Back to Chapter 6 – What’s At Stake? The Character of God and the Truth of the Gospel
If, according to some Calvinists, Calvinism is the gospel message, can the non-Calvinist soteriology also be the biblical gospel message? Many Calvinists are consistent here. They answer, “No. There is only one gospel, and it is Calvinism.” For instance, Calvinist David Engelsma states,
“There can be no ignoring of these doctrines, called “Calvinism”; if they are not preached and confessed, they are denied. Every preacher, every Church, every member of every Church must take a stand regarding them, and does take a stand. It is impossible not to. For they are writ large on the pages of Scripture, as essential elements of the gospel. Whoever rejects Calvinism embraces the only alternative to Calvinism – a system of doctrine that is opposed to Calvinism in every point.
…In the end, there are two, and only two, possible faiths. The one maintains that all mankind lies in death; that God in free and sovereign grace eternally chose some; that God gave Christ to die for those whom He chose; that the Holy Spirit regenerates them and calls them efficaciously to faith; and that the Spirit preserves these elect, redeemed, and reborn sinners unto everlasting glory. This is Calvinism.
The other faith maintains that fallen man retains some spiritual ability for good, some life; that God’s choice of men depends upon their exercise of the ability for good that is in them; that Christ’s death depends upon that good in man; and that the attainment of final glory depends upon that good in man. This is the enemy of Calvinism. This is the enemy of the Gospel! For Calvinism proclaims salvation by grace; the other faith preaches salvation by man’s will and works and worth.
Calvinism is the Gospel!”[30]
Calvinists Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams also make clear that these soteriologies are mutually exclusive.
“J. I. Packer once observed that the very terms Calvinism and Arminianism represent an opposition: “The words are defined in terms of the antithesis, and the point is pressed that no Christian can avoid being on one side or the other.”[31] This suggests that the two ideologies – whatever each might stand for in its own right – are to be considered mutually exclusive positions. An Arminian is by definition not a Calvinist, and a Calvinist could not also be an Arminian. Whatever one stands for, the other represents its opposing perspective and thus its denial.”[32]
Prominent Calvinist D. A. Carson writes,
“Today the question most likely to light a fuse is…What is the gospel? One might usefully add that question’s first cousin, What is evangelicalism?
That these questions engender mutually exclusive answers, often dogmatically defended with only a minimum of reflection on the Bible, is, quite frankly, alarming, because the issues are so fundamental. When “evangelicals” hold highly disparate opinions about what the “evangel” is (that is, the “the gospel,” for that is what “evangel” means), then one must conclude that either evangelicalism as a movement is a diverse phenomenon with no agreed gospel and no sense of responsibility to “contend for the faith” that the Lord has “once for all entrusted” to us, his people (Jude 3 NIV), or that many people call themselves “evangelicals” who do not have any legitimate right to do so because they have left the “evangel,” the gospel, behind.”[33]
Since the Calvinist and non-Calvinist soteriologies are two incompatible expressions of the central message of the Bible, this issue cannot be ignored. Carson is right “either evangelicalism as a movement is a diverse phenomenon with no agreed gospel and no sense of responsibility to “contend for the faith” that the Lord has “once for all entrusted” to us, his people (Jude 3 NIV), or, many people call themselves “evangelicals” who do not have any legitimate right to do so because they have left the “evangel,” the gospel, behind.”
So, it is incumbent upon us to ask which soteriology has left “the ‘evangel,’ the gospel, behind?” Also, why is there an acceptance of mutually exclusive soteriologies and gospels in the “evangelical” church? We must also ask why this issue is ignored and cannot be resolved.
Clearly, the gospel is at stake in this controversy. Engelsma, Packer, and Carson are honest enough to admit that we have mutually exclusive gospels such that one or the other (or both) is not biblical. And Carson is right in concluding that one or the other has no right to be called “evangelical.” But which soteriology and gospel message is an accurate interpretation of Scripture? Which one truly has the right to the label “evangelical?” The word “evangel” (Gr., euangelion) means “good news.”[34] Therefore, I submit to you that as far as the right to the term “evangelical” is concerned, that will go to the soteriology that contains a message about which the “news” it contains can truly be said to be “good.”
Calvinists claim their Calvinism is the gospel message and therefore all other soteriologies are false gospels. Indeed, according to Engelsma, anything other than Calvinism is “the enemy of the Gospel!” Hence, the first and most important question that we must answer is, “What is the biblical definition and content of the gospel?”
