W.T. Brantly on denying irresistible grace by Peter Lumpkins

William Theophilus Brantly, Sr. (1787-1845) was a popular preacher in the south during the first half of the 19^th century, and served Philadelphia's historic First Baptist Church as pastor. Additionally, as editor of The Christian Index, Georgia Baptists denominational state paper, he was one of the most prolific Baptist editors in the United States. The Christian Index is the nation's oldest continually published religious newspaper dating back to 1822 with the legendary Luther Rice as its first editor. Brantly edited the newspaper from 1827 to 1833, at which time the paper was moved to Washington, Ga., and assigned to the capable editorial skills of Jesse Mercer.¹

Brantly was not one's typical Baptist of the south—at least the kind of Baptist we normally hear about from our Founders Calvinist advocates. For example, Brantly questioned predestination, the darling doctrine of Baptist Calvinists, and expressed confusion about what predestination even meant. Of the relationship between predestination in the past with applied salvation in the present, he queried:

But there is a defective link in this chain, which being touched even gently, the whole falls asunder. For what is predestination? Who can define it? Who can describe its powers, its operations, its limits and its bearings? Is it something different from God, or is it something identical with him? Is it fate, necessity, or destiny, as the ancient philosophers maintain? For my own part, I frankly confess, that I know not what it is.²

On the other hand, the subject of irresistible grace remained perfectly clear so far as Brantly was concerned. In short, he did not accept the strong Calvinistic insistence on the unalterable nature of initial grace, especially its supposed "irresistibility." In the same sermon quoted above entitled, "God's Gracious Purpose," a sermon based upon the text, "Who will have all men saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 1:4), Brantly unequivocally rejected the notion of irresistible grace, assigning the "I" in T.U.L.I.P. to the heap of abusive interpretation of God's Word. After rehearsing the position of those who embrace some form of irresistible grace, a grace allegedly designed to "subdue all their opposition [to being saved] by a violence of divine compassion which will drag them away from the jaws of destruction," Brantly remarks:

And my first observation tending to obviate that difficulty, is that the grace of God as put forth and exerted in the salvation of sinners, is not irresistible.* If the salvation of sinners were a matter so decided and so fixed by changeless decree, as to leave them no power of resistance, no liberty, no ability to seek and procure perdition for themselves, then the impenitent who defer all compliance with the mandate of God, are wise and commendable, because they cannot perish. An invincible necessity determines their lot, and places them beyond the possibility of ruin.

But let me not be misunderstood when I affirm that the grace of God is not irresistible. My meaning is this: it offers no violence to the natural dispositions of the human heart. The power which attends it, is not coercive, is not imperative, is not an authoritative driving of the soul into a new condition of being. It does not so arrest, and so oblige the sinner by superior force, as to divest him of all personal liberty, and cast him into the imprisonment of an unwelcome custody.

The power which grace exerts is the power of persuasion, of illumination, or of attraction. The energy which accompanies it is far from the asperities of constraint; the efficiency which it possesses, though approaching towards compulsion, yet stops short of it. It calls the soul effectually, moves it by rational inducements, rouses it from the sleepy torpor of unbelief, and informs it by the teachings of the Holy Spirit; but in all this there is nothing that impairs the freedom of choice, or of action.

      *When I say that grace is not irresistible, I must be understood to mean, that it does not act upon the soul by any coercive necessity, to the exclusion of rational motives and inducements; and that it does not so oblige any to be saved, as that they cannot procure final condemnation for themselves, if they please. [original footnote by Brantly]

A stronger denial of irresistible grace is hard to imagine. But Brantly is not finished. He later peels back the skin on many Calvinistic proof texts for irresistible grace as it's related to predestination and thoroughly exposes the thin veneer offered by High Calvinists as their biblical rationale for the "I" in T.U.L.I.P.—texts including Acts 13:48; Romans 8:29, Ephesians 1:5,11; Psalm 60:3; Romans 11:2-5. Brantly then concludes:

Should it be alleged that the great scriptural doctrine of election confers absolute certainty upon the salvation of some portion of mankind, and that the operations of grace must be irresistible, at least upon the elect—I reply: Be the doctrine of election what it may, it evidently teaches nothing inconsistent with the idea that salvation is so propounded to all men, as to make its acceptance or rejection a possible thing. This acceptance or rejection is also made to depend upon the free arbitration of a power within us, and however that power may be influenced, controlled or impelled in forming its determinations, it is laid under no necessity either of acceptance or rejection, because either is possible, which could not be if compulsion intervened.

What I am now insisting upon, is in full view of the fact, that some are converted and some are not; some regenerated and some not; some are true penitents and others never feel one genuine emotion of the sort; some love God and bear the impress of sanctity, while others remain under the dominion of unbelief and hardness of heart; and all this diversity is witnessed under the same administration of visible means... .

