Kenneth W. Yates
Editor
I. INTRODUCTION
In December 2018, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, released its “Report on Slavery and Racism in the History of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary”(hereafter RSR).1 As the title suggests, the RSR deals with how in its past Southern Seminary and its leaders were involved in the issues of slavery and racism. Specifically, the report tackles the problem of how Southern Seminary excluded black students and taught that such students were inferior to their white counterparts.
As an alumnus of Southern Seminary, this writer finds the RSR of great interest. But it is also of interest because the issues raised in this discussion relate to Free Grace concerns.
Southern Seminary is not a Free Grace institution; it is Calvinistic. However, it seems that the results of the self-analysis which the seminary subjected itself to challenges one of the central tenets of Calvinism, i.e., the perseverance of the saints.
In this article, I will discuss the findings of the RSR. My goal is to show there is a contradiction between holding three beliefs: first, that the founders were heroes of the faith; second, that they were guilty of gross sin; and third, that genuine believers persevere in faith and good works until death. After explaining the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, I will try to develop how this impacts the debate between Free Grace Theology and Calvinism on this important tenet.
II. THE FINDINGS OF THE RSR
The RSR paints a very dark picture of Southern Seminary’s past. The authors of the study are to be commended for their honesty.
A. The Authors of the RSR
R. Albert Mohler, Jr., is the president of Southern Seminary. He commissioned six present and past faculty members to write the RSR. Mohler contributed to the report, writing an introduction to their findings.
B. Mohler’s Summary
Mohler is very blunt in his introduction as he summarizes the findings of the six faculty members. He concludes that the seminary has a long history of sin.
He acknowledges the sins of the founders and the need for Southern to repent for what these men and many who followed them did. But he goes even further. He says that the Southern Baptist Convention reported back in 1995 the same thing he is saying now. The Convention was guilty of the same things, and the seminary is following the Convention’s example.2
For Mohler, the sins include the “horrifying realities of American slavery,” as well as support for Jim Crow segregation. The founders were racists who advocated white racial supremacy. He admits that those who were guilty of these sins were the “cherished heroes” of the seminary.3 Mohler calls this the legacy of the school.
All four of the founding faculty of the school were deeply involved and complicit in these sins. And this legacy lasted for a hundred years. Many of the successors on the faculty proclaimed segregation and held to the inferiority of African Americans. Mohler admits, and it is painful for him to do so, that the school’s faculty often supported the “Lost Cause.” This was the view that the Confederacy was righteous and that white supremacy was a fact. It also maintained that blacks generally lacked the ability to learn, to study literature, or to govern themselves. The seminary continued supporting the “Cause” into the 1950s and 1960s. Mohler says the institution is complicitly guilty of the same sins even today because of the lack of “historical curiosity.”4
1. Mohler’s Internal Struggle
The four founders of the seminary were James P. Boyce, John Broadus, Basil Manly, Jr., and William Williams. In Mohler’s view, these men were great defenders of the gospel of Christ and Biblical truth. They also held strongly to what the seminary teaches. They believed that repentance was an essential part of the gospel. They even preached to black American slaves a gospel of repentance and faith in Christ. They desired the salvation of these men and women. Mohler counts them as heroes of the faith, as the men and women of Hebrews 11 were.
At the same time, however, they had an unbiblical ideology of race which allowed them to defend racist views and slavery. He wonders how Christians could hold such right and wrong beliefs simultaneously.5
2. Are Societal Norms an Excuse?
Do the times in which men live excuse their sins? Can we argue that the founders of Southern Seminary only reflected the racist times of the South prior to and during the Civil War? Some may argue, for example, that Martin Luther could be excused for his anti-Semitic views because of the times in which he lived.
To Mohler’s credit he does not use societal norms as an excuse. He claims that Luther was a “great paragon of the Reformation” who taught glorious truths of the Bible. He was a creature of his own time and the society in which he lived, but he was still an anti-Semite. His views on race were “vile.” Mohler claims that neither Luther nor the founders of Southern Seminary can be excused for their long history of hatred and racism.6
3. Is Mohler Inconsistent?
Mohler claims that Boyce, Broadus, Manly, and Williams, as well as many who followed them at Southern, were great Christian men. They were the heroes of those who followed them. But at the same time, he says that these founders were vile racists. They never repented of these sins, even though, in Mohler’s view, repentance is part of the gospel. In fact, they taught others to follow in their footsteps, and these sins continued for many decades.
