Whosoever Will

The Potential Impact of Calvinist Tendencies upon Local Baptist Churches

In recent years the subject of Calvinism has risen drastically in importance within Baptist conversations, around both the dinner table and the seminar table, and often around the table of the Lord’s Supper. Although an element of Calvinism has always been functioning within Baptist circles, there has been a rise of late, by most accounts, in Calvinism’s influence on local churches. This influence is evident among Baptists generally and among Southern Baptists in particular. There are both active proponents and opponents of Calvinism’s influence, in both the academic and ecclesial realms. However, evaluating the promoters and detractors of Calvinism among Baptists is not the concern of this essay.¹ Also, significant stories regarding the influence of Calvinism on local Baptist churches have appeared in the religious news in recent years. Detailing those recent events is not the intent of this essay. That task is left to the journalist.²

Relying on biblical theology and historical theology, this essay intends to outline a potential range of theological changes that Calvinism may introduce into the reader’s local Baptist church, especially with regard to church polity and practice. This sketch of possible theological changes will be accomplished by discussing certain ecclesiological tendencies that Calvinism evinces. The theological orientation of this essay intends to help non-Calvinists develop the ability to understand their Calvinist counterparts in conversation. A theological orientation to the ecclesiological principles of Calvinism may aid readers in envisioning for themselves the potential impact that Calvinism can have upon their local churches. That impact may vary according to local events, but the active principles will prove somewhat consistent.

Even further qualification is needed at this point. First, because the author has summarized the Baptist view of church polity and practice elsewhere, the New Testament foundation of Baptist views will not be defended but assumed here.³ Second, because the author addresses the development of the Baptist heritage and identity elsewhere, the historical ebb and flow of Baptist Calvinism, though certainly an important and integral part of the Baptist tradition, will not be considered here.⁴ Finally, while the development of Calvinism within the evangelical tradition as a whole is itself an important and broad conversation, the broader context may be touched upon but will not be thoroughly delineated here.

Again, our purpose, alongside the soteriological discussions handled ably by the other contributors to this book, is simply to inform local Baptist church leaders of the potential impact that Calvinism could have upon their churches. The use of the subjunctive in that last sentence is intentional and noteworthy. Calvinism as a movement does not demonstrate monolithic agreement, although there are certainly broadly common characteristics and tendencies within the movement. Moreover, some advocates of Calvinism, whether by temperamental, experiential, or contextual restraints, are subtle in their enthusiasm for the Reformed faith and practice when compared to other Calvinists. Both the success stories and failure stories that Calvinists and non-Calvinists repeat need to be received with some reserve. Every movement has its embarrassing enthusiasts, and the opponents of every movement have their enthusiasts, too. Movements should not be judged primarily by their enthusiastic fringes, as terrible as those fringes may be, but by their original and overall influence.

In light of the desire to understand Calvinism according to its original and overall influence, studying the importance of the Swiss Reformed movement is fundamental to developing a working theological outline of the broader movement known as Calvinism or Reformed. As a result of his importance, this essay will focus particularly upon the theology explicated by John Calvin, drawing upon both earlier and later historical developments to illuminate the typical polity and practices of Calvinism. The shades of nuance between Calvin and the later Dortian Calvinists—important when considering the doctrine of salvation—are of minimal significance when it comes to the doctrine of the church. Of greater significance for Baptists are the apparently insurmountable differences between Calvinist ecclesiology and Baptist ecclesiology.

Calvinism’s Ecclesiological Tendencies

Calvinism displays certain tendencies that exercise a great impact upon its doctrine of the church, and therefore upon the local church’s polity and practice. These ecclesiological tendencies may be summarized as the ancient church, Augustinian innovations, aristocratic elitism, and antinomian tendencies. From the Baptist perspective, many of these tendencies pose a direct challenge to the New Testament standard of the church that Baptists believe is essential for the churches of Jesus Christ to practice today if they wish to be faithful to the Lord. After explaining the origin and import of these tendencies, a summary Baptist response will be provided.

