Adoniram Judson: There are certain names in history that are almost beyond criticism. Adoniram Judson is one of them. He is remembered as one of the great missionary pioneers of the nineteenth century, a man who left America, endured extraordinary suffering, translated the Scriptures, and spent decades laboring in Burma. Within Reformed and Calvinistic circles, Judson is regularly placed among the heroes of missionary history. Missionary. Baptist. Sufferer. Translator. Pioneer. He is frequently presented as evidence that belief in sovereign grace does not hinder missionary zeal, and has even been identified specifically as a Calvinistic or Particular Baptist missionary. The story has been repeated so often that the theological credentials can almost be assumed.
Thomas Nettles, in the book: By His Grace and for His Glory, writes, “Judson was a Calvinist, but did not wear his Calvinism on his sleeve.” That description is significant because it reflects a much broader pattern in the way Judson has been remembered. Reformed and Calvinistic Baptist writers have repeatedly situated him within the tradition of sovereign grace, and Judson has accordingly been mentioned alongside some of the most familiar names in evangelistic history, such as Whitefield, Carey, Spurgeon, and others.
His suffering and perseverance are frequently interpreted through the lens of his confidence in God’s sovereignty, and within Reformed Baptist historiography he is often presented simply and positively as a Calvinistic Baptist missionary. One description calls him “a selfless Calvinistic Baptist missionary.” In other words, within these circles Judson is not ordinarily introduced as a man whose doctrine of salvation should immediately raise concern. He is received as one of their own – a suffering missionary whose theology belongs comfortably within the heritage of sovereign grace.
There is nothing inherently wrong with recognizing those elements of his life and background. But once a man is so thoroughly incorporated into a theological tradition, there is always a danger that the label becomes a substitute for examining what he actually taught. So let us set aside the reputation and the theological labels for a moment and listen to a few of Judson’s own words. The following comes from a letter written in 1831 and addressed: “To the Female Members of Christian Churches in the United States of America,” in which Judson urged Christian women to abandon ornamental and costly dress and devote the savings to charitable and missionary purposes.
“Still less idea can they form of the awful darkness, which rests upon the great mass of mankind, in regard to spiritual things. During the years that you have been wearing these useless ornaments, how many poor creatures have been pining in want; how many have languished and groaned on beds of abject wretchedness; how many children have been bred up in the blackest ignorance, hardened in all manner of iniquity; how many immortal souls have gone down to hell, with a lie in their right hand, having never heard of the true God and the only Savior. Some of these miseries might have been mitigated; some poor wretch have felt his pain relieved; some widow’s heart have been made to sing for joy; some helpless orphans have been rescued from hardened depravity, and trained up for a happy life here and hereafter; some, yea many precious souls might have been redeemed from the quenchless fires of hell, where now they must lie and suffer to all eternity, had you not been afraid of being thought unfashionable, and not like other folk!”
After this, the admonition becomes even more pointed. Judson urges these women to surrender their ornaments and consecrate their value to missionary work. What began as an appeal concerning dress becomes something far heavier. The women are not merely being told that they could have used their money more wisely. They are being made to feel that their jewelry stood between lost sinners and redemption. Are words like these harmless?
No, because words about redemption are words about Christ. If Judson’s statement is true, then redemption is not something Christ actually secured for His people, but something left uncertain – something that may finally fail because another sinner failed to act. If a soul can be eternally lost whom Christ might otherwise have redeemed simply because someone else did not surrender an ornament, then salvation is no longer certain in Christ. It has become contingent upon the obedience, generosity, and decisions of men; and in this case, upon women who are being made to carry the crushing implication that souls were lost because of how they spent their own money. And once redemption is made contingent in that way, the glory and certainty of Christ’s finished work are not merely compromised – they are destroyed.
At this point we have to stop speaking about missionary method and speak plainly about salvation. Either Christ redeemed His people, or He did not. Either His death actually secured their salvation, or it merely created an opportunity that may finally be lost through human failure. Judson’s language pushes us directly into that question, and Scripture does not answer it ambiguously. Christ did not come merely to make redemption available. He came to save His people from their sins.
What bewilders me is how easily these two systems are now mixed together and then treated as though they were merely different emphases within the same gospel. We speak of sovereign grace while using language that leaves salvation suspended upon man. We speak of particular redemption while reasoning as though Christ merely created a possibility. We speak of election, effectual calling, and the finished work of Christ, and then turn around and speak as though eternal destinies finally rise or fall with human decisions. That mixture should trouble us.
Because in the end, if all we have is a religious system, whether we call it Arminian, Calvinistic, Reformed, Baptist, or Missionary, then we have missed the point entirely. The issue is Christ. Did He save His people, or did He merely make salvation possible? Did He obtain redemption, or did He leave redemption waiting upon man? Those are not small distinctions. They reach into the very substance of the gospel. The question is whether salvation is of the Lord. If Christ redeemed His people, then their redemption rests in His work, His blood, His righteousness, and His accomplishment. MPJ