From all which I conclude, that election is of grace and not of necessity; that it effects nothing towards any man's salvation, independently of repentance and faith; and that it therefore makes no provision for irresistible grace. That the Holy Spirit does exert a greater influence upon some minds than upon others within the pale of the same visible administration of means; and that this greater influence must account for the conversion of some, whilst others remain unconverted, is what I fully believe. That salvation too is wholly of the grace of God, and that it is God that worketh in us both to will and to do, is a position to which my mind fully accords. But I am equally confident in the belief that all this is done without the least interference with the freedom of the human soul.

If I may repeat: a stronger denial of irresistible grace is hard to imagine.

Even so, Founders Calvinists like Al Mohler, Tom Nettles, and Tom Ascol take great pains to historically remind us of Calvinistic stalwarts in the 19^th century.³ And, we confess our appreciation for their emphasis on the "Reformed" tributary flowing into the southern river of Baptists, a tributary without which we could hardly grasp the richness of our Southern Baptist heritage. What remains unacceptable is the presence of a sometimes blatant historical arrogance oozing from many Founders Calvinists; namely, that while southern Baptists who came to be the Southern Baptist Convention were monolithically Calvinistic, they tragically lost that Calvinism in the first quarter of the 20th century. Consequently, they contend, we've "lost the gospel" because, in large part, we've abandoned the strong Calvinism which was all but universal amongst the "founders" of Southern Baptists. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president, Al Mohler, expresses this sentiment ably when he said,

Even the opponents of Calvinism must admit, if historically informed, that Calvinism is the theological tradition into which the Baptist movement was born. The same is true of the Southern Baptist Convention. The most influential churches, leaders, confessions of faith and theologians of the founding era were Calvinists—it was not until well into the twentieth century that any knowledgeable person could claim that Southern Baptists were anything but Calvinists (//link)

We think if anyone suffers from "theological amnesia" it is definitively not Traditional Baptists. We readily acknowledge the Calvinist tributary to our Southern Baptist heritage and believe it historically truncated to argue otherwise. Contrarily, what we will not allow Calvinists like Mohler, Nettles, or Ascol to either forget or ignore is, there exists more than a single, significant tributary to our theological movement. Therefore, try as they may, historical reductionism cannot frame the debate for Southern Baptist theology today—and will not frame the debate as long as Traditional Baptists are not marginalized from the discussion. We will continue to rewind the historical tape of strong southern Baptists like Andrew Broaddus who rejected Limited Atonement and W.T. Brantly who decidedly rejected the Calvinistic notion of Irresistible Grace and listen as their voices demonstrate our Southern Baptist theological heritage to be a lot messier than new Calvinists want us to believe.

Hence, the Traditional Statement recently released by Dr. Eric Hankins at SBC Today, a statement categorically denying both Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace, can hardly be said to go only as far back as 1963 as Tom Ascol wrongly suggested. Dr. Hankins was merely standing on the theological shoulders of 19^th century Baptists of the south before him, Baptists like Broaddus and Brantly.

The truth remains--explicit denials from eminent southern Baptists concerning Calvinistic contours of our faith are readily available to those who will take the time to investigate the historical record. And, know we intend on continuing the investigation of our Baptist forefathers for we intend on continuing our shout from the housetops that our history is definitively not as sleekly Calvinistic as the new Calvinism maintains.

truth is unkillable... 

¹The Christian Index was first published in Washington D.C. under the moniker, The Columbian Star. Brantly changed the name to The Christian Index in 1831. The paper later moved from Washington to Penfield to Macon before coming to Atlanta in 1865. (//link)

²pp. 55-56. All quotes here and henceforth from Brantly are taken from the sermon entitled, "God's Gracious Purpose" found in Themes for Mediation Enlarged, in several sermons, Doctrinal and Practical, William T. Brantly, Philadelphia 1837. pp. 49-83. Longer paragraphs are intentionally broken for greater readability

³in fact, one can find a sermon tract by Brantly on the Founders website. "THE COVENANT OF CIRCUMCISION: NO JUST PLEA FOR INFANT BAPTISM" is reprinted in The Founders Journal. While Brantly is quoted in a few other writings on the Founders website (mostly footnotes), I found no other contribution written by Brantly himself. And, I certainly found no evidence Brantly denied irresistible grace in "God's Gracious Purpose"

Comments

[Max]

Peter writes "Hence, the Traditional Statement recently released by Dr. Eric Hankins at SBC Today, a statement categorically denying both Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace, can hardly be said to go only as far back as 1963 as Tom Ascol wrongly suggested."