The Ancient Church

The first thing to note about Calvinist ecclesiology is that, in spite of its methodological claim for sola scriptura, Calvinism typically moves beyond the Bible in order to create its theological standards. This movement can be seen in Calvinism’s penchant for doctrines such as the five points of the Synod of Dort or a periodically reckless speculation regarding the ordering of the divine decrees. Calvinism also holds to a theological standard for the church that moves far beyond Scripture. John Calvin developed this extrabiblical ecclesiological standard, which he called “the ancient church,” furthering the Reformed theology of an earlier reformer in Zurich.⁵ Ulrich Zwingli, who formulated Reformed ecclesiology in its earliest years, was dangerously haphazard in his treatment of Scripture. At first, Zwingli sought to return to the New Testament as the standard for the church’s theology and practice.⁶ Unfortunately, when it came to implementation, Zwingli compromised those earlier convictions for the sake of maintaining his political position, as we shall see.

Politically, Zwingli was beholden to the Zurich city council for the progress of his reformation of the church. In an October 1523 disputation, he explicitly submitted the reformation of the church to the state. “My lords,” the Reformed leader said, “will decide whatever regulations are to be adopted in the future in regard to the Mass.”⁷ Zwingli’s students could not quite believe that their leader had just effectively abrogated the Lord’s will for His churches. They understood that God had revealed His will for the churches through His Son as recorded in the Bible inspired by the Holy Spirit. Simon Stumpf responded, “Master Ulrich, you do not have the right to place the decision on this matter in the hands of my lords, for the decision has already been made: the Spirit of God decides.”⁸

After this event the students of Zwingli noticed that he began to withdraw in major ways from his commitment to institute a New Testament form of the church. For instance, although Zwingli initially agreed with his students that baptism was reserved for believers only, he was not willing to move faster than the conservative city council. The city council was unwilling to change what was considered a universal form of oath-taking to the magistrate’s oversight of every citizen—infant baptism. After the first Anabaptists reinstituted believers-only baptism in January 1525, Zwingli strained for a theological response. Rather than referring to the Lord’s orderly commands in Scripture, as verified in the apostolic practice of conversion prior to baptism, Zwingli invented a new type of covenant theology. Specifically, he tied the New Testament “sacrament” of baptism with the Old Testament practice of circumcision, thereby conflating the Old and New Covenants.⁹

The exegetical twists and turns that Zwingli performed in his May 1525 response to the Anabaptists were necessarily serpentine as he strove to preserve the state church practice of infant baptism. Driven by the political need of the moment, Zwingli extended the church into the Old Testament, misinterpreted Col 2:10–12 by replacing spiritual circumcision with physical circumcision, based Christian baptism in the practice of John the Baptist rather than in the Great Commission of Jesus Christ, and denied that His church should be composed only of verifiable Christians. Subsequently, Reformed theologians have largely followed Zwingli’s lead in their theologies of covenant and baptism. Reformed covenantal theology is thus founded upon what even a prominent Calvinist theologian could only helplessly describe as “thinness in exegesis” matched by “a general thinness in the whole theology of baptism.”¹⁰

Zwingli’s haphazard treatment of the New Testament doctrine of the church and its practices was amplified in the systematic ruminations of John Calvin. Although Calvin, unlike his predecessor, carefully worked toward some limited distance between the civil and the ecclesiastical orders, he never separated the two but maintained the Constantinian synthesis of church and state. In order to justify this synthesis and its concomitant practice of infant baptism, Calvin repeated many of the failed arguments and twisted hermeneutics of Zwingli. Moreover, he developed the concept of “the ancient church” as a way of providing a substitute standard for the church. As is well known, Calvin and his followers emphasize the “reformation” of the church as a continuing need. However, the goal of that reformation is not necessarily that of the New Testament church. Rather, the goal of Calvin’s reformation was a hazy concept known as “the ancient church.”

The ancient church appears in Calvin’s initial presentation of the doctrine of the church, known as the Draft Ecclesiastical Ordinances, prepared for the Genevan city council in 1541.¹¹ This work is important for understanding the polity of Calvinism, for it is here that the offices and the sacraments of the Reformed churches are first outlined systematically. It is notable that the Ecclesiastical Ordinances do not rely upon the exegesis of Scripture but spring from Calvin’s own ruminations, ruminations formed in the crucible of his experiences as a canon lawyer and his desire to join with the Swiss reformers. Although the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Word of God are mentioned and roughly undergird his thought, they are not submitted to careful exegesis. In other words, in Calvin’s initial ecclesiological system, Scripture is mentioned but not examined. Of more consequence than Scripture’s close definition of the church was Calvin’s own ill-defined standard of the ancient church.

