By Dr. Rick Patrick
Senior Pastor
Pleasant Ridge Baptist Church
Hueytown, Alabama
I must confess at the outset I have always been rather sympathetic toward Adam, for although he is not the only man in history to do whatever a naked woman told him, he does have the distinction of being the first. I do not presume for a moment that if it had been me in the garden things would have turned out any differently. I am a sinner who is guilty of my own sin–and no one else’s. To my shame, my sins have brought plenty of guilt upon myself without borrowing any of the guilt Adam’s sins brought upon him.
In a previous article, I dealt extensively with the subject of inherited guilt, responding to a fellow Southern Baptist who rejects the current confessional position of The Baptist Faith and Message on this issue. My treatment was limited to arguments rooted in the various versions of our confession, along with a discussion of the positions espoused by certain theologians and other religious groups. A few of the reactions to my response indicated a desire for a more thorough biblical and theological treatment, which is the purpose for this article, no longer shackled by the chains of a polemical response to the aforementioned brother, but now able to provide a more freestanding exegetical essay.
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned. (Romans 5:12)
Let me disclaim any suggestion that my view on the effects of the fall diminishes the existence of original sin. Because of the fall, we all inherit from Adam a sin nature and the inclination to transgress. Fallen, we will all sin. The issue I am addressing is not sinful transgression, but guilty condemnation. Adam’s sin spread to me and inclined me to transgress, but I am only guilty of sin “because all sinned,” including, of course, me.
The argument appears to hinge upon the translation in this verse of the phrase eph’ ho pantes hemarton. If one takes this to mean “in whom all sinned” then it is reasonable to conclude that each of us actually committed our own sin “in Adam.” Such a view argues in favor of inherited guilt. However, if one takes what James D. G. Dunn described as the “dominant consensus” view, we must render the phrase “because all sinned” and the normal interpretation then favors the inherited sinful nature without inherited guilt perspective. (Dunn, The Theology of the Apostle, 95)
While, then, we are responsible for our own sins and not guilty because Adam sinned, yet we do not just copy Adam in his sin but are predisposed to sin because he brought sin into the world. (Ernest Best, The Letter of Paul to the Romans, 60)
But the inherited sinful nature view should not be called a Pelagian view because it affirms the full sinfulness of humanity from the time of conception, which Pelagianism denies. (Adam Harwood, The Spiritual Condition of Infants, 34)
In other words, our guilt and condemnation come about because we each personally sin and not because Adam sinned while we were somehow present in him in a way that made us responsible for the sin that he committed. It bears repeating that this in no way denies the transmission from Adam to us of our sinful nature and inclination.
So then, as through one trespass there is condemnation for everyone, so also through one righteous act there is life-giving justification for everyone. For just as through one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:18-19)
Proponents of inherited sinful nature without inherited guilt interpret these verses as broadly applying to the very effects of the fall we inherited in our sinful nature. Indeed, this sinful nature leads to our own transgression resulting in our own condemnation and in the death which comes from our own sin. In contrast, through the obedience of Christ, we are able to be made righteous as a result of His perfect sacrifice for our sins upon the cross when we appropriate His grace through repentance and faith.
In other words, the effects of the fall (sinful nature, actual sin and condemnation) still come upon mankind regardless of which view one holds. The difference is that, in the case of the one who rejects inherited guilt, the condemnation comes only after one’s own personal act of sin, which itself resulted from the sinful nature inherited from Adam.
Fathers are not to be put to death for their children or children for their fathers; each person will be put to death for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16)
This verse stands for a variety of Old Testament passages (Ezekiel 18:19-20, Jeremiah 31:29-34, Psalm 79:8 and others) which argue against the transmission of guilt from one generation to another. The weight of Scripture supports this personal responsibility, but the contrary position is found as well (Exodus 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deuteronomy 5:9 and others) although most interpret the iniquity being visited in these verses as the natural consequences of sin with which families must contend. Although not directly speaking to the special case of our common ancestor Adam, these verses nonetheless lend support to the view that we become guilty only after we have personally sinned.