I offer another pre-1963 text from a prominent Southern Baptist in this regard. O.C.S. Wallace wrote "What Baptists Believe" in 1934. This book was published by the SBC Sunday School Board and used extensively as a training course for Sunday School workers as the prevailing SBC belief and practice in the 1930s. In his book, Dr. Wallace writes:

"Here is a Sovereign who has became a Saviour. In this great transaction of grace we see a shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep. If it is said that this electing grace does not include all who need salvation, the answer must be that it includes all who are willing to become the heirs of salvation. Salvation is not narrowed in the goodness of God, but in the waywardness and resistance of men ... Salvation comes to the soul that comes to salvation. Forgiving Saviour and penitent sinner meet."

[Lydia]

Keep it coming, Peter. It is such a blessing to read these posts showing a different history than the one presented. As a history buff, I know that history is often more nuanced than what people present to argue a certain position. Much of it is rewritten, reinterpreted or ignored.

[peter lumpkins]

Excellent quote, Max. It will be more and more difficult in the future for some Baptist Calvinists to deprive SBCers of their theological mosaic by marginalizing voices in our Baptist heritage which do not meet the approval of Calvinist elites.

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks Lydia. Let's see, Limited Atonement is denied by a prominent Baptist (19th century). Now, Irresistible Grace is denied by a prominent Baptist (19th century). Tomorrow, total depravity will be denied by a "founders" Baptist Calvinist (19th century). Good heavens. We're down to 2 Point Calvinism! ;^)

With that, I am...
Peter

[Max]

Peter, I recently picked up a tattered copy of Dr. Wallace's book "What Baptists Believe" for a quarter at a yard sale. It must have been predestined. I've already got my 25-cents worth!

Here's another gem of a quote from that book illustrating what Southern Baptists professed 80 years ago:

"It is by the truth that men are made free and alive. But the truth does not effect the spiritual change working alone ... in order that truth may become effective for the transformation of a sinful man, it is necessary for the living Spirit of God to use it upon the man; but, on the other hand, it is necessary for the man to know truth. Regeneration takes place only when the soul of the man yields to these ideas. His yielding does not regenerate, though his resistance may hinder regeneration. It is when his soul assents to the truth which has been lodged in his mind, and consents to the domination of these truths in the realm of will and purpose, that he is regenerated."

Hmmmm ... sounds remarkably similar to affirmations and denials in the "Traditional Statement."

[Lydia]

A "Founder" denies total depravity? Oh my.

Now how many points does it take to be considered an SBC Calvinist? I forget. Or perhaps they are busy lowering the points as we speak. LOL.

[Mary]

But, but, but, Peter, Tom Nettles said....

[peter lumpkins]

Mary, you are a funny girl! Hope all is well...

With that, I am...
Peter

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Dr. Lumpkins:
Read the post, and I am most curious about this part:

"He later peels back the skin on many Calvinistic proof texts for irresistible grace as it's related to predestination and thoroughly exposes the thin veneer offered by High Calvinists as their biblical rationale for the "I" in T.U.L.I.P.—texts including Acts 13:48; Romans 8:29, Ephesians 1:5,11; Psalm 60:3; Romans 11:2-5."

As you didn't provide Brantly's exegesis of these texts and how he "expose[d] the thin veneer offered by High Calvinists" do you have a link to where we could see this message you have quoted from here? Or, could you perhaps post them here or another post? I would love to read what he had to say.

Many thanks,
sdg,
dbh

[A poster in support of moments of humor]

Peter,

The problem is quite clear. You were not around at that time with your impressive nose for non-calvinists. Had you been there you could have sniffed out these people so that they could be appropriately marginalized.

(This is a jest in fun, please have a sense of humor)

[peter lumpkins]

All

One tires of childish games played by some bloggers today. One blogger posted a comment on the post here, a comment to which I responded. He claims he posted another comment on another post (and perhaps he most certainly did try to post a comment; I have no reason to think he’s making it up) but for some reason he charges I declined to post it. He wrote (yes, in a main blog post):

I left a comment which has not yet been approved by Lumpkins to be published… . Why has Lumpkins declined to publish my comment and observation?  I cited this and said that it appeared, from this part of the citation, that Brantly did not accept the Arminian explanation of things.

First, why even publicly question this in the first place? His first comment was published. Why would I refuse to publish the second? But why not shoot me an email instead of jump to conclusions? Or why not try again?

