Pinson, J. Matthew. Arminian and Baptist. Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2015.

Introduction

Why would a Particular Baptist read a book on Baptist Arminianism? Is it an indicator that I am being wooed to the “dark side” of theology? Labels mean something and the term “Arminian” can mean just as many things that are not so, in a similar way as the term “Calvinist.” Dr. J. Matthew Pinson seeks to persuade the reader that not all Arminianisms are equal and that there is a “Reformed Arminian” tradition many in the Calvinistic world are unfamiliar with. Dr. Pinson serves as the president of Welch College, a Free Will Baptist institution, in Nashville, TN. In Arminian and Baptist, Pinson seeks to point to a history of Arminianism that is more “Reformed” than Wesleyan especially in the General Baptist tradition.

Summary

In chapter one, Pinson looks at the historical and theological backdrop of Jacobus Arminius. Pinson argues that Arminius suffers from being misunderstood by both Calvinists and Arminians. Pinson states, “Most Reformed critics have portrayed him as a semi-Pelagian and a defector from Reformed theology, while most Arminians—Wesleyans and Remonstrants—have cast him in Wesleyan or Remonstrant terms, failing to take his theology itself and the context in which it was spawned” (1). A brief biography of Arminius is followed by the setting of the historical context in the Dutch Reformed Church (3-8). Pinson points to how Arminius understood himself as teaching in line with the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. Arminius praised Calvin’s work in interpreting and exegeting the text. In regards to the doctrine of justification, Arminius stated that he would sign his name to everything Calvin wrote on the doctrine in the Institutes (10).

Pinson then adds that “it is a mistake to exaggerate the importance of the doctrine of predestination” to such a level that it becomes the core doctrine that defines what is and is not Reformed theology (10). Pinson then provides a statement that he will repeat several times in the book: “Arminius differed from the strong Calvinists on how one comes to be in a state of grace, but not what it means to be in a state of grace” (10). This leads into a section discussing the views of Arminius regarding free will and predestination. While most Calvinists will be familiar with the arguments set forth in this section, the subsequent section on Arminius and original sin, will cause some to pause. Pinson shows from Arminius’ writings how the theologian held Augustinian views on original sin (17). From there, Pinson surveys how the doctrines of justification by faith alone in Christ alone form the core of Arminius’ reformed theology. Arminius writes, “In his obedience and righteousness, Christ is also the Material Cause for our justification, so far as God bestows Christ on us for righteousness, and imputes his righteousness and obedience to us” (25).

In chapter two, Pinson fleshes out the nature of Arminius’ views on the atonement. Pinson cites from both the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism as forming the heart of Arminius’ understanding of the atonement (40). The threefold office of Christ as prophet, priest, and king serve as a theological grid for Arminius. From there, Pinson works out how that Arminius did not hold to a governmental theory of the atonement that would later become a popular model adopted by men like John Wesley. Instead, Arminius held to a penal substitution view as demonstrated by his writings regarding divine justice, ransom, wrath, and the priestly function of Christ on the cross (41-50). These two chapters attempt to distinguish Arminius from what many believe is mainstream Arminianism and thereby labelling him as a semi-Pelagianist.

In chapters three and four, Pinson turns to the early 17^th century General Baptists exemplified by John Smyth and Thomas Helwys. Pinson states that it is wrong to view the General Baptists as holding to the Arminianism commonly found in the Church of England. Instead, Pinson sees Helwys and others holding to “Reformed Arminianism” in a similar way to Jacobus Arminius (57). Pinson provides a brief historical sketch of these two men tracing how Smyth came out of a Puritan background to a Separatist view to then eventually a Baptist understanding of polity and the ordinances. As Pinson notes, within a three to four year period, Smyth and Helwys moved from “staunch Calvinist Puritans within the Church of England to anti-Calvinist, antipadeobaptist Separists” (61). The turning point comes when Smyth, Helwys, and others arrive in Holland and begin communications with the Waterlander Mennonites. Through these events, a separation occurs between Smyth and Helwys. Helwys drafts a confession of faith in 1611 showing their soteriological differences with Smyth and the Mennonites as well as on Christology, church succession, and the role of the magistrate (62).

Pinson compares and contrasts the theological views of the two men especially when it comes to soteriology. While both rejected the Calvinistic understanding of predestination, Helwys stands in the Reformed tradition when it comes to original sin and justification. Smyth, following after the Anabaptist/Mennonite stance, understood justification as a blending of Rome and the Reformation. Helwys, however, argues clearly for justification as taught by the Protestant Reformers. From his confession of faith, Helwys states “That justification of man in the presence of God only consists in the obedience and righteousness of Christ, apprehended by faith. Yet faith without works is dead” (77). Helwys’ stance on justification, like Arminius, is closer to the heart of the Reformation than later Arminian theologians. Pinson then examines Helwys’ work on predestination which deals with many arguments presented by Calvinists and shows a thorough (though in my judgment incorrect) response to the Calvinist arguments.

In chapter five, the attention turns to a later 17^th century General Baptist, Thomas Grantham. Pinson describes Grantham as “the quintessential representative of Arminian Baptist theology, combining classical Arminian soteriology with a distinctly Baptist view of church and state” (101). After providing a brief biography of Grantham, Pinson’s chapter contrasts Grantham with John Goodwin, the Puritan Arminian. Walking through the doctrines of original sin, depravity, human inability, atonement and justification, and perseverance and apostasy, Pinson demonstrates that while both men were “anti-predestinarians,” they were rather different in their theological positions. Over and over, Pinson shows how Grantham falls in line with Helwys and Arminius regarding a more Reformed view of original sin, justification, and penal substitution. Goodwin rejects imputed righteousness, penal satisfaction, and held to a more governmental model of the atonement. In a masterful way, Grantham extols the passive and active obedience of Christ being imputed to believers in a way that Goodwin vehemently rejected (114-115).