We too all previously lived among them in our fleshly desires, carrying out the inclinations of our flesh and thoughts, and we were by nature children under wrath as the others were also. (Ephesians 2:3)
The concept of being “by nature children under wrath” is only problematic for one who denies inherited guilt if one assumes that no personal sins have yet been committed. However, the context of the verse itself disabuses us of such a notion. The sinners in this passage are said to be already living among them “in our fleshly desires, carrying out the inclinations of our flesh and thoughts…” By this point, their sinful natures were already under severe condemnation for much more than the sin of Adam in the garden.
It should at least be noted once again that the placement of the word “condemnation” in The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 indeed follows that point in time when men who are capable of moral action become actual transgressors:
Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. (BFM 2000, emphasis added)
Clearly, the inherited sinful nature without inherited guilt perspective is the current confessional view of Southern Baptists. One of the most articulate expressions of this view, cited by Harwood, is the following quote by Timothy Dwight, one of the early presidents of Yale College:
When I assert, that in consequence of the Apostasy of Adam all men have sinned; I do not intend, that the posterity of Adam is guilty of his transgression. Moral actions are not, so far as I can see, transferable from one being to another. The personal act of any agent is, in its very nature, the act of that agent solely; and incapable of being participated by any other agent. Of course, the guilt of such a personal act is equally incapable of being transferred, or participated. (Dwight, Theology Explained and Defended, 478)
In conclusion, although my purpose in this essay has been to complement exegetically my earlier polemical approach, I must return briefly to the unfortunate insinuations of possible heresy which made these two articles necessary. While I can understand that some Southern Baptists might personally oppose a specific theological view espoused in our denomination’s confessional statement, the idea that they, possessing the contrary view, would actually accuse as heterodox the view of those who faithfully adhere to our confession, is in my opinion, a pill exceedingly difficult to swallow, creating a lump in my throat just above the only Adam’s Apple for which I am responsible at all.
I wonder if any person that used the Pelagianism charge has admited they were wrong.
No, they haven’t.
They should.
Has anyone made an accusation of Pelagianism?
modify: Semi-Pelagianism charge. My apology Chris Roberts for the error in fact.
I’m with CB. They should apologize for this gross mischaracterization and slander.
David
It would be difficult and a lie to admit to something that just isn’t true. Like or not it is Pelagian theology – “there’s nothing new under the sun”.
There is nothing new under the sun. Pelagian theology goes back to Jesus and the OT prophets. Pelagius didn’t invent it — there’s nothing new under the sun. No OT writer, and not Jesus either, teach the idea that we inherit Adam’s guilt. Pelagius must have read Ezekiel18, unlike you and the Calvinist ilk.
REY, “the wages of sin is death”. Babies die in the womb, period. Death is the result of sin. Sin IS transgression of the Law. There is NO OTHER biblical definition or reason for death. Unless you are calling God unjust?
You should have stayed in Romans 5 and completed Paul’s argument. No one would argue about Paul’s argument for imputed righteousness. You did not “not eat the apple” like Jesus did but you still get credit. How’s that fair? ;) Catch my drift? Imputed guilt and imputed righteousness are key to understanding Romans 5. We don’t inherit a “righteous nature” from Jesus. We inherit righteousness. And from Adam, our 1st representative, we inherit guilt.
I agree with Adam, in Romans 5 (not 12, typo) the point is that as sin and guilt are inherited in Adam so righteousness and innocence in Christ. You must see the direct analogy don’t you? And if so, then are you also saying that only the inclination to righteousness is inherited in Christ and innocence is applied as we live sin free if your ‘inclination’ view is applied faithfully to the comparision in the text.
or another question more basic: Was I born alive and then died and now “must be born again”? And if not and I was born dead and must be brought to life, then what could possible have made me be born dead save “the wages of sin”?
I think you agree with Allen (typo) — and yes, the reference should be corrected to read Romans 5:12, so thank you.
To both Allen and Bobby, let me simply point out, along with Erickson, that humans ratify the actions of both representatives. In other words, we ratify the work of Christ on the cross by appropriating the salvation He offers through repentance and faith, and in the same way we also ratify the sin of Adam to fall under condemnation and guilt.