Most of the time, this soteriological mutual exclusivity is overlooked. Sometimes Calvinists and non-Calvinists speak as though each has the same gospel message to share. For instance, within the Southern Baptist Convention, they urge that we “‘grant one another liberty on Calvinism while joining arms for the Great Commission” and state that the “hope for the future of the SBC is based on cooperation to carry out the Great Commission.”[35] This is admirable, and we should strive for cooperative unity wherever possible. But “the Great Commission” is integrally bound up with a message that has a definitive content. It’s bound up with the gospel. Therefore, to “grant one another liberty on Calvinism while joining arms for the Great Commission” is to promote a contradictory position. Calvinism just is incompatible with other non-Calvinist soteriologies and their gospel message. Therefore, non-Calvinists and Calvinists (when they are not speaking inconsistently with their “doctrines of grace”) have contradictory messages and mandates as to “the Great Commission.” For both the Calvinist and non-Calvinist, the content of the messages that comprise their “Great Commission” is incompatible. The “Great Commission” is very different for each of these soteriologies because their soteriologies are very different. It is baffling that those in the SBC cannot see this problem, or, seeing it, choose to ignore it.
Therefore, it seems to me that, especially at the level of “the Great Commission,” this gospel divide cannot be ignored. As much as it is indicative of an attempt to live and work at peace with one another, it is also indicative of an intellectual disconnect between one’s soteriological doctrines and the content of the gospel message. It is to adopt an unacceptable soteriological, gospel, and theological relativism.
Another example of this disconnect can be found in this dialogue between Calvinist Albert Mohler and non-Calvinist Eric Hankins[36] as documented by James A. Smith Sr., who writes,
“Mohler responded that it’s good that young believers are interested in these issues. “I don’t think you can be too excited about theology or the truths of God’s Word” he said. “You can just be too excited about your system.”
He added, “If there’s a young Reformed guy who’s more interested in traveling across the state to argue about John Calvin when he is not talking to his next-door neighbor about the gospel, then there’s a huge problem.”
Hankins suggested a “rule” for both sides of the debate: “You only get seven days to talk about [Calvinism] and for another seven days you have to actually share the gospel.” The truth, he added, all Southern Baptists are failing to share the gospel.”[37]
This exchange raises several issues. The first is, “What is the gospel?” What is the content of the gospel that “a young Reformed guy” is going to speak to his next-door neighbor? Shouldn’t it be his “doctrines of grace?” But can he really share his “doctrines of grace” as the “good news” for that neighbor? Do his “doctrines of grace” contain “good news” for the hearer? How so? If the young Calvinist did share with his neighbor the “doctrines of grace,” would the neighbor hear these as a message of “good news” for him personally? Would the young Calvinist share a message consistent with his fundamental Calvinist soteriological doctrines, or inconsistent with those doctrines? Will it be a gospel message along the lines that Hankins, as a non-Calvinist, would share with his neighbor? And if it is the latter, what should we think of the young Calvinist’s inconsistency between his doctrines and his message? Is that intellectually and interpretively significant? I think so. My point is that we need to stop using the phrase “the gospel” without further definition as to what we mean by it. As Calvinists or non-Calvinists, what “gospel” are Southern Baptists failing to share?
A second issue raised here is that for those Calvinists whose gospel is their “system” or “doctrines of grace,” Mohler shouldn’t chide them for being excited about that “system” as opposed to “the gospel,” for aren’t these “doctrines of grace” or that “system” the same as “the gospel?” After all, the “system” is the full and final explanation as to how and why some persons are saved and others are not. Indeed, if for these young Reformed believers, Calvinism is the gospel as the Calvinists above have told us, then they should not be less excited but more excited about their Calvinism. They should tell people the TULIP doctrines as the gospel message. Indeed, traveling across the state talking about John Calvin may be part and parcel of what it means for those Calvinists to “share the gospel.” Sharing the ‘gospel’ with people would certainly include telling them about Calvinism if Calvinism is the full and final explanation of why and how a person becomes saved. It would be the very content of the “Great Commission.” But I think it is easy to see that if the young Calvinist were to tell people about the TULIP doctrines, they wouldn’t be giving the person “good news.”