In his introduction, he points out that these men were not perfect. “Total sanctification” does not occur for believers in this life. That only awaits the world to come.7 It is clear that Mohler believes that the four founders of Southern Seminary as well as the faculty who lived like these men and taught what they taught will all be in the kingdom of God. At the same time, Mohler believes in the perseverance of the saints. As this article will attempt to show, maintaining that these men will be in the kingdom, while holding to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, results in certain inconsistencies.
C. The Six Faculty Writers
The primary writers of the RSR discuss the long list of sins of which the founders of Southern were guilty. Those who followed these founders were likewise guilty. It is clear that this is a painful endeavor for them, just as for Mohler, as they point out that these sins continued among the leaders of the seminary for approximately a hundred years.
1. The Denomination Was Guilty of These Sins
The RSR points out that the Southern Baptist Convention, which established Southern, was also racist, supporting the “morality of slaveholding and the justness of the Confederate effort to preserve it.” As part of the denomination, the donors to the seminary as well as trustees held positions of leadership in society. They used these positions to promote the superiority of the white race and the inferiority of the black race. Instead of combating racial injustice and oppression, they promoted both. Because, in their view, the black race was inferior, they argued that slavery was righteous.8
At the same time, they desired the eternal salvation of the black race. They called upon slaves to repent of their sins and to “entrust themselves to God’s mercy through faith in Jesus Christ.”9
Early trustees of the school often argued that God had determined that blacks should be slaves. To oppose slavery was to rebel against God. They also argued that slavery was good for the slaves. They were better off under the rule of whites than they would be as free men and women.10
The RSR maintains that the denomination as a whole held on to their racist views for many decades. When Southern Seminary began to integrate, most churches in the South resisted such changes. For example, they demanded that visiting prospective black students not be allowed to eat in the cafeteria with white students.11 Due at least in part to the pressure of these churches, the first black students were taught in separate classrooms.
2. The History of Southern Seminary
The faculty and leadership of the seminary also promoted white supremacy and the inferiority of the black race. It was common for the faculty to support the “Lost Cause” of the Confederacy until the 1940s. The school was completely segregated until the 1940s as well. Even when black students were admitted, they had to be taught in separate rooms from white students and have separate graduations. Many called for society to be governed with this philosophy. One leader of the seminary in the 1880s wrote that it was “immoral and wrong to demand that negro civilization should be placed on par with white.”12
Not only did all four founders of the seminary own slaves, they became wealthy off slave labor. For example, they were able to hire out their slaves to white farmers.13 Basil Manly, Jr., agreed with many trustees by saying that black slaves in America were better off as slaves of white owners than living free in Africa.14
The founders and faculty of the seminary often used the curse of Cain in Genesis to show that God approved of and established slavery. They argued that slavery was to be a permanent institution. The intellectual inferiority of the black race was seen as a proof of their theological views.15 Boyce called himself “ultra pro-slavery.” He argued against secession from the North prior to the Civil War because he felt it would spell the end of slavery, and the end of slavery would dishonor God.16
The RSR suggests that the founders, as well as some trustees, held to their racist views for very practical reasons. The seminary was originally located in South Carolina. Prior to the Civil War, it would not have been possible to obtain funding for the seminary without supporting slavery. Slaveholding affected nearly all aspects of life in the South. It allowed the founders and others to secure stability and prosperity for themselves and their families. At least one trustee of the seminary was anti-slavery in his younger days, but was soon proclaiming the inferiority of the black race and the righteousness of slavery.17
These considerations put these men in an even worse light. The suggestion is they treated black human beings badly, at least partly, for monetary reasons. They used the Scriptures to support their racist views but were also motivated by greed. Instead of speaking the truth of Scriptures, they were conformed to the philosophy of the age in which they lived (contrary to the teaching of Paul in Rom 12:1-2).