Calvin furthered this conception of the ancient church in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, a periodically revised treatise that reached its final Latin form in 1559. Incredibly, in spite of years of working with the biblical text as a preacher, Calvin never substantially revised his ecclesiology in a more biblical direction. As with the Ecclesiastical Ordinances, the ancient church in the Institutes served as the rough standard for the contemporary church. The ancient church included (1) the Old Testament patriarchs, whom he believed were regenerated before the appearance of the Savior,¹² (2) the New Testament churches, and (3) the post-New Testament churches into the early Middle Ages.¹³ The ancient church was corrupted by the Roman see progressively through the Middle Ages. Thus, not all ecclesiological developments away from the New Testament were inappropriate, although the Roman ones were.¹⁴

Perhaps most importantly, from the Baptist perspective, the lordship of Christ exercises little importance in Calvin’s ecclesiology. Indeed, his ancient church was not based upon the Lord—“Christ here instituted nothing new”—for Christ Himself was a participant in and subject to the ancient church’s forms.¹⁵ Although Calvin claims Christ’s headship is “the condition of unity” for the church, this theological assertion has no concrete importance. Instead of the standard for His churches established by Jesus, Calvin believed the New Testament did not provide a set form for the church, except in vague terms. The ancient church, according to Calvin, “tried with a sincere effort to preserve God’s institution and did not wander far from it.”¹⁶ In other words, Calvin was not necessarily concerned with a Christological and biblical definition of the church but appealed to what he realized was a flawed doctrine—the ancient church did “wander.”

Standing in stark opposition to the Calvinist standard of “the ancient church” is the Baptist standard of “the New Testament church.” The Baptists and their sixteenth-century theological kin, the Anabaptists, have not pursued a reformation of their churches according to a partially biblical form of the church. Rather, Baptists have explicitly elevated the standard of the New Testament. Baptists have pursued a thorough reformation, or restitution, of the church as established by the Lord Jesus Christ and modeled in the teaching and practice of the apostles. As Robert A. Baker has argued in his excellent study of the Baptists, we have pursued the “pattern and authority” established in the New Testament.¹⁷ The Southern Baptist Convention, in agreement, defines the church, not according to the Reformed ancient church that confuses the Old and New Testaments and elevates human tradition above Christ’s will. The Baptist Faith and Message defines the church from the beginning as “New Testament” and proceeds only on that basis.¹⁸

Augustinian Innovations

Perhaps the greatest dependence that Calvin demonstrated upon another theologian was his deference to Augustine of Hippo. This early medieval theologian developed the theology that both later Roman Catholics and Protestants followed. It is a common axiom among Christian historians that Protestants typically followed Augustine’s soteriology while Roman Catholics followed Augustine’s ecclesiology. This is not, however, entirely the case. With regard to the doctrine of the church, Lutherans and Calvinists have retained many of Augustine’s theological innovations. The Protestant acceptance of Augustine’s ecclesiology is especially notable in the two cases: Augustine’s doctrine of the invisible worldwide church and his intolerance toward religious dissent.

The Invisible Worldwide Church

First, Augustine’s doctrine of the church is characterized by a diffuseness reminiscent of his appropriation of Platonic categories of thought. The visible church, for Augustine, is not primarily local and gathered, as defined by the New Testament but universal and inseparable from the world. The Lord’s expectation of holiness within His church, moreover, is rendered as an eschatological hope rather than embraced as a contemporary goal. The downplaying of the visible church as a local congregation of born-again believers and the elevation of the universal church as a worldwide congregation, which is visible only in fits and starts, is characteristic of Augustinian and Protestant ecclesiology. Recognizing the problem with his advocacy of a visible and impure church in comparison with the scriptural ideal of a visibly regenerate church (2 Cor 6:11–7:1), Augustine invented the concept of the invisible church composed of only the elect.¹⁹ Unfortunately for Augustine, there is no biblical foundation for the idea of an invisible worldwide gathering of Christians.

John Calvin and the Calvinists have largely adopted these Augustinian innovations in defining the church, without major criticism. The Calvinist adoption of this aspect of Augustinian ecclesiology has created an irresolvable tension within Calvinist ecclesiology, for while affirming the secretive nature of the invisible church, Calvinists also fervently desire to have a visible presence and impact upon their local culture. Evincing this tension, the Reformed confessions typically advocate the invisible church as a major category even as they try to make their churches relevant in their cultures.²⁰ This extrabiblical innovation allows Calvinists to alternate between definitions of the church based on the particular conversation in which they are engaged. When speaking of ideals, the invisible worldwide church, sometimes termed the universal church, is the primary subject. When speaking of practice, the visible local church is typically in mind. This elastic definition of the church is the source of some confusion in contemporary conversations between Calvinist Baptists and non-Calvinist Baptists.