Another point to stress here is that some Calvinists disagree with Engelsma’s claims that Calvinism is the gospel. They maintain that Calvinism is not the gospel and that Calvinism per se should not be made synonymous with “the gospel.” This seems to be implied by Mohler when he says, “You only get seven days to talk about [Calvinism], and for another seven days you have to actually share the gospel.” He distinguishes Calvinism from “the gospel.” However, coming from a Calvinist, this is baffling. It leads to several questions. The first is, what then is the content of “the gospel” message for Mohler and Calvinists like him? When they speak ‘the gospel’ to their neighbor, what do they say? Do they give a non-Calvinist message of truly “good news” to people? This raises the obvious concern as to whether the Calvinist’s message is consistent or inconsistent with their Calvinist soteriology. If it is consistent, then they would be telling their neighbors about the “doctrines of grace” (i.e., TULIP). But how is that “good news” for their neighbor? So their “gospel,” for it to be “good news” for the neighbor, must be a message inconsistent with their “doctrines of grace.” They must be telling people, “God loves you and desires that you be saved.” That “God is offering salvation to you in Christ.” That, “Jesus died to take the punishment due you for your sins, and if you believe in him you will be saved.” And also, “You must accept this free gift of God’s grace by faith. Put your trust in Christ for salvation. Do not spurn this gift of salvation. Your eternal destiny will be determined by your response to his gracious offer of salvation: come to Christ, believe, and be saved.” If that is what the Calvinist is saying, that’s problematic, for it is inconsistent and even contradictory with his “doctrines of grace.”
Hence, if the Calvinist’s “gospel” is not their “doctrines of grace,” then to what do the “doctrines of grace” refer? What is the meaning or purpose of these doctrines? Can they be put into the service of a genuinely evangelical gospel ministry or evangelism? If so, how so? How can the Calvinists’ ‘gospel’ message be divorced from their very soteriology? Shouldn’t one’s soteriology inform the content of their gospel message?[38]
Let’s be more precise here. Let’s say the Calvinist wants to remain consistent with his soteriology. He believes his “doctrines of grace” constitute the gospel message. Therefore, he is going to tell his neighbor about Calvinism. He would then have to say to him that God unconditionally elected or predestined certain people to be saved, and only those will be saved. A person’s salvation is apart from any conditions involving the person themselves. Those not chosen, that is, unconditionally elected for salvation, cannot be saved. The salvation of the elect is solely the work of God’s grace, defined as an irresistible work of regeneration in them. God regenerates the sinner and causes them to believe in Christ for their salvation. Now, if this is the “good news,” then this ought to be what is proclaimed as “the gospel” by Calvinists. So the content of “the gospel” for those Calvinists who say that their “doctrines of grace” are “the gospel” would be the TULIP doctrines. Again, these doctrines are the full and final explanation for why and how a person becomes saved. These doctrines are what Calvinists must tell their unsaved neighbors when witnessing to them. All other Calvinists would be inconsistent and disingenuous in speaking anything other than their “doctrines of grace.”
It is interesting to note that Calvinists often say that these “doctrines of grace” are not for unbelievers or even new believers. The idea is that people don’t need to know these doctrines early on. They are for the mature Christian. What this tells us is that the real “truth” about why and how a person becomes saved, according to the Calvinist, is to be withheld from them. Why? Because the Calvinist knows that their doctrines are not good news, and no one would be saved by hearing them. Only seeds of doubt and despair would be sown by them.
Now, when Calvinists do not preach a message consistent with their “doctrines of grace,” they are demonstrating that they do not value coherence and consistency between their soteriological doctrines and their “gospel” proclamation. Therefore, the all-important question becomes, does such inconsistency matter in determining the interpretive validity of their soteriology? They certainly do. These interpretive questions matter because we must remain intellectually responsible, honest, and credible in our handling of Scripture. Our message of “good news” must be consistent with what we say we believe soteriologically lest we become duplicitous and disingenuous. Calvinists who speak like non-Calvinists when giving the gospel are duplicitous and disingenuous as compared with their deterministic soteriology. The Calvinist doctrines impugn the character of God and distort the good news of the Bible’s salvation message. Therefore, if one values consistency between their soteriology and their gospel message, then one’s gospel message should be a consistent reflection of their soteriological doctrines.
My point is that one’s soteriological doctrines just are what constitute one’s gospel message. And this is the way it should be lest we become hypocritical, disingenuous, and lose credibility. Depending upon whether one is a Calvinist or a non-Calvinist, the gospel message will be different, and should be different, because there is a difference in the underlying soteriologies. Therefore, this is a serious matter. Someone has got the gospel wrong. This fact cannot be ignored, especially when Calvinists and non-Calvinists suggest cooperating in “sharing the gospel,” or fulfilling “the Great Commission,” or being “a gospel-centered ministry.” One’s soteriology is integral to and definitive of the gospel message. And because the biblical term “gospel” means “good news,” it is necessary that one’s soteriology provide a coherent foundation for proclaiming that “good news” to the hearer. This Calvinism cannot do.