It’s true after a series of exchanges, I frequently end up warning commenters the exchange on this particular item is coming to an end. Most commenters respect that and have their final say. Others push it past the limits of reasonable exchange and won’t stop. When that happens I’m known to stop publishing their comments (of course many like this because they now have bragging rights that I refuse to publish their comments.). I do this for two reasons:

1) there comes a time to holster one’s pistol and stop shooting. Either they are all dead or they are out of range of your short shooter;

2) the host blog where one is commenting as a guest is entitled to the last word on any exchange. This is standard etiquette. I have no right to demand someone else give me the last word on anything they write. I don’t expect it elsewhere; nor should anyone expect it here. At times I’ve allowed people to have the last word. At times I’ve had the last word elsewhere. Even so, when the blog host says, let’s move on, I don’t think I’ve ever attempted to usurp his or her decision to do so. The wonderful thing about the internet is, I can go back to my pad and write anything I want to write about it, and then I get the last word! 

Even so, Stephen’s Garrett’s comment did not remotely qualify for non-publication. And, as I explained to him, his comment was not in the spam bucket either. Nor did I get an email from typepad that I received a comment from him on my site (when I receive comments on posts, typepad sends me an email; but when a comment goes to spam for whatever reason, I get no email). Hence, his comment probably got gobbled up by the cyber-blackhole.

Second, why would I refuse to post an innocuous comment like he claims he posted?  Here’s what his lost comment apparently contained:

Brantly said:

"That the Holy Spirit does exert a greater influence upon some minds than upon others within the pale of the same visible administration of means; and that this greater influence must account for the conversion of some, whilst others remain unconverted, is what I fully believe."

This is a partial line from the quotation I cited from Brantly. Garrett then suggested “that it appeared, from this part of the citation, that Brantly did not accept the Arminian explanation of things.”

O.K. That’s a fair question to raise—not a point well taken as I show below—but a fair challenge nonetheless. But it hardly comes to the level of my necessarily hiding it or declining to post it for heavens’ sake.  What are some of these guys thinking?  Do they think their questions are so intelligently inspired that non-Calvinists like me can only survive the devastating analysis of Calvinists by declining to publish their probing questions? Like another Calvinist here, this comes across as theologically smug and implicitly arrogant, and caves in to the commonly projected stereotype that Calvinists are priggish, theological bluenoses. Enough of that.

Now to respond to Stephen’s point.

First, I never implied Brantly was accepting the “Arminian explanation of things.”  I never mentioned Arminianism. At all. To simplistically cast soteriology into an either/or polemic as in “either one is Calvinist or one is Arminian” is the standard method of argumentation Calvinists like Garrett pursue (and Arminians like Roger Olson). Baptists like myself argue that while Southern Baptists have been influenced by both Calvinists and Arminians we are necessarily neither. What I did do was show Brantly rejected the standard Calvinist notion of irresistible grace.*

Second, from my perspective, Garrett surely needs to salvage Brantly as a strong Calvinist, and I can understand. Brantly was pastor of First Baptist Church Philadelphia, the stronghold for Calvinistic Baptist confessionalism. Out of Philadelphia came the most widely used Calvinist confession based upon the 2nd London Confession. Yet here is Brantly pastoring the church there and apparently denying one of Calvinism’s darling doctrines. Oops.  That’s not good. It very well could mean that for all the historical hoopla about Calvinistic confessions, Baptist churches in the 18-19th centuries may have tolerated a lot more theological diversity than Baptist Calvinists today admit. It may also suggest that just tallying up the number of churches that had Calvinistic confessions during the “Founders” days, a tallying often going on by Founders historians like Nettles and Ascol to “prove” all Baptist churches were basically Calvinist, determines jack squat for what the people in the pews actually believed.

Third, no, it makes no sense to cite the words Garrett does to deny Brantly rejected irresistible grace.  That the Holy Spirit exerts a greater influence upon some than others does not equate to the Calvinistic notion of irresistible grace. Heck, I believe that. What Brantly flat out rejected was not greater grace but irresistible grace. He plainly says, the grace that initially comes to us in salvation is “persuasion…illumination, [and]…attraction” but is “far from the asperities of constraint; the efficiency which it possesses, though approaching towards compulsion, yet stops short of it.” (embolden added). He even says, point blank:

“…the grace of God as put forth and exerted in the salvation of sinners, is not irresistible*…it does not so oblige any to be saved, as that they cannot procure final condemnation for themselves, if they please” (embolden added)

Brantly explicitly denies irresistible grace. And, of initial grace for salvation he uses the actual words not irresistible. Yet Calvinists like Garrett will not even believe Brantly’s own words. Instead  Garrett tires to soften them by suggesting he didn’t have the “Arminian explanation” of them. This is pure nonsense. Brantly denied the irresistibility of grace, the very same denial as Arminians make. Does that make Brantly an Arminian. No. On irresistible grace, it makes Brantly a biblicist.

With that, I am…

Peter

*for the record, nor did I mention “effectual grace” as Garrett suggests

[peter lumpkins]

All,

To Stephen’s credit, he acknowledged my explanation about the comment on his blog, and we thank him.

Blessings, Stephen.

With that, I am…

Peter