In opposition to the Anabaptist and Baptist ideal of regenerate church membership, for Calvin, as for Augustine, the visible church is definitely not intended to be a pure institution. It must rather remain a mixed church with both elect and non-elect secretly ensconced therein.²¹ This resort to the mixed church does not mean that Calvinists reject the practice of discipline, for they most certainly advocate such. However, separatism or schism is to be avoided at all costs, even if it means the demise of the regenerate church. Alas, moreover, for Calvin and many Calvinists, the visible local church is often confused with the diffuse Augustinian rendition of the universal church as a worldwide present reality! The local churches are subsumed under the universal church as a present though invisible gathering.²²

From a Baptist perspective, these Calvinist positions cause difficulties. The Augustinian definition of the universal church contradicts the eschatological definition of the universal church taught by the apostle John (see Rev 19:1–10) and affirmed at the end of Article VI of The Baptist Faith and Message. According to the founder of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, the universal church will not gather until the end of time when Christ is in its midst bodily. Moreover, “all teaching in the direction that there now exists a general assembly which is invisible, without ordinances, and which is entered by faith alone, will likely tend to discredit the particular assembly, which does now really exist and which is the pillar and ground of truth.”²³

Religious Intolerance

Second, Calvin’s doctrine of the church depends not only on Augustine’s innovation of the invisible church but also upon the earlier theologian’s religious intolerance. Augustine misinterpreted the parable of the Wheat and the Tares in Matt 13:24–30 so that he equated the field with the church rather than with the world.²⁴ This interpretation is disastrous for two reasons. First, it explicitly contradicts the interpretation that Jesus Christ Himself gave to His parable (Matt 13:38). Second, when coupled with Augustine’s diffuse understanding of the universal church, it also enables the persecution of religious dissenters.

On the one hand, Augustine criticized the Donatists for upholding the ideal of the regenerate church, claiming that they were trying to bring schism to the worldwide church. On the other hand, Augustine also encouraged the persecution of the Donatists claiming they were disrupting not only the church but also the state, which were now mixed together in the Constantinian synthesis. The state must enforce unity upon the church as a service to Christ and even to aid in the salvation of the schismatics themselves. Augustine equivocated with regard to persecution, sometimes arguing for and sometimes against religious persecution. Later medieval churchmen radicalized his views, creating a persecuting state that suppressed all religious dissent in the name of the universal church.²⁵

Calvin adopted the Augustinian arguments for religious persecution, including the misinterpretation of Matthew 13. He repeatedly used such arguments in his emotional rebuttals of the Anabaptists.²⁶ These earlier free churchmen, in his mind, were “perverted,” “malicious,” and possessed by “insane pride.”²⁷ In spite of his intolerance toward the Anabaptists, Calvin, like Augustine, also periodically pleaded for religious tolerance.²⁸ The hypocrisy of Calvin’s extreme intolerance, demonstrated in particular toward Michael Servetus, was not lost on the Christian humanist Sebastian Castellio. Castellio took Calvin to task for the latter’s role in the prosecution and execution of Servetus. Servetus was burned at the stake for two matters: his denial of the Trinity and his denial of infant baptism.²⁹ Servetus did err with regard to the Trinity. The religious intolerance of John Calvin, which has been subsequently defended or downplayed by Calvinists, is also a gross error.

Over against such intolerant attitudes and actions, there stands the clear witness of the baptizing tradition. Religious intolerance is entirely unacceptable for Christians, and religious liberty is a God-given right that all human beings possess. Tolerance has been the consistent witness of the baptizing tradition from the first religious liberty text, written by the Anabaptist Balthasar Hubmaier in 1524, who was himself tortured by Ulrich Zwingli, until today.³⁰ The doctrinal rigidity, demonstrated most horribly in the repeated persecution and slaying of the Anabaptists by the Reformed is indicative of two irreconcilable outlooks regarding what it means to be a faithful Christian. The Reformed murder, through public drowning, of Felix Manz in 1527 under Zwingli, and the Reformed murder, through public burning, of Michael Servetus in Geneva under Calvin, manifest a fundamentally flawed outlook toward both God and man.