Therefore, whether they affirm their soteriology is the gospel or not, for the most part, Calvinists end up proclaiming a gospel message that is the same message of “good news” that non-Calvinists proclaim. That message is that God loves you, Jesus died for you, your sins can be forgiven, and you can believe and be saved. Calvinists do this because they know there isn’t any ‘good news’ in their Calvinist soteriological doctrines (i.e., TULIP). Indeed, even a cursory examination of Calvinist preaching and teaching will show this inconsistency. Calvinists jettison their Calvinist soteriology and become non-Calvinists when preaching and teaching not only on the gospel but throughout the Bible in general.[39] This is because the Bible does not teach or present reality as a theistic determinism (i.e., Calvinism). And the Calvinists’ cavalier dismissal of their incoherence is inherent in the Calvinist mindset. Once this is pointed out to them and they continue to speak inconsistently with their soteriology and theology, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Calvinists are being disingenuous. Therefore, those Calvinists who affirm the Calvinist soteriological “doctrines of grace” but claim that those doctrines are not the gospel message, and those Calvinists who do claim their “doctrines of grace” are the gospel message but preach a non-Calvinist gospel, are both being inconsistent and disingenuous when they do not teach and preach their “doctrines of grace” as the gospel message. They are seeking to avoid the logical and moral difficulties raised by their Calvinist “doctrines of grace” and the inconsistency of those doctrines with the biblical definition of the gospel as “good news.” So, both types of Calvinists are faced with two questions: 1. “What is the content of the biblical gospel given your Calvinist soteriology?”, and 2. “Do you preach and teach consistently with your soteriological doctrines when presenting the gospel?” These questions need to be answered by Calvinists. Short of abandoning their Calvinist deterministic theology and soteriology, I would have to conclude that their Calvinist soteriology is not “evangelical,” that is, it does not contain truly “good news.” The Calvinist “doctrines of grace” cannot be put into the service of a truly evangelical gospel ministry. According to the biblical definition of “the gospel,” they are antithetical to a truly evangelical or “good news” message and ministry.
I suspect that most Christians do see how Calvinism is not “good news.” I, for one, have never heard a Calvinist preacher or teacher proclaim their “doctrines of grace” as the “good news” of the gospel. I can’t imagine how they ever could. Yet, many times I have seen and heard Calvinists change their message and adopt a non-Calvinist gospel when teaching, preaching, and evangelizing. I ask myself, how is it that Calvinists can preach and teach in direct contradiction or inconsistently with their Calvinist soteriological and theological doctrines? As far as I can see, they cannot coherently maintain their doctrinal claims. Their Calvinism is sidelined when they preach the gospel, and also, for the most part, when teaching and preaching the scriptures in general. Therefore, what is also at stake here is intellectual and moral congruity and integrity. We ought to speak coherently and consistently with our soteriological beliefs.
Let’s return to the problem of the evangelical church being home for two mutually exclusive soteriologies, which has profound implications for the gospel message. I identified this situation in our churches as theological relativism, that is, the inability of the leadership or congregants to come to conclusive convictions regarding the contradictory teachings of Calvinism and non-Calvinism. This is, of course, unacceptable. So why do our churches endure it? It springs from a well-meaning intention to maintain ecclesial unity. Most Christians do not want to divide their church over this issue. But given that the very gospel is at stake, this is a matter that cannot be tolerated by Christians and churches that call themselves evangelical and cherish the gospel as “good news” and an authoritative Word of God more than the false doctrines of their denominational traditions. Moreover, given the present state of affairs, this attempt at unity is a delusion and ultimately impossible to maintain. And what it will do is squelch the true, biblical “good news” in evangelical churches. Indeed, the separation has already occurred in those denominations that fully adopt “Calvinistic” soteriological doctrines and creeds (e.g., Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed Baptists, etc.). I recognize that these denominations differ and divide on other doctrinal grounds (e.g., infant baptism, church government, etc.), and hold to nuances regarding their soteriologies. But on the matter of salvation, they are determinists, and such determinism is unbiblical. Where the two mutually exclusive soteriologies of Calvinism and non-Calvinism exist in evangelical churches, the claim of unity amounts to a pretense that exists as long as the matter is not brought to the forefront. Christians are pretending to be unified regarding the gospel. That status quo can exist as long as we don’t inquire as to what we mean by the gospel. That question cannot be asked because it would reveal the existing division between Calvinists and non-Calvinists. That is why the leaders or the people will not ask the hard and meaningful questions like, “What is the gospel message? What are your soteriological doctrines? Are they consistent with that message? How are your soteriological doctrines consistent with the gospel as ‘good news?’ Do you believe your interpretations of Scripture ought to be coherent, consistent, and non-contradictory? What are the implications if they are not? Hence, any attempt at unity on this issue is impossible unless the Christian church acknowledges the gravity of the issues at stake, the two most important being the character of God and the gospel message. We cannot be spiritually and intellectually apathetic, indifferent, or reckless concerning either. But that has been the result of this fear of division. For most Christians and church leaders, division is to be avoided at all costs, even if it costs misrepresenting the character of God and distorting the gospel. But if that is the alternative, then we ought to stand firm on the truth of the Word (cf. Acts 3:17-20, Gal. 1:6-12). But if we are not grounded in both of these, what kind of church are we left with? Probably more like a religious social club than a gospel-preaching, God-glorifying church. As to the gospel, Paul’s words in Galatians 1:6-9 are always pressing this point home. Such “unity” is also impossible because the Bible does not teach two mutually exclusive soteriologies or gospel messages. This “unity,” to survive, requires Christians to ignore sound hermeneutical principles. Therefore, this attempt at unity involves the suppression of reason and moral intution and a denial of the authority of the Word of God in the church, which, of course, means the loss of a true unity in the gospel. Division is not to be feared if it exposes false doctrinal beliefs and purifies the gospel in the church. We should hold fast to the Word of God and let the Spirit work through the Word as it is rightly expounded. This will rekindle the biblical gospel of truly “good news.” We should not be bound to our theological traditions for tradition’s sake, but only as they accurately reflect the Word of God. So those churches that claim to be evangelical must revive and hold fast to the biblical gospel as “good news.” Unity is not the primary concern of the Christian evangelical church. The primary concern of the true church is the accurate interpretation of its sole authority, which is the Bible, that is, the Word of God.
Furthermore, division is not inevitable. The evangelical church needs to learn how to deal with tough questions and issues that confront us as Christians today without being divisive. Pastors and teachers should facilitate dialogue instead of always controlling the forum for their own aggrandizement or out of fear of being challenged. Bible studies should engage with the best scholarship in the grammatical-historical method, biblical theology, systematic theology, hermeneutics, and apologetics. Those who preach and teach need to be well-grounded theologically and philosophically. They must be able to interact with the biblical text based on sound hermeneutical principles. Church leaders should engage Christians in what the Bible says on meaningful and relevant topics. They ought to reduce the fun, food, and fellowship, and begin to learn how to think deeply, discuss civilly, and present reasoned, biblical arguments for a position. This is not to quarrel or fight. It is to calmly state a formal argument for one’s viewpoint. It is to discuss, for instance, the issues I raise on this website to make evident the biblical truth on these matters.
So, which soteriology and gospel is the biblical gospel? I believe that eminent non-Calvinists scholars have conclusively demonstrated that Calvinism is not what the Bible teaches. I have tried to represent both sides on this website for a fair comparison. Many others have done a much better job than I. It seems, therefore, that we have a spiritual and intellectual responsibility to engage Calvinists, as much as they are willing to do so, with the non-Calvinists’ criticisms of Calvinism. Each side needs to support its interpretations of scripture, having grounded them in logical reasoning and moral intuition. Deciding what the Bible means to tell us will require employing accepted principles of interpretation, which include logical reasoning and moral intuition. But due to the severity of the Calvinists’ arrant departure from the Word of God regarding the character of God and the central message of Scripture – the Gospel – which I think I have proved in the many chapters and writings on this website, and due to their obduracy when confronted with sound alternative interpretations, I, for one, am compelled to conclude that Calvinists hold to an unorthodox and therefore heretical soteriology.
Read the next section – Moody and Bryson on What is at Stake in This Controversy: The Gospel
Back to Chapter 6 – What’s At Stake? The Character of God and the Truth of the Gospel
Footnotes
[30] Professor David J. Engelsma, A Defense of Calvinism as the Gospel (South Holland: The Evangelism Committee, Protestant Reformed Church). https://www.the-highway.com/calvinismasgospel_Engelsma.html. Last accessed Oct. 13, 2025
[31] J. I. Packer, “Arminianisms,” in Through Christ’s Word: A Festschrift for P. E. Hughes, ed. W. Robert Godfrey and Jesse L. Boyd III (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R, 1985), p. 121.
[32] Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams, Why I Am Not An Arminian (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 9.
[33] D. A. Carson in the Foreword of Greg D. Gilbert, What is the Gospel? (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 13-14.