We receive the guilt of Adam by virtue of physical birth. We receive the righteousness of Christ by virtue of new birth.
I suppose you believe that during the roughly nine month period between conception and birth, the guilt of Adam rests on the pre-born as well. In other words, isn’t your view that the guilt of Adam comes about nine months before physical birth?
Rick,
I suspect I may know where you are going so let me put it this way, and this works just as well biblically and logically: when I come into physical existence, I inherit sin and guilt from Adam. When I come into spiritual existence, I inherit righteousness from Christ. We know we come into physical existence at conception, but we still normally speak in terms of birth – thus we celebrate new life by birthdays, not by conception days. In a similar way, the Bible doesn’t speak of a conception period for new Christians, it simply speaks of the new birth.
Either way, as a descendant of Adam, I receive his guilt; as a descendant of Christ, I receive his righteousness.
I think I see what you are trying to say but once we “ratify” the sin of Adam are we or are we not “guilty” of Adam’s sin? Do we get credit for Adam’s sin? Because we DO get credit for Christ’s righteousness once “ratified”.
Just cut to the chase: You’re gonna die Rick, babies die and even in the womb. The wages of sin is death. NO other biblical reason or definition for DEATH. Counted PERSONALLY sinful before a Holy God. Death, death, death. God is just and perfectly righteous and you or anyone else cannot have it any other way. If we are not guilty then no punishment, end of story, BUT we are guilty and death proves it. Sorry, but that finishes a debate that should never start among bible believing Christians. Stop blaspheming the justice of God.
Allen,
I do believe in the imputation of guilt, but along with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, I believe in the “mediate” view of imputation rather than the “immediate” view. Dr. Adam Harwood summarizes the issue nicely:
“Both views teach that all people are sinful and guilty before God due to our relationship to Adam. And both views read Romans 5 as a parallel of Adam and Christ, in which Christ reverses through his obedience the condemnation that resulted from Adam’s disobedience. The difference comes when considering precisely whether a person BECOMES or IS ALWAYS GUILTY of sin and thus under condemnation of sin and death. …The second view is known as mediate imputation… This view affirms that everyone is SINFUL because of Adam, but it denies that we are GUILTY due to the sin of Adam. Instead, we are guilty and fall under condemnation only when God judges our own sinful thoughts, attitudes and actions.” (Harwood, “The Spiritual Condition of Infants,” 33)
I wonder again though, how this would still make Paul’s argument a true parrallel? He’s arguing that Christ makes us “righteouss” before God, so my understanding of justification is that we get full credit for all that Christ did. He took our sin, we take His righteousness. So once we sin are we just guilty of sin, or are we guilty of Adam’s sin as well? Because that seems to be Paul’s argument in Romans 5. Thanks for the discussion…
When one reads chapter five without their own personal grid placed over the top of Scripture they see a celebration of Grace not an argument for imputed wickedness. I have read where the challenge is to keep the analogy or the parallel between what happened in Adam and what happened in Christ. You cannot keep the parallel or the analogy they must break down. In one we get something we deserve in the other we get something we do not deserve. Paul is celebrating the fact that in Christ we get what we do not deserve imputed righteousness. It is a very minority that will take this wonderful chapter and argue for the imputed wickedness of man. What an injustice to the chapter!
Interesting post.
Semi-Pelagianism (what I think is what we have going on in many Christians – ‘a lot of God, and a little bit of me’) says that we are capable of and need to ‘do’ one or more little things to close the deal….to respond.
The fall puts us in a situation where we cannot. We are bound to sin. We will to sin. We don’t stop sinning…because we don’t want to stop sinning. We actually need a Savior and not a cosmic helper.
Thanks.
In contrast to your suggestion that anyone would believe salvation is “a lot of God, and a little of me,” consider these sentences from the Traditional Statement completely disavowing such a notion:
“…no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort.” (Article Two)
“We affirm that grace is God’s generous decision to provide salvation for any person by taking all of the initiative in providing atonement, in freely offering the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit, and in uniting the believer to Christ through the Holy Spirit by faith.” (Article Four)
“We affirm God’s eternal knowledge of and sovereignty over every person’s salvation or condemnation.” (Article Seven)
I think it’s fair to say that the Traditional Statement believes that salvation is ALL of God and NONE of man. What is denied is that God, in providing for man to freely respond, was in fact creating a job for us to perform or a work for us to do. The acceptance of work is not work. When I allow the waiter in a restaurant to fill my glass of water, I do not consider myself to have done anything. And yet, they will typically ask before they refill, and will stay away if I refuse.