Even darker, the writers relate the history of a leader at Southern after the Civil War who had political connections and used them to get black convicts to work in his coal mines for little or no pay. He was notorious for his mistreatment of these men. His view was that one had to mistreat blacks because that is the only way to get them to work. Many of them died in his employment due to their mistreatment. Through their loss, he became extremely wealthy.18
The list of racist actions and teachings by the faculty enumerated in the RSR is long. William Carver, a long time faculty member, wrote that he was upset that a black man was allowed to eat at the White House. He maintained that the majority of black citizens were simply not capable of being educated. The school adopted this attitude. Native Americans could attend Southern as long as they could prove there was no black blood in them.19
Leaders at Southern also appealed to science to defend their view that the black race was inferior to the white. Once again appealing to genetics, long time faculty member Charles Gardner said that the only reason some blacks gain even a measure of academic success is because they must have a measure of white blood in them.20 One is reminded here of the “scientific” studies and blood laws of Nazi Germany.
The statement by Broadus in this regard also reminds us of how the Nazis thought of and depicted Jews:
The typical Negro, with thick lips, flat nose, protruding jaws, narrow and retreating forehead, is entirely distinct from the other two races, and vastly inferior in point of intelligence. For my part, I never saw one of these who could be regarded as very intelligent.21
3. Political Effects
The RSR holds that the leaders of Southern Seminary were not content to promote their views only on campus. They wanted their racist views to impact politics.
Manly was from South Carolina. After the Civil War, he called for the removal of blacks from certain towns in his state. Boyce said that whites must take political control of South Carolina. These views were shared by the faculty of the school. Government was meant to be run by white men only. Boyce fought to remove the right to vote for black citizens.22 In the 1876 election in South Carolina, Broadus was a particularly vocal supporter of the Democrat party. The Democrats called for restoring complete white rule in the state.23
The writers of the RSR said these political views caused the leaders of Southern to have to walk a delicate line after the Civil War. They needed the money of rich northern Baptists in order for the seminary to survive. So when in the North, men like Broadus and Manly said they loved and respected blacks. But when in the South, they argued for the inferiority of blacks and called for refusing them equality before the law as well as the right to vote. This led to many of the faculty ministering to the black community while at the same time viewing them as inferior.24 The reader of the RSR will probably cringe at the hypocrisy of these Christian leaders.
4. Spiritually Mature Racists?
The faculty writers of the RSR clearly agree with Mohler that the founders and faculty of Southern Seminary were racists and taught the inferiority of the black race. However, they still saw these men as “spiritual.”25 On more than one occasion, they mention that these men were concerned about the eternal souls of the slaves that lived in their midst.
5. What Caused the Change?
The RSR does not specifically state what caused Southern Seminary and the Southern Baptist denomination as a whole to change their views on race. But it at least hints that the reason was not from studying the Scriptures.
The change came about as society itself changed, particularly the South. The Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education took a big step toward integrating education. The views towards the black race were changing. The Civil Rights movement was based in the secular world. As these things were unfolding, and Southern was going through the process of integration, one faculty member wrote:
Our churches have tended to become conditioned more by our culture than by our Christ. So often our churches merely reflect the standards, the folkways, and the mores of the community, rather than the ethical standards of Christianity.26
One would think that this was particularly hard for present leaders of Southern Seminary to write. After admitting that the school had a long history of “vile racism,” they came to the conclusion that the world pointed out their sin instead of believers living righteously by demonstrating love towards even fellow Christians in the midst of a fallen world.
D. Conclusion
Some, no doubt, would claim that the RSR is too hard on the history of the Southern Baptist Convention and Southern Seminary. They might maintain that these churches and leaders were godly and sincere and that the men were simply products of the era in which they lived. Proof of these facts would include that these men who lived in the past cared about the souls of the slaves in their midst. They honestly, but mistakenly, believed that the way they treated these slaves was best for the slaves themselves.
That, however, is not the view of the RSR. For the purposes of this article it is simply to be noted that Mohler and the six writers freely admit that the denomination and Southern Seminary had a long history of racism and hatred towards their fellow man and even some fellow Christians. They were guilty of numerous sins and continued to live in these sins their whole lives.
In the conclusion to the RSR, the writers admitted that both Southern and the denomination as a whole were guilty of the “deplorable sin” of racism. This racism was both individual and systemic. Mohler said that the teaching of racial superiority was not only a heresy, it results in “getting the gospel wrong.”27 The RSR leaves no doubt that, in the minds of the writers and Mohler, Southern Seminary had a very long history of sin, heresy, and distorting the gospel.