[34] Note that Carson does not use the phrase “good news” here. My contention is that the Calvinist “doctrines of grace” are not the gospel and cannot be put in the service of true “evangelism” precisely because there is no news in them to be proclaimed that is distinctively good. Indeed, Calvinists not only default to a non-Calvinist theological perspective in their regular preaching and teaching, showing themselves to be inconsistent with their underlying Calvinist doctrinal position, but they also default to a non-Calvinist gospel message when teaching or preaching directly about the gospel or when evangelizing. I submit, therefore, that it is Carson’s own soteriology that cannot accurately reflect the meaning of the term “evangelical.” It is Calvinists who do not have any legitimate right to be called “evangelical” because it is they who, in light of their “doctrines of grace” (i.e., TULIP), have no “good news” to proclaim.
[35] “Mohler: Southern Baptists Need ‘Table Manners’ When Discussing Calvinism” by James A. Smith Sr., Southern News, Nov. 15, 2013. https://www.sbts.edu/news/mohler-southern-baptists-need-table-manners-when-discussing-calvinism/. Last accessed Oct. 13, 2025.
[36] Eric Hankins is the pastor of the First Baptist Church in Fairhope, Alabama. He is also the author of the introduction to “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation,” which outlines the non-Calvinist (Traditionalist) position on salvation in contrast to the Calvinist soteriological doctrines. It can be found midway down at the following link. For convenience, I have also placed the complete text below. https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/statement-on-calvinism-draws-approval-criticism/ Last accessed Oct. 13, 2025.
A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of
God’s Plan of Salvation
Preamble
Every generation of Southern Baptists has the duty to articulate the truths of its faith with particular attention to the issues that are impacting contemporary mission and ministry. The precipitating issue for this statement is the rise of a movement called “New Calvinism” among Southern Baptists. This movement is committed to advancing in the churches an exclusively Calvinistic understanding of salvation, characterized by an aggressive insistence on the “Doctrines of Grace” (“TULIP”), and to the goal of making Calvinism the central Southern Baptist position on God’s plan of salvation.
While Calvinists have been present in Southern Baptist life from its earliest days and have made very important contributions to our history and theology, the majority of Southern Baptists do not embrace Calvinism. Even the minority of Southern Baptists who have identified themselves as Calvinists generally modify its teachings in order to mitigate certain unacceptable conclusions (e.g., anti-missionism, hyper-Calvinism, double predestination, limited atonement, etc.). The very fact that there is a plurality of views on Calvinism designed to deal with these weaknesses (variously described as “3-point,” “4-point,” “moderate,” etc.) would seem to call for circumspection and humility with respect to the system and to those who disagree with it. For the most part, Southern Baptists have been glad to relegate disagreements over Calvinism to secondary status along with other important but “non-essential” theological matters. The Southern Baptist majority has fellowshipped happily with its Calvinist brethren while kindly resisting Calvinism itself. And, to their credit, most Southern Baptist Calvinists have not demanded the adoption of their view as the standard. We would be fine if this consensus continued, but some New Calvinists seem to be pushing for a radical alteration of this long-standing arrangement.
We propose that what most Southern Baptists believe about salvation can rightly be called “Traditional” Southern Baptist soteriology, which should be understood in distinction to “Calvinist” soteriology. Traditional Southern Baptist soteriology is articulated in a general way in the Baptist Faith and Message, “Article IV.” While some earlier Baptist confessions were shaped by Calvinism, the clear trajectory of the BF&M since 1925 is away from Calvinism. For almost a century, Southern Baptists have found that a sound, biblical soteriology can be taught, maintained, and defended without subscribing to Calvinism. Traditional Southern Baptist soteriology is grounded in the conviction that every person can and must be saved by a personal and free decision to respond to the Gospel by trusting in Christ Jesus alone as Savior and Lord. Without ascribing to Calvinism, Southern Baptists have reached around the world with the Gospel message of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. Baptists have been well-served by a straightforward soteriology rooted in the fact that Christ is willing and able to save any and every sinner.
New Calvinism presents us with a duty and an opportunity to more carefully express what is generally believed by Southern Baptists about salvation. It is no longer helpful to identify ourselves by how many points of convergence we have with Calvinism. While we are not insisting that every Southern Baptist affirm the soteriological statement below in order to have a place in the Southern Baptist family, we are asserting that the vast majority of Southern Baptists are not Calvinists and that they do not want Calvinism to become the standard view in Southern Baptist life. We believe it is time to move beyond Calvinism as a reference point for Baptist soteriology.
Below is what we believe to be the essence of a “Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation.” We believe that most Southern Baptists, regardless of how they have described their personal understanding of the doctrine of salvation, will find the following statement consistent with what the Bible teaches and what Southern Baptists have generally believed about the nature of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
Articles of Affirmation and Denial
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
Article Two: The Sinfulness of Man
We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him, ever-worsening selfishness and destructiveness, death, and condemnation to an eternity in hell.
We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.