It is contradictory to say that salvation is all of God and none of man, while also saying that man must, by his power, do something (make a choice, pray a prayer, etc) in order to be saved. I am not, at this point, saying that our response is a job, a work, a meritorious act – but nonetheless you are requiring man to take part in his own salvation. In your example of the filled glass of water, this is still the case: unless you did something, your glass would be empty. You had to do something for your glass to be full. In that example, it is the waiter who cooperates with you, who responds to your will, who answers your expressed desire, who waits for you to take the initiative in seeking to have your glass filled. He is standing there with the pitcher, he is offering it, he may even ask you if you would like a refill, but he will not pour the first drop until you, on your own, have asked for him to do so. His action cooperates with your will. Your glass being full is mostly due to his action, but remains partly due to your will. This is the TS view of salvation.
People put their faith in all manner of things. Unless your faith is in the one who has the power to to do what He says He will do, you’re faith means nothing. It’s only God who can accept the faith and stamp it as good. Faith is not a work and is nothing unless/until God stamps the account paid. It’s not the faith where salvation occurs, it’s God stamping the account paid where salvation occurs.
I can ask a restaurant full of waiters for a glass of water, but if none of them have the water, it does no good.
The actually work of salvation is on the side of God. He chooses who’s faith to accept. He doesn’t accept faith in ol’ Buddha. His game, His rules, He declares who is saved, who is not.
Chris,
You said, “It is contradictory to say that salvation is all of God and none of man, while also saying that man must, by his power, do something (make a choice, pray a prayer, etc) in order to be saved.” No, it’s not contradictory, and it’s the truth.
Repentance and faith are not works. Works are works. Repentance is repentance. Faith is faith. They are all separate things. Turning to God in simple, humble faith is not a work. It’s just simply a response to the calling and convicting of the Holy Spirit of God. There are absolutely no works involved in it.
David
David,
Call it whatever you want to call it, but I must still do something, even if the something I do is as little as crying out, “God save me!” That is still an action I must perform. I’m surprised it’s something we even have to argue. In order to be saved, there is something I must do. If I don’t do it, I will not be saved.
Chris,
I think you have in this last statement contradicted your own positions for it is my understanding the calvinist believes an individual MUST repent and MUST call out to God to be saved; the difference between the TS and calvinist positions are that for the latter it is God who effectually calls the sinner to do those things… whereas prior to that effectually calling the unregenerate man will not do so.
Might want to rethink this whole exercise… I think you err terribly, no?
><>”
Bob,
Here is the difference: in the TS, my calling out to God is something I do. In Calvinism, my calling out to God is something God does through me. In the TS, I retain the ability to respond to the gospel. In Calvinism, I have no ability to respond unless God does it.
But your challenge doesn’t change my point: in the TS, I must do something in order to be saved.
Chris,
Let me get this straight… in the TS, my calling out to God is something I do. In Calvinism, >b>my calling out to God is something God does through me.>/b> So… it is NOT you who is calling out; it is God calling out through you? Can you show me a Scriptural passage where God is the ONE who is repenting for ANYONE?
“In the TS, I retain the ability to respond to the gospel. In Calvinism, I have no ability to respond unless God does it. OK… so you are saying God responds to Himself through you? So it is not your response but His response to Himself…
You know if you said that in some places, they might put a straight jacket on you.
><>”
Bob,
Limiting me to just one? Fine. Philippians 2:12-13.
Rick,
Great article! Your closing paragraph sums the mess up on this subject in a brilliant way.
Thank you!
Rick,
I appreciate the tone of this article and chuckled at the turn of phrase at the end. I wonder, however, where are you getting the “ratification” idea that you put forward in the previous comment. How is it possible to “incline” to “ratify” Christ’s “righteous act” when we have an inherited nature of rebellious unbelief?