The Southern Baptist position, on the other hand, is clear: “A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.”³¹ The question is not whether Calvinists today agree with such horrible acts, for they certainly do not. The question today is whether hastiness in judgment is still evident within certain strains of Calvinism.³²

Aristocratic Elitism

The impact of Calvin and Calvinism on the development of modern democracy has been a subject of much discussion. Some have denied outright that Calvin was a source of modern democracy; others have argued that Calvinism was an unconscious source of democracy.³³ The cultural conversation regarding Calvin’s attitude toward forms of civil government is interesting but only tangentially related to Calvin’s attitudes about the proper governance of the church. What is relatively clear is that Calvin defended an attenuated form of democracy within the churches even as he advanced an aristocratic elitism among ministers, doctors, and elders. Calvin preferred aristocracy, or more accurately representative aristocracy, to any other form of governance. This preference has created a tendency toward aristocratic polities within Calvinist churches, polities that more often than not result in extrabiblical organizations that place themselves between Christ and the local churches.

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the three classical forms of governance—monarchy (rule by one), aristocracy (rule by few), and democracy (rule by all)—were the subjects of extensive discussion for theologians. Many evangelical theologians, especially among the English, concluded that some form of “mixed polity,” or facets of all three governmental forms, might be best.³⁴ Calvin himself concluded that aristocracy, perhaps tempered with some surface democracy, was best: “For if the three forms of government which the philosophers discuss be considered in themselves, I will not deny that aristocracy, or a system compounded of aristocracy and democracy, far excels all the others.”³⁵

On the one side of aristocracy, monarchy was distasteful to Calvin, partially because of having to flee Paris after the famous placard incident and partially because of the errors propagated by the Roman hierarchy.³⁶ If Calvinism helped foster modern democracy, it was primarily through cobelligerency with democrats and republicans against the monarchies. However, on the other side of aristocracy, democracy also presented problems for Calvin. Calvin’s writings decry the anarchy and disruption to which the “heedless multitude” can lead.³⁷ Such heedlessness deserved special condemnation when he turned his thoughts toward that sixteenth-century baptizing group which he derisively termed “Anabaptists.” Rather than pure democracy, that was characteristic of the “mad ravings” of those who practice believers-only baptism,³⁸ Calvin advocated the aristocratic model of the ancient church. This aristocratic model is located somewhere between Roman hierarchicalism on the right and Anabaptist congregationalism on the left.

Although Calvin disliked the term “hierarchy,” he was not against a streamlined order in the church.³⁹ Most importantly, a church constitution must be orderly, possess dignity, and encourage moderation.⁴⁰ Dignity, order, and moderation were the measures by which Calvinists judged polity; and aristocracy, the rule of the fittest, accorded best with such virtues. Coming to the interpretation of Matt 18:15–20—a critical passage wherein Christ explicitly gave “to the church” the authority over the communion of members—Calvin proved innovative. Because Calvin considered aristocracy the superior form of governance, he advocated the creation of church courts: “Now these admonitions and corrections cannot be made without investigation of the cause; accordingly, some court of judgment and order of procedure are needed. . . . [W]e must give the church some jurisdiction.”⁴¹

By appealing to the need for some sort of “jurisdiction” while maintaining a fluid definition of “church,” Calvin created an opening for the introduction of intervening mechanisms above the local churches. Calvin proceeded to argue that this jurisdiction is best exercised by a number of men rather than one: “there is more authority in the assembly than in one man.” Calvin’s preference for aristocracy, when combined with his legal training, entailed the creation of various church courts above the churches. Citing the writings of Cyprian, Calvin advocated that a “senate of presbyters” be empowered with final governance of the local church.⁴² This senate of presbyters is composed of two orders: pastors and teachers on the one hand, and lay elders on the other hand.⁴³ In many Reformed communions, today, above the local aristocracy of the presbytery stand the regional aristocracy of the synod and the national aristocracy of the general assembly.