Genesis 3:15-24; 6:5; Deuteronomy 1:39; Isaiah 6:5, 7:15-16;53:6; Jeremiah 17:5,9, 31:29-30; Ezekiel 18:19-20; Romans 1:18-32; 3:9-18, 5:12, 6:23; 7:9; Matthew 7:21-23; 1 Corinthians 1:18-25; 6:9-10;15:22; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Hebrews 9:27-28; Revelation 20:11-15
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
Article Four: The Grace of God
We affirm that grace is God’s generous decision to provide salvation for any person by taking all of the initiative in providing atonement, in freely offering the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit, and in uniting the believer to Christ through the Holy Spirit by faith.
We deny that grace negates the necessity of a free response of faith or that it cannot be resisted. We deny that the response of faith is in any way a meritorious work that earns salvation.
Ezra 9:8; Proverbs 3:34; Zechariah 12:10; Matthew 19:16-30, 23:37; Luke 10:1-12; Acts 15:11; 20:24; Romans 3:24, 27-28; 5:6, 8, 15-21; Galatians 1:6; 2:21; 5; Ephesians 2:8-10; Philippians 3:2-9; Colossians 2:13-17; Hebrews 4:16; 9:28; 1 John 4:19
Article Five: The Regeneration of the Sinner
We affirm that any person who responds to the Gospel with repentance and faith is born again through the power of the Holy Spirit. He is a new creation in Christ and enters, at the moment he believes, into eternal life.
We deny that any person is regenerated prior to or apart from hearing and responding to the Gospel.
Luke 15:24; John 3:3; 7:37-39; 10:10; 16:7-14; Acts 2:37-39; Romans 6:4-11; 10:14; 1 Corinthians 15:22; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 2:20; 6:15; Colossians 2:13; 1 Peter 3:18
Article Six: The Election to Salvation
We affirm that, in reference to salvation, election speaks of God’s eternal, gracious, and certain plan in Christ to have a people who are His by repentance and faith.
We deny that election means that, from eternity, God predestined certain people for salvation and others for condemnation.
Genesis 1:26-28; 12:1-3; Exodus 19:6; Jeremiah 31:31-33; Matthew 24:31; 25:34; John 6:70; 15:16; Romans 8:29-30, 33;9:6-8; 11:7; 1 Corinthians 1:1-2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2:11-22; 3:1-11; 4:4-13; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; 1 Peter 1:1-2; 1 Peter 2:9; 2 Peter 3:9; Revelation 7:9-10
Article Seven: The Sovereignty of God
We affirm God’s eternal knowledge of and sovereignty over every person’s salvation or condemnation.
We deny that God’s sovereignty and knowledge require Him to cause a person’s acceptance or rejection of faith in Christ.
Genesis 1:1; 6:5-8; 18:16-33; 22; 2 Samuel 24:13-14; 1 Chronicles 29:10-20; 2 Chronicles 7:14; Joel 2:32; Psalm 23; 51:4; 139:1-6; Proverbs 15:3; John 6:44; Romans 11:3; Titus 3:3-7; James 1:13-15; Hebrews 11:6, 12:28; 1 Peter 1:17
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
Article Nine: The Security of the Believer
We affirm that when a person responds in faith to the Gospel, God promises to complete the process of salvation in the believer into eternity. This process begins with justification, whereby the sinner is immediately acquitted of all sin and granted peace with God; continues in sanctification, whereby the saved are progressively conformed to the image of Christ by the indwelling Holy Spirit; and concludes in glorification, whereby the saint enjoys life with Christ in heaven forever.
We deny that this Holy Spirit-sealed relationship can ever be broken. We deny even the possibility of apostasy.
John 10:28-29; 14:1-4; 16:12-14; Philippians 1:6; Romans 3:21-26; 8:29,30; 35-39; 12:1-3; 2 Corinthians 4:17; Ephesians 1:13-14; Philippians 3:12; Colossians 1:21-22; 1 John 2:19; 3:2; 5:13-15; 2 Timothy 1:12; Hebrews 13:5; James 1:12; Jude 24-25
Article Ten: The Great Commission
We affirm that the Lord Jesus Christ commissioned His church to preach the good news of salvation to all people to the ends of the earth. We affirm that the proclamation of the Gospel is God’s means of bringing any person to salvation.