But there is a very important point that the RSR does not discuss. How does this history align with Southern’s doctrine of the perseverance of the saints?
III. PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS
Free Grace Theology is often attacked by those who hold to the Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Some mistakenly believe that the doctrine of perseverance is equivalent to “once saved, always saved.” But that is not the case. The doctrine of perseverance maintains that if a person is truly a Christian, he will persevere in faith and good works until the end of his life. That means a true Christian cannot “continue” living in sin. But the doctrine of eternal security (“once saved, always saved”) does not make that guarantee.
By contrast, Free Grace Theology—which believes in the doctrine of eternal security, not the doctrine of perseverance—affirms that Christians can indeed live ungodly lives to the point of death, and even die in a state of apostasy, and still be eternally secure.
While it is always dangerous to characterize an institution as a whole, it is doubtful that Mohler and most at Southern Seminary would object to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. They would also quickly reject the Free Grace view of Christian living and the possibility of a true Christian’s continuing in a life of disobedience to God.
A. Statements on Perseverance
While there are differences of emphases on the doctrine, a brief survey of certain theologians will demonstrate what those who hold to the perseverance of the saints teach. Grudem, for example, says it means one of the evidences that a person is truly born again is that he continues in the Christian life.28 Palmer agrees and says that while believers are eternally secure (which emphasizes the activity of God), Christian perseverance in good works emphasizes the activities of Christians.29
John MacArthur is another strong proponent of the perseverance of the saints. In commenting on 1 Pet 1:2, he says that obedience must be the direction of our lives. A person knows he is eternally saved by the marks of the new nature within him. This includes the practice of repenting of and confessing every sin. If a person does not do that, there will “be a dark cloud” over his assurance.30
In a discussion that relates to the findings of the RSR, MacArthur says that a true Christian will do righteous deeds. He will love his fellow believers. An elect child of God manifests who he is by believing proper doctrine and by godly behavior. Those who are “false” believers will habitually practice sin. MacArthur says that a person cannot truthfully claim to be a Christian and keep on sinning. He admits that Christians do sin, but if they are truly saved, they will react to that sin with “grief and repentance.”31
B. Agreement Among Southern’s Faculty
While men like MacArthur and Grudem do not teach at Southern, their teaching on the perseverance of the saints would get a warm reception. Thomas Schreiner is a renowned faculty member and NT scholar and is the James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation at the school.
He comments that obedience cannot be separated from faith. Faith, obedience, and repentance are evident in the life of true believers because these things are the gifts of God. Perseverance is the mark of genuine faith. Perseverance is not only the maintaining of faith, and thus not apostatizing, it also includes living a life of godliness. The goal achieved is love for fellow believers. Only those who continue to live such a life will receive eternal life.32
When it comes to the assurance of salvation, Schreiner agrees with MacArthur. He claims that if a professing Christian lives contrary to the will of God, there is no warrant for such assurance. While believers are not sinless, the true believer will see a dramatic change in how he lives. Believers’ lives will not be “characterized by sin.” Those who continue to do evil will not be in the kingdom.33
Mohler himself agrees with these sentiments. He discusses the problem of assurance of salvation. For him, true saving faith is demonstrated in a transformed life. Like Schreiner, he appeals to the writings of Peter (2 Pet 1:10). This transformed life is the evidence of a “new heart” and the “salvation experience.” True believers have a faith that is accompanied by repentance from sin and an eagerness to follow Christ. Even though they sin, they can never “remain” in it.34
In a recent book, Mohler applies this theology to the culture in which he currently lives.35 He speaks about the sexual revolution of our day and the many sins associated with it. In particular, he speaks of the sin of homosexuality and support for homosexual marriage. He points out that even most millennials who attend church do not oppose such unions.36 This is not just impacting Christian ethics; the gospel itself is at stake. If we do not call sin sin, we cannot proclaim the Biblical gospel, because in order to be saved, an unbeliever must understand the seriousness of sin.37
Mohler’s view on the relationship of sin to the proclamation of the gospel is also related to his belief in the perseverance of the saints in good works. He says that all true Christians seek to live in obedience to God. In applying this doctrine to the homosexual, Mohler maintains that a practicing homosexual cannot be a Christian. They can only claim to be a Christian “insofar as they are fellow repenting believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.”38 If they are truly saved, they will obey and submit to Christ by walking in obedience to what the Lord commands. If they fall into sexual sin, they will soon repent as a result of the sanctifying ministry of the Holy Spirit.39
IV. SOUTHERN’S DILEMMA
With the publishing of the RSR, Southern finds itself in a dilemma. Since Mohler sponsored and contributes to the RSR and is the current president of the institution, his words are an appropriate illustration of the problem the school faces.