The first order of ministers, typically called pastors, is composed of those who are responsible for the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. Calvin held a high view of pastors, whom he called “the very mouth of God” and “the chief sinew” of the church, endowing them also with the authority for enforcing “fraternal correction.”⁴⁴ The second order, of doctors, defined as a separate office in the Draft Ecclesiastical Ordinances but folded into the office of pastors in the Institutes, encourages the Reformed to elevate scholars to the level of pastors. (What academic theologian does not desire that honor!) The next order, of lay ruling elders, depends on a highly speculative interpretation of 1 Tim 5:17.⁴⁵ The final order, of deacons, is relegated the task of tending to the poor and the sick, according to the form of the ancient church.⁴⁶

Historically, this principle of aristocracy has impacted not only the structures within the church but often encouraged the creation of structures above the local church, as mentioned above. Although some Calvinists have tended toward congregational independence, they have typically held to a more exalted view of the ministry than was typical among Baptists.⁴⁷ Alternatively, on the other side of congregational Calvinism is the historical phenomenon of Reformed episcopacy, wherein bishops hold an exalted place in church polity. Reformed episcopacy has manifested itself among the English Puritans and the Hungarian Reformed.⁴⁸ These two extremes—congregationalism and episcopacy—demonstrate the elastic nature of Calvinist ecclesiology, an elasticity encouraged by Calvin’s ill-defined “ancient church.”

Most often, however, Calvinists have opted for neither congregationalism nor episcopacy. Following Calvin’s preference for aristocratic elitism, they have adopted some form of Presbyterianism. The principles of Presbyterianism have been defined as “the parity of the clergy,” “the right of the people to a substantive part in the government of the Church,” and “the unity of the Church in such sense, that a small part is subject to a larger, and a larger to the whole.”⁴⁹ The historical result of these principles has been the creation of bodies above the local churches practicing governance in the name of “the church.” The confusion of biblical and extra-biblical definitions of the church is thus evident here too.

According to Calvin, the people of the churches do have a role, and a necessary role at that. He even faults the Roman Catholics for doing away with popular consent in the election of ministers. However, the pastors and the elders primarily handle the election of ministers and decisions regarding the admission or discipline of church members. They act on behalf of the church and then bring the decision to the church for its expected ratification. For instance, with regard to discipline, Calvin says:

Paul’s course of action for excommunicating a man is the lawful one, provided the elders do not do it by themselves alone, but with the knowledge and approval of the church; in this way the multitude of the people does not decide the action but observes as witness and guardian so that nothing may be done according to the whim of a few.⁵⁰

As a result of aristocratic elitism among Calvinists, “Sometimes this right [of the people in critical decisions] was little more than approval of a decision that had already been made.”⁵¹

It must be concluded that this tendency toward aristocratic elitism within Calvinism is incompatible with the teachings of the New Testament, as defined, for instance, in repeated confessions of Southern Baptists. According to the 2000 revision of The Baptist Faith and Message, both the aristocratic tendency and the related Calvinist use of synods and assemblies above the church are inappropriate. In contradistinction to the extralocal governance of the churches in Presbyterianism, Article VI states, “A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers.” In contradistinction to the aristocratic nature of Calvinism, Article VI states, “Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.” Of course, Baptists also affirm the leadership of pastors, but there is simply no room for Calvinism’s aristocratic elitism among Baptists, who hold dearly to the biblical doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.

Antinomian Tendencies

One of the tendencies that has characterized Protestant Christianity through its history, at times with greater ferocity than at other times, is that of antinomianism. “Antinomianism” derives from the Greek words for “against” (anti) and “law” (nomos). It refers to the idea that it is not necessary for Christians to obey the law of God. It has typically been advocated by second-generation reformers and eschewed by first-generation reformers. For instance, in Lutheranism, Johann Agricola argued against Martin Luther that the law was not even necessary to prepare people for the reception of the gospel. Luther subsequently modified his emphatic denunciations of the law by writing that Christian discipline also required obedience to the teachings of Christ.⁵² Later, antinomianism was present among those eighteenth-century Particular Baptists who emphasized Calvinism as the standard of orthodoxy. Hyper-Calvinistic Baptists were still around to receive rebukes from Charles Haddon Spurgeon in the nineteenth century.⁵³

A form of antinomianism, the setting aside of God’s law, is evident in the ecclesiology of Calvinism. This form of antinomianism arose in Calvin’s own work. While accusing the Anabaptists of “immoderate severity” for desiring a regenerate church membership, Calvin himself tended toward ecclesiological antinomianism. Calvin’s personal accusations against the Anabaptists covered over his lack of concern to uphold the Word of God when it came to the doctrine of the church. He believed “that many details of polity cannot be established from Scripture,”⁵⁴ and thus considered the Anabaptist insistence that Scripture provided the form for the church to be a form of legalism. Calvin did not arrive at his ecclesial antinomianism without struggle and, perhaps, against his own self-knowledge. Nevertheless, by degrees, he arrived at the point where he was willing to downplay the ethics of the church in the name of preserving the gospel.