In chapter six, Pinson gives an overview of John Wesley’s views on the atonement, justification, and apostasy. Wesley is a complicated theologian for he cannot be reduced to categories in many respects. Wesley, for example, held to a modified penal substitutionary view while commending the works of John Goodwin and Richard Baxter. Wesley accepted Christ’s passive obedience in His death being imputed to us but not His active obedience. This view causes Wesley to say that justification is the forgiveness of past sins but not of future sins. Pinson summarizes Wesley well when he writes, “Wesley’s theological originality makes him difficult to assess” (148).

Chapter seven brings the meat of the book to a close by looking at the history of tradition and confessionalism in General Baptist and Free Will Baptist history. Pinson takes to task the notion that Baptists are anti-confessional, stress only individual soul competency, and make the private judgments of believers the final standard (153-154). Pinson notes, “Historically, the General-Free Will Baptist tradition has seen itself in continuity with the saints and martyrs of the Christian past—and the further back that goes, the better it is! With the individualism, consumerism, and consequent ‘amusing of ourselves to death’ so ascendant in American evangelicalism, this mentality is most in need of revival.” (158). Pinson walks the reader through how the 17^th century General Baptists’ confessions like the Standard Confession and Orthodox Creed show how these Baptists saw themselves as standing in a heritage of Nicaea and the Protestant Reformation. Pinson deals with some issues of confessional subscription, including the Caffynite controversy, and how General Baptists in England and later America were committed to confessions of faith.

The book concludes with three appendices that are book reviews. Pinson provides a review of An Introduction to Classical Arminianism, Whosoever Will, and Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.

Critical Evaluation

Dr. Pinson covers a lot of ground in this book. There is no denying that he carefully examines these men, their historical contexts, and goes to the primary sources to bolster his arguments. In the preface, he explains that several of these chapters were originally journal articles. This provides the reason why some statements and quotes are repeated often throughout the book.

One area of weakness in the book to me is that Pinson provides no concrete connection or cited influence of Arminius upon men like Helwys or Grantham. As Pinson admits himself (58 and 78), there is no historic proof that these men were reading the works of Arminius. The only case that can be made is one of inference and speculation. While it is true that there are definite similiarities in the position, I do hope that more information can be gleaned or discovered that would shed light on possible direct impacts and connections between Arminius and the early General Baptists.

As a Particular Baptist, one who subscribes to the 2LBCF, I am regularly reminded by some of my Calvinistic paedobaptist brethren that I am not “truly Reformed.” Perhaps it is more odd to see Arminians claim to be Reformed. Does Pinson have a point in making such a claim? If one makes a Calvinistic view of predestination the sole criteria, then Arminians are disqualified in the same way some paedobaptists look at infant baptism as the sole criteria for who is “Reformed.” I am sympathetic to the case that Pinson lays out for two chief soteriological reasons. First, he does a consistent job of showing the difference between Arminius, early General Baptists and the theological views that came later in men like Wesley, Grotius, and even Charles Finney. It is unfortunate and erroneous to see Charles Finney as representing historic Arminianism. Second, Pinson demonstrates how a historic Augustinian-Reformed view of original sin and depravity as well as Reformation understandings of justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ and penal substitution were doctrines that historic Arminians held closely as their Calvinistic counterparts. If we see the five solas of the Reformation as the heart of Reformed theology, can we consistently say that Arminians are not reformed at all?

When it comes to ecclesiology, I would argue that it was the Baptists, both General and Particular, who were the most consistent when it came to reformation. I would wholeheartedly concur with Pinson who says, “I view being ‘Reformed,’ as my ancestors did, as being about (1) the reformation of the church along New Testament lines and (2) the gospel—atonement and justification, by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone” (206). With Pinson, I agree that our Baptist heritage is rooted in Puritan Separatism and not Continental Anabaptism. If two streams flow from the Reformation when it comes to purity in the church and in the gospel, both Arminian and Calvinsitic Baptists are perhaps the only ones who can properly claim the label “truly Reformed.”

Finally, I am very appreciative of the emphasis on retrieval in this book. Pinson shows us what these men were writing and saying in their published works as well as showing how Baptists did not fear claiming the tradition of the ecumenical creeds and writing confessions. Pinson is spot on in decrying the false interpretation of soul liberty that has crept in Baptist life over the years. Pinson declares, “These early Baptists were persecuted for their views on religious liberty and the priesthood of all believers. They interpreted those ideas not primarily in terms of modern concepts of soul competency and personal autonomy but in more ecclesial terms. They did not cast their view of the priesthood of all believers merely in the language of individual rights. Rather, they viewed it in terms of believers covenanting together, serving as priests to each other” (134). As a hearty Calvinistic Baptist, I endorse every word of that statement.

Conclusion

In his endorsement of this book, Dr. Timothy George states that Calvinists will discover a set of first cousins they did not know existed in the form of Reformed Arminians. After reading this book, I give a similar endorsement. True, Calvinists will not be persuaded on predestination by what Arminius and Helwys said. However, I am convinced that the modern inheritors of the Particular Baptist heritage (which I view myself as) would do well to get to know men like Helwys, Grantham, and other General Baptists who were defenders of the orthodox faith. Furthermore, they will find more than just theological cousins but dear Christian brothers who are plodding along with us in seeking the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. I encourage you to pick this book up and learn more about a stream of Arminianism that is “Reformed.”