We deny that salvation is possible outside of a faith response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Psalm 51:13; Proverbs 11:30; Isaiah 52:7; Matthew 28:19-20; John 14:6; Acts 1:8; 4:12; 10:42-43; Romans 1:16, 10:13-15; 1 Corinthians 1:17-21; Ephesians 3:7-9; 6:19-20; Philippians 1:12-14; 1 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Timothy 2:5; 2 Timothy 4:1-5
[37] “Mohler: Southern Baptists Need ‘Table Manners’ When Discussing Calvinism” by James A. Smith Sr., Southern News, Nov. 15, 2013. https://www.sbts.edu/news/mohler-southern-baptists-need-table-manners-when-discussing-calvinism/ Last accessed Oct. 13, 2025.
[38] That is, only if one values consistency between their soteriology and their message. But what of the Calvinist who preaches a non-Calvinist gospel message? Of course, the Calvinist would never attempt to justify inconsistency between their soteriology and their gospel message; rather, my observation is that they “explain” away the inconsistency by saying it is a “mystery.” This proposes that the Bible teaches both theistic determinism and human responsibility, with the Calvinist cavalierly ignoring the contradiction.
[39] For instance, while addressing the subject of victimhood in his series of sermons on “Social Justice and the Gospel,” the late Calvinist pastor and teacher John MacArthur stressed the need for each individual to take responsibility for their own sins and not blame others for the things that happen to them or the life circumstances they find themselves in. They should not look to others as the cause or as an excuse for their own attitudes, desires, thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors. Yet MacArthur’s call to take responsibility for our attitudes, desires, thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors or actions is incoherent with his own deterministic definition of God’s sovereignty. All Calvinists, like MacArthur, believe divine sovereignty amounts to a universal divine causal determinism. Given this type of theistic determinism, God’s will is the only reason a person thinks, desires, believes, and behaves as they do. That’s just what the Calvinist means by sovereignty. This, of course, also applies to one’s salvation and hence to the content of the “gospel.” In Calvinism, one is saved because God has unconditionally elected them to salvation. All others not elected cannot be saved. But MacArthur insists upon ignoring this fact and presenting life and salvation as if people themselves are responsible for what they do, even though MacArthur believes that God has predetermined every person’s thoughts, desires, attitudes, actions, and eternal destiny. He argues that this victim mentality is antithetical to the gospel because the gospel requires that people acknowledge that they are sinners rather than passing their sin off onto someone or something else. He writes,
“So I’m not arguing that people aren’t victims; they are, we all are to one degree or another, because it’s a fallen world. And I’m not arguing that we don’t have a responsibility to be kind, we do; and to give mercy and justice and love and compassion, even sacrificially, doing good to all men. What I’m saying is that while we show sympathy – and even God shows a measure of sympathy – don’t think for a moment that that is going to be transferred over to how God deals with a sinner who doesn’t repent and come to Him for forgiveness. Our message to the sinner is, “I want to do what I can to relieve your suffering, if that’s possible; but I’m much more concerned about the eternal suffering that is awaiting you. And God will not be merciful to you unless you have come to Him to receive forgiveness of sins. That only happens through the gospel through the Lord Jesus Christ.”
So while so many evangelicals are happy to show sympathy and kindness toward those who feel like they are victims, there are many real victims and there are a lot of artificial victims; but while we want to show them kindness we have to remember God will show no [sic] mercy to any sinner who rejects Him and rejects His gospel and rejects His Son. And sooner or later in our acts of mercy we need to address the issue of sin and death and eternal judgment in hell. Whatever your circumstances are, whether you have lived above the fray, whether you have lived in prosperity and wealth, or whether you have lived in poverty and deprivation, the issue is the sins that you commit, the alienation of your entire being from God is going to send you to hell forever, unless you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and are forgiven through faith in Him.”
The point here is that MacArthur, although affirming Calvinist soteriology, preaches a non-Calvinist message involving repentance as a contingent matter; he warns that God will not show mercy to any sinner who rejects God, the gospel or Jesus; he expresses being “concerned about the eternal suffering that is awaiting you” if the sinner doesn’t repent; that God will be merciful if the sinner comes to receive forgiveness of sins, and that “God is going to send you to hell forever, unless you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and are forgiven through faith in Him.” The contingent nature of this presentation is more in accord with an Arminian, Traditionalist, or Provisionist understanding of the gospel. MacArthur completely ignores his own deterministic soteriological “doctrines of grace” because he knows that they cannot be put into the service of evangelism based on the gospel being “good news.” There is no “good news” in Calvinist soteriology.
– John MacArthur, “Social Justice and the Gospel, Part 4,” Sept. 23, 2018. From the “Grace to You” website transcript, which is mostly not a word-for-word transcription of the sermon but seeks to give the substantive content of the message throughout. https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/81-24/social-justice-and-the-gospel-part-4 Last accessed on Dec. 7, 2025.
The Truth of the Gospel 