A review of Calvin’s polemic against the Anabaptists, conducted at the same time he constructed his doctrine of the church, manifests this struggle. First, Calvin emphasized that the church is visible where the Word is preached and the sacraments are administered, but noticeably absent in this discussion of the “marks” of the church is church discipline.⁵⁵ Although he saw church discipline as the sinews of the church, he did not consider it necessary for the church.⁵⁶ Second, he set himself firmly against the idea of separation, schism, or sectarianism. Here, he demonstrated a subtle form of ecumenism related to his Augustinianism, an ecumenism which many of his followers have found attractive.⁵⁷

Third, Calvin made a distinction between “necessary” doctrines and “nonessential matters.” A lengthy quote may be illuminating at this point:

What is more, some fault may creep into the administration of either doctrine or sacraments, but this ought not to estrange us from communion with the church. For not all the articles of true doctrine are of the same sort. Some are so necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by all men as the proper principles of religion. Such are: God is one; Christ is God and the Son of God; our salvation rests in God’s mercy; and the like. Among the churches there are other articles of doctrine disputed which still do not break the unity of the faith.⁵⁸

Immediately following his rough delineation of essential versus non-essential doctrines, Calvin began his assault on the Anabaptists for separating themselves from those who live wicked lives. He referred to them as in the same class with “the Cathari of old” and “the Donatists, who approached them in foolishness.”⁵⁹ Against the Anabaptist ideal of the regenerate church, Calvin argued, “The church is mingled of good men and bad.”⁶⁰ Finally, Calvin introduced the doctrine of “forbearance” as a foil to the doctrine of the regenerate church.⁶¹ As a result, Calvin concluded that in the church the Anabaptists must accept “fellowship with wicked persons.” He agreed with them that the wicked should ideally not be present in the church, but one must still not separate from them.⁶² Calvin was upset with the Anabaptists not only regarding their regenerate church practices but also their denial of infant baptism.

John Calvin never could perceive that infant baptism was an extra-biblical innovation, even as he argued against the extrabiblical innovations introduced by the Roman Catholics. This failure on the part of Calvin and the Calvinists to perceive their own retention of unbiblical practices has been the cause célèbre for the separation that has been maintained between Baptists and other free churches, on the one side, and the bulk of the Reformed churches, on the other side. As H. E. Dana stated it, the Protestants—inclusive of the Lutheran, Reformed, and Congregational denominations—have made genuine advances in comparison with the Roman Catholics because they affirm the authority of Scripture: “They now accept the Scriptures as the direct and infallible guide in faith and practice. Where Protestants have erred has been in failing consistently to apply this principle. They have retained and advocated practices for which they have no really scriptural grounds.”⁶³ Calvin and the ecclesiological Calvinists are guilty of antinomianism—dismissing the law of Christ as necessary to obey—even though they themselves may not perceive such.

The separation of essential from nonessential doctrines has been part and parcel of Calvinism’s ecclesiological antinomianism. Often theological doctrines are defined as essential while ethical and ecclesiological doctrines are defined as nonessential. As John H. Leith stated it, “The Reformed tradition is distinguished not simply by its insistence that polity is important but also by its radical subordination of polity to the gospel.” He continued later, “The Calvinist insistence on the prevenience of God’s grace and upon the church as the company of the elect undercuts even the significance of the sacraments and, much more, the necessity of any structures of polity.”⁶⁴ When such attitudes are introduced into the Baptist context, hyper-Calvinism has historically not been far behind.

These subtle antinomian impulses explain why Calvinists are willing to innovate with regard to the church, while Baptists have often argued that God delivered a certain pattern for the church. It also explains why many Calvinists are more open to ecumenism in the name of unity in the essentials while dismissive of polity than are many Baptists.⁶⁵ Baptists have often been suspicious of ecumenical schemes for fear that they will supplant the will of the Lord for His churches.⁶⁶ Calvinism’s antinomian tendencies may also explain why some Calvinists adopt open communion while many Baptists favor either closed Communion or even strict Communion.⁶⁷ Many a Calvinist perceives church polity as nonessential to the faith while many Baptists perceive church polity as essential.

