, will never lose its power, and is not akin to the non-salvific nature of the blood of lambs, bulls, and goats.
This notion of fluid justification and fluid apostasy (lose salvation, repent and believe and be saved over and over again) is an unbiblical apostasy posited by Wesley, and it has no Scriptural support whatsoever. Scripture teaches that there is one apostasy: that is, the teaching of that found in Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10, and apostasy is rendered irremediable because the person having committed it has thrown off Christ forever (“it is impossible to renew them again to repentance,” see Hebrews 6:6). There is no returning to salvation by way of repentance because, for the apostate to be saved again, Christ would have to die once more (because the apostate has rejected the first death and resurrection of Christ). The atonement of Christ is efficacious for those who receive it by the grace of God through faith in Jesus, seeing that those who fall away can never come back and are never counted among the righteous in eternity.
I understand what Wesley wants to say here: that is, that each sin we commit daily is, in itself, an apostasy on a smaller scale in that it’s a turning away from the divine law. However, the word “apostasy” comes from the Greek word apostasia and is used in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) to refer to “a writ of divorce” (see Deuteronomy 24:1, Greek word apostasiou) between married persons. Apostasy as Hebrews describes it is, in the words of C.S. Lewis, “The Great Divorce,” a divorce that goes beyond human marital divorce (though the marriage of man and woman reflects Christ and His Church, see Ephesians 5). Apostasy is not fluid, something you can jump in and out of. With Wesley’s “fluid” justification, it appears as though salvation can be lost and regained. This concept is against Scripture and is something unique to Wesley but something that I believe to be ultimately unbiblical.
Pinson’s final chapter, “Confessional, Baptist, and Arminian: is designed to tackle a common misconception about Baptists: that they are so committed to Scripture that they shun confessions, creeds, and other doctrinal documents that attempt to interpret biblical teachings and have the support of the Church as a whole. Pinson shows modern Baptists that the Reformation principle of sola scriptura (Scripture alone) did not infer nuda scriptura: that is, that “Scripture alone” does not imply “only naked Scripture” or that Scripture does not need interpretation. It’s common knowledge that the plain text of Scripture is the Word of God, but how that Word is interpreted varies among individuals and groups of men and women. There must be some sort of boundary in the church in terms of theological belief (what is acceptable, what isn’t), and God has used church councils and theologians down through history to set the boundaries and limits of acceptable theological belief and doctrine. Quoting Timothy George in his article “The Reformation Roots of the Baptist Tradition,” Pinson writes, “The General Baptists were much like the reformers, believing, as George says in sola scriptura, not nuda scriptura. Thus they were like Luther and the other reformers, who argued for the ‘coinherence of Scripture and tradition, Holy Writ and Holy Church, while never wavering in [their] commitment to the priority of the former.” Church councils, confessions, and creeds are of great blessing in defending sound doctrine, but ultimately, they’re interpretations of the source of Christian living - that is, the Word of God. The Bible is the primary source for Christian living in all matters pertaining to spiritual life and godliness. It cannot be sidelined for confessions, councils, and creeds, and these documents are supplemental in their impact on Christian faith and practice.
Take Thomas Grantham, for example. He argued that the word Trinity was not necessary with regard to Christian faith and practice, but that it “hath very near affinity with the language of the Holy Ghost.” In other words, “Trinity” is not necessary to appreciate the doctrine espoused, but that it seems to be a natural outworking of the concept, so much so that its language is very close to the language the Spirit gave human men to write within the pages of Scripture. Martin Luther shared the same sentiments regarding words surrounding biblical doctrines that aren’t found within Scripture.
Pinson points to the doctrines and confessions held by Baptists, how they used creeds and confessions when responding to doctrinal controversies in their ranks, and just how Baptists got a bad name as a result of the Disciples of Christ controversy in the mid-nineteenth century. The Disciples of Christ stole a large number of believers away from the Free Will Baptist community with their slogan, “No creed but the Bible.” This example is still being used against Baptists today, but it is one incident in a long line of Baptist history filled with creeds and confessions. It’s a bit of a large caricaturization to assume that all Baptists today shun creeds and confessions. Some do, to be sure, but not all.
Pinson’s work, Arminian and Baptist: Explorations in a Theological Tradition, is one that I highly recommend to all who can access it. Pinson does Baptist life proud by showing what we’ve stood for through history, leaving Baptists to determine what about it is good, bad, and downright ugly. As a Reformed Arminian, I appreciate his attention to Reformed Arminian scholars such as Thomas Helwys and Thomas Grantham, and this study has made me appreciate them and want to read them and share their works with other fellow Baptists and theologians in the body of Christ at large.
What this study has done, ever so subtly (a feat for which I’m thankful to Pinson), is give Baptists a Reformed theology of their own that fits with Arminian doctrines of the responsibility to repent and believe the gospel, alongside of the Reformed doctrines of depravity of the will and the bondage of the will. Arminius believed “by grace through faith,” and this ordo salutis has been held strongly by biblical Arminianism as a whole. By holding to his view of prevenient grace that goes before one exercises faith as an “awakening” grace, Reformed Arminianism as espoused by James Arminius himself appears to be the closest thing to proper doctrine regarding God and man in salvation.
Finally, Pinson has helped give pride to my background as a General Baptist. I’d heard it before at seminary, but it didn’t hit me until reading Pinson’s work that General Baptists arrived on the scene before Particular (Calvinist) Baptists, that the first Baptists were General Baptist, and that I come from an early tradition of Baptist life. I went to seminary (and ultimately graduated) believing it was my job to hide my roots from public knowledge, but Pinson’s work has made me learn to love my General Baptist roots. Prayerfully, I’ll be able to educate others within my denomination on just how proud and blessed of a theological tradition our churches hail from.
Baptists have a strong, rich theological tradition, with its multi-faceted theological highway, and Pinson’s work will now help many modern Arminian Baptists find their way back to their roots once more. I am proud to be Reformed Arminian and General Baptist, but above all, I’m blessed to be a child of God. Thank you, Matt Pinson, for reminding me once more of the mandate to love the Lord my God with all my heart, soul, and (mental) might.
1 J. Matthew Pinson, Arminian and Baptist: Explorations in a Theological Tradition (Nashville: Randall House, 2015), x.
2 Ibid., ix.
3 Ibid., 11.
4 James Arminius, Works, 2:192. Quoted by Pinson, 21.
5 Arminius, Works, 2:156.
6 Arminius, Works, 1:700.
7 Pinson, 140.
8 Arminius 3:425.
9 Pinson, 116-117.
10 Pinson, 60.
11 Pinson, 67.
12 Ibid., 69.
13 Pinson quotes Smyth, 75.
14 Pinson, 84.
15 Ibid., 85.
16 Pinson, 118.
17 Ibid., 122.
18 John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, X, 386. Quoted in Pinson, 140.
19 Wesley, “Justification by Faith,” V, II, 4. Quoted in Pinson, 142.
20 Wesley, “The Lord Our Righteousness,” V, II, 19. Quoted in Pinson, 143.
21 John Wesley, “The Great Privilege of Those Who Are Born of God,” Works, V, 230. Quoted in Pinson, 146.
22 Pinson, 147. Italics mine.
23 John Wesley, “The First Fruits of the Spirit,” Works, V, 95-96. Quoted in Pinson, 147.
24 Pinson, 166.
25 Ibid., 167-168.
26 Pinson, 171-172.