On the one hand, Mohler claims that the founders of the school committed the vile sin of racism. The school as a whole followed in those footsteps. They were filled with hate, even towards some fellow Christians. By their actions, they denied the gospel they claimed to preach. They were guilty of heresy. They used such teachings for their own financial gain. They sought the approval of the world. It appears that the school only changed because the views of the world changed. Perhaps most importantly of all, according to the RSR, the founders never repented. They remained in these sins. They continued in them. They did not call such actions sin. Instead, they appealed to the Bible to support their sinful conduct. These sins went on for well over a hundred years.
On the other hand, Mohler and the RSR say these men were heroes of the faith. They are in the same category of great men and women of faith in the Bible. The founders, for example, are held in high esteem at the institution. Their portraits hang in the halls. The undergraduate school is named after one of these slave owners. A major chapel is named after another one of these heroes.40
And yet, Mohler says that true Christians cannot continue in sin until death. For example, because of their doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, Mohler and many of the faculty say that a practicing homosexual cannot be a Christian. A true Christian cannot continue in such sin and will repent of it. He will walk in obedience.
But if homosexuals are held to that standard, why not racists? The RSR and Mohler are inconsistent. When it comes to the founders of the school, they evidently believe that mature believers can continue in disobedience (i.e., in the sins of hatred and racism) until the end of their lives. In the case of those men, repentance is not necessary to be in the kingdom of God. Why the inconsistency?
It is easy to understand why the RSR and Mohler claim these men were believers. Those past leaders formed the foundation of who they are today—both at the seminary and the denominational level. In some cases, they were the physical ancestors of Christian leaders. They were their spiritual mentors. The notion that they were not even Christians is unthinkable. But if one both believes in the perseverance of the saints and accepts the findings of the RSR, the unthinkable is the only conclusion possible. To say that a lifelong practicing homosexual cannot be a Christian, but that a lifelong practicing hateful racist can, is glaringly inconsistent.
Not surprisingly, some at Southern see this inconsistency. Andrew Smith, writing for the seminary, agrees with Mohler that the lives of the founders leave an unsettling question. How could people who passionately taught the Bible be racists and own other human beings? He admits that there should have been repentance long ago. Sadly, Southern can do it today, but the dead founders cannot.41
But there is an even more unsettling question: if all true believers repent of their sins while living, and this is a part of the gospel itself, why did these men never do so?
These troubling questions point out a problem with Calvinism in general and the perseverance of the saints in particular. One cannot hold to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints and the findings of the RSR at the same time. A person who accepts the findings of the RSR and believes in the perseverance of the saints, as Mohler does, must conclude that many of Mohler’s spiritual heroes will be eternally lost.
V. FREE GRACE THEOLOGY IS CONSISTENT
Free Grace Theology does not have the same problem as Calvinism. It recognizes that Christians can continue in sin and hatred and still be eternally secure children of God. Like the founders of Southern Seminary, and many who followed in their footsteps at the school, Christians can live lives which deny the very Word of God they teach.
Based on their writings, it is impossible to know which of these men were born again. The RSR tells us the gospel these men preached, namely, that they called for repentance when they told people how to be saved from hell. Clearly, they did not listen to their own message.
But repentance, while important, is not a part of the saving message.42 It is not a co-condition with faith to be born again. Repentance is turning from sin, which is a work. But eternal salvation is by faith apart from works of any kind. The saving message is simple. Everyone who believes in Jesus Christ for eternal life receives that life. It is a life that can never end, thereby implying eternal security. If Broadus, Manly, Williams, or Boyce ever believed that simple message, they will be in the kingdom of God. Their eternal destiny will not change, regardless of the damage their examples and teachings caused millions of people.