The Baptist tendency away from antinomianism is exemplified in the definition of church polity as a fundamental of the faith. According to J. B. Gambrell, three-time president of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Baptist fundamentals include:

The deity and lordship of Jesus Christ; salvation through the atonement made on the cross by Christ’s death; a personal faith in Jesus, essential to personal salvation; regeneration by the Spirit of God; a converted church membership; obedience to the command of Jesus in baptism, hence immersion of a believer, and this a condition of church membership; baptism and the Lord’s Supper as symbols not sacraments; each local church independent and self-governing, on the principle of a pure democracy; no orders in the ministry; the inalienable right of every soul to worship God or not to worship God, according to his own volition, or, in brief, the freedom of the soul in religion; separation of church and state, in the Kingdom of Christ; the Scriptures the supreme law.⁶⁸

The Baptist Faith and Message affirms Gambrell’s understanding of the essentials as inclusive of church polity and practices. In the preface of that document, Southern Baptists said, “We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice.”⁶⁹ In this regard, Calvinism is incompatible with the Baptist outlook.

Conclusion

These four tendencies characterize Calvinist ecclesiology: the ancient church, Augustinian innovations, aristocratic preferences, and ecclesiological antinomianism. As the local Baptist church encounters Calvinism, it will most likely experience portions or the entirety of these tendencies. It is the contention of this author that the Calvinist tendencies and their potential impact have their countervailing tendencies among those who are confessional and practicing Baptists. The extent of the impact will vary, dependent on the fervency of the advocate and the acquiescence of the church. From my own observation of the contemporary anecdotal evidence, the potential changes may include the following, many of which are a direct result of the four tendencies described above.

Those influences exercised by Calvinism’s ancient church concept and acceptance of the Augustinian innovations may include an increase in conversations about the universal invisible church; an increase in ecumenical relationships, including close cooperation with ministers and churches espousing Reformed polity, as opposed to singular commitment to the local churches; and an increase in conversations about cultural relevancy and cultural transformation alongside a decrease in emphasis upon religious liberty. Those influences exercised by the aristocratic preferences of Calvinism may involve adoption of the multiple elders model as opposed to a single pastor model; and, going one step further, the diminishing of congregational governance in favor of elder rule. Those influences exercised by the antinomian impulses of Calvinism may include admission of members on the basis of infant baptism and/or baptism by sprinkling or pouring, and the opening of Communion to those who have not submitted to baptism according to the Lord’s command and the apostles’ witness. Finally, related to all four tendencies is a potential increase in conversations about speculative doctrine alongside a decrease in evangelistic practices, such as the decline of invitations at the end of the worship service.

In spite of the challenges to Baptist identity that a zealous strain of Calvinism may present, some Baptists are convinced that they can remain Baptist while also being truly Calvinist. But, although such Baptists—and some capable and virtuous ones at that—have tried to combine Reformed soteriology with Baptist ecclesiology, the combination may ultimately prove unstable. As Richard Muller has argued, from the Reformed perspective, the two belief systems are incompatible. For Muller, being Calvinist is not only about the five points of the Synod of Dort. Being Reformed, which is the same as being Calvinist, entails accepting that tradition’s whole way of being Christian. Calvinism includes, among other things, the deemphasizing of personal decisions for Christ, infant baptism, and a healthy working relationship between church and state.⁷⁰ Muller, a highly respected Calvinist theologian, may be correct. In the end, it is impossible to be at once both truly Reformed and truly Baptist, especially when the local church is considered.

NOTES

1. E. R. Clendenen and B. J. Waggoner, eds., Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2008).

2. Although written with a pro-Calvinist agenda, one may consult C. Hansen, Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008).

3. M. B. Yarnell III, “Article VI: The Church,” in Baptist Faith and Message 2000: Critical Issues in America’s Largest Protestant Denomination (ed. D. K. Blount and J. D. Wooddell; New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), 55–70.

4. For a summary review of Baptist Calvinism, see M. B. Yarnell III, “Calvinism: Cause for Rejoicing, Cause for Concern,” in Calvinism, ed. Clendenen and Waggoner, 73–95.

5. For a more detailed discussion of Zwingli’s ecclesiology, see W. P. Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 260–70.

6. W. R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 10.

7. Ibid., 12.

8. Ibid.

9. Zwingli, “Of Baptism,” in Zwingli and Bullinger: Selected Translations with Introductions and Notes (ed. G.W. Bromiley; LCC; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953), 138.

10. G. W. Bromiley, “Introduction,” in ibid., 126.