Since the founders mentioned in the RSR taught that salvation also depended on repentance, we could add another sin they committed: they preached a confusing (if not false) gospel.43
VI. CONCLUSION
Oftentimes, theological discussions are thought to be dry and philosophical and not relevant to men and women in their daily lives. That is not the case with the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Our churches are filled with people who do not know if they will spend eternity in the kingdom of God because they believe in the doctrine of perseverance, yet also freely admit they continue to struggle with sin every day.
The RSR illustrates this problem. According to the RSR, a major denomination, seminary, and many heroes of the faith had a long history of sin and hatred and the founders of those institutions did not repent of their sins before death. In fact, they gloried in, and justified, their sins. But these same men (along with their spiritual descendants) also taught that true Christians cannot persist in sin until death. And yet, that is what they did. So what is the conclusion? If we adopt their Calvinist theology of perseverance, the only consistent conclusion is that these “heroes” of the faith were actually false Christians.
But the problem for Calvinist theology is wider than that. Every believer sees sin in his or her life. Nobody is guaranteed that he will continue in the faith until the end of his life. If perseverance of the saints is Biblical, and no one can know if they will persevere, then assurance of salvation becomes impossible for any believer.
But the saving message produces assurance, not doubt (John 11:25-27; 1 John 5:9-13). The answer to these doubts and inconsistencies is to reject the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance and simply believe the saving message of everlasting life through faith in Christ. If the men mentioned in the RSR ever believed in the saving message, they were eternally secure, and will be in the kingdom, even if they died in the sins of hatred and racism.
____________________
1 “Report on Slavery and Racism in the History of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,” December 12, 2018, https://www.sbts.edu/southernproject/. Accessed February 8, 2019.
2 RSR, 1.
3 Ibid., 2.
4 Ibid., 2, 43.
5 Ibid., 3.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid., 5.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid., 14.
11 Ibid., 58.
12 Ibid., 7-8.
13 Ibid., 10.
14 Ibid., 14.
15 Ibid., 15.
16 Ibid., 20.
17 Ibid., 16-17.
18 Ibid., 34-36.
19 Ibid., 43-44, 48.
20 Ibid., 57.
21 Ibid., 55.
22 Ibid., 25-27.
23 Ibid., 31.
24 Ibid., 29.
25 Ibid., 43.
26 Ibid., 65.
27 Ibid., 70-71.
28 Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: A Complete Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016), 788.
29 Edwin H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism: A Study Guide (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 68-69.
30 John MacArthur, Jr., Chosen for Eternity: A Study of Election (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 40-41.
31 John MacArthur, Jr., Marks of a True Believer (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1987), 49, 52.
32 Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2003), 56, 79, 93, 363. Schreiner maintains that 1 Pet 1:2, 14, 22 and 2 Pet 2:20 all support his conclusions.
33 Thomas R. Schreiner and Ardel B. Caneday, The Race Set Before Us (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001), 55, 286, 296.
34 https://albertmohler.com/2006/07/17/guarded-through-faith assuranceand-the-doctrine-of-perseverance. Accessed July 23, 2019.
35 R. Albert Mohler, Jr., We Cannot Be Silent (Nashville, TN: Nelson Books, 2015).
36 Ibid., 147.
37 Ibid., 13, 138-39.
38 Ibid., 143.
39 Ibid., 142, 173.
40 http://www.sbts.edu. Accessed June 25, 2019. The undergraduate school is called Boyce College. The chapel is Broadus Chapel.
41 Andrew J. W. Smith, “The Baptist Courier: Informing and Inspiring South Carolina Baptists,” Vol. 150, Greenville, SC, Jan 2019, 10.
42 See Robert N. Wilkin, Turn and Live: The Power of Repentance (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2019).
43 It is beyond the scope of this article to address the verses that Mohler and others use to support the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. As a general rule, they take these verses out of context by applying verses that deal with eternal rewards to the requirements of receiving eternal life. For example, 2 Pet 1:10 is clearly addressing “true” believers. Peter calls them “brethren.” By doing good works, these believers make their calling sure by demonstrating to others who they are. They are called to be great in the kingdom of God (v 11). These verses are a call to be greatly rewarded when Christ returns. For a good discussion of all five points of Calvinism see, Robert N. Wilkin, Is Calvinism Biblical? Let the Scriptures Decide (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017).