Kevin,
Thanks. As for sourcing the “ratification” concept, it is discussed in Adam Harwood’s excellent “The Spiritual Condition of Infants” available on Amazon.com at the following link: http://amzn.to/MM6Y6Q.
Here’s a little more, but really, everyone should buy the book:
“Erickson discerns a need to understand Romans 5 in a way that incorporates human ratification of the actions of both representatives in order to avoid universalism. In other words, if Grudem’s view is correct that all inherit Adam’s guilt, then all should inherit Christ’s righteousness. If, however, it is necessary for humans to RATIFY the work of Christ by APPROPRIATING the salvation offered by Christ, then it is likewise necessary to ratify the sin of Adam in order to fall under condemnation and guilt.” (pg. 18)
Not to speak for Kevin, but I believe he was looking for a Scriptural source, not another explanation of Romans 5 from the same hermeneutic.
Yes all in Adam die and all in Christ live. “In” being the working preposition. It is very elementary. Just cut to the chase: You’re gonna die Rick, babies die and even in the womb. The wages of sin is death. NO other biblical reason or definition for DEATH. Counted PERSONALLY sinful before a Holy God. Death, death, death. God is just and perfectly righteous and you or anyone else cannot have it any other way. If we are not guilty then no punishment, end of story, BUT we are guilty and death proves it. Sorry, but that finishes a debate that should never start among bible believing Christians. Stop blaspheming the justice of God.
Rick,
Thanks for this great article that gives us a lot to think about … I enjoyed your last sentence:
“While I can understand that some Southern Baptists might personally oppose a specific theological view espoused in our denomination’s confessional statement, the idea that they, possessing the contrary view, would actually accuse as heterodox the view of those who faithfully adhere to our confession, is in my opinion, a pill exceedingly difficult to swallow, creating a lump in my throat just above the only Adam’s Apple for which I am responsible at all.”
Praying no “bad apples” are thrown your way today!
Calvinism, relying on philosophical rationaligisms since 1618 ;-)
What really perplexes me is when Calvinists argue “well the Bible says ‘X’ and I believe that means ‘Y’ therefore if you don’t believe ‘Z’ you’re a (insert derogatory historical term here).” oh how you Calvinists love your labels, categories, and distilling complex bibliblical issues into nice and neat sound bites that are simple to understand.
The reality is, Calvinism presupposes that not only is extra Biblical understanding possible (to which we would all agree), but that we can be dogmatic about it. No, we can’t. We are not apostles.
Agree 100% Joshua M. Harris. I especially like (insert derogatory historical term here).
I rather tend to agree with J. Gresham Machen when he writes,
The very penalty for sin is death. Penalties are enacted to the guilty, not the innocent. This death penalty on all, even the very young (they do die after all) is not just because of actual sin but because of imputed sin and the associated guilt, else there would be no penalty.
Just my thoughts.
Dr. Patrick,
You stated:
Which part of your nature chooses to sin against God—the physical nature or the spiritual nature? Since sin is a spiritual rather than a physical matter, then the nature that you acknowledge is inherited from Adam involves not only your body, but includes your spiritual nature. If it were only the physical part of your nature that you inherited from Adam, you could look back and deny that you had anything to do with eating the apple—but then you could also object to the injustice of saddling you with a sinful inclination that you did nothing to earn. However, if you rightly see that the nature you inherited from Adam was entire and included the spiritual as well as the physical, then you ought not to deny the corporate spiritual identity of all men in Adam and in his act. All men earned the consequences to nature, body and environment because all men had a spiritual union of origin in Adam when he sinned.
Ken,
“However, if you rightly see that the nature you inherited from Adam was entire and included the spiritual as well as the physical, then you ought not to deny the corporate spiritual identity of all men in Adam and in his act. All men earned the consequences to nature, body and environment because all men had a spiritual union of origin in Adam when he sinned.”
I do not at all deny my spiritual union with Adam, nor my sinful nature. I deny that God punishes men for this sinful NATURE, but rather affirm, along with the BFM2000, that He punishes men for their sinful ACTIONS, resulting in their condemnation only after the sinful nature they inherited from Adam expresses itself through their own personal sin.
“Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors AND ARE UNDER CONDEMNATION.” (BFM 2000, emphasis added)
Not to be too redundant here, but notice that we are only under condemnation AFTER we become actual transgressors.
Rick,
Exactly. What you’re saying here lines up perfectly with what the BFM2K clearly states.
David
A nature that is sinful is a nature that exists in rebellion to God. If my very nature is in rebellion, my very self is in rebellion and I am, by nature, a sinner, a sinful person, and subject to the just judgment of God.
There does not exist a peculiar middle ground in which I, though possessing a sinful, rebellious nature, am not a sinner who merits the judgment of God.
Chris,
I disagree. If God\’s account in Genesis of the first sin told us anything, it told us that it was willfully chosen. If God had created Adam as a baby who was unable to talk, and then told him not to eat any of the apples on the ground under the tree, do you really think that He would have considered it sin if that infant had tried to eat one of the apples? Is that a ridiculous picture? It\’s no more ridiculous than proposing that God would hold infants today accountable for a mere nature, which they did not willfully choose.
The sin nature is an expression or result of the state of spiritual death into which all are born. Spiritual death is spiritual disunion or separation with God. When Adam sinned, all men sinned in him and all men spiritually died when he spiritually died. Since all men are propagated from him, then we are all conceived in this state of spiritual death. Being spiritually separate from God, we have only self-centeredness, and self-centeredness in the face of God is the essence of sin. However, the brain of a child at conception is not capable of understanding that there is a God, so only when the child develops this accountable understanding of God, good and evil, does his selfishness become willful transgression.
If my nature – which is part of me, it is who I am – is at enmity with God, if I am at enmity with God, how am I not justly condemned? Even if all we allow is that we are born “inclined” toward sin, how is that in itself not a sinful state? Is God pleased by people inclined away from him? I would agree that there is a difference in how children are held to account for their sin and sinfulness, but that doesn’t lessen the reality of their sinful condition. We all enter the world with a sin nature, which is to say we all enter the world as sinners in rebellion to God and justly deserving of his wrath. Thanks be to God for (1) hints in Scripture (just hints, not enough for dogmatic proclamation) that those who “have no knowledge of good and evil” (Deut 1:39) – in other words, infants and young children – are not judged for sin even if they are guilty, and (2) that we, though guilty and accountable, may receive mercy through Christ. From beginning to end, we deserve wrath. Only by God’s grace is there hope for any of us.
A side question on the issue of the spiritual state of children: is it by grace that God would welcome into Heaven an infant who dies in childbirth? Or would we argue that God would be unjust to punish such a child? If so, then his going to Heaven is a matter of his merit rather than God’s grace. But if he is welcome into Heaven as a matter of grace, then Heaven must not be what he deserved but God graciously granted it to him anyway.
Chris,
We all enter the world with a sin nature, which is to say we all enter the world spiritually disconnected from God, but not yet in rebellion to Him. Our self-centered, spiritually dead nature will only grow in selfishness and will inevitably sin as soon as an accountable knowledge is reached. We are born sinners the way that some are born musicians (but do not come from the womb playing a trumpet).
And what of the injustice of punishing a child for a sin committed by someone else (Adam)? Can even the sin nature itself be a mere misfortune that victimizes us? The fact is that heaven requires more than the lack of sin. It requires a positive and perfect righteousness, which only Christ can give. So not even unborn children can get to heaven without being regenerated and spiritually united with Christ.
Ken,
It is not unjust for me to be punished for that which is within me. However I became a sinner, I am born a sinner. I’m putting this in terms of the individual sinner, but yes, this all traces back to Adam and his sin and his fall when Adam, as representative head of the human race, brought guilt on us all by his sin. By his sin, I am born a sinner – but it is still me who is the sinner. And as others have pointed out, why don’t we complain about the justice of being found righteous based on someone else’s righteousness? If inherited guilt is a problem, so is inherited righteousness. But we don’t like the one so we argue against it, yet we like the other so we defend it. Meanwhile, the Bible teaches both.
When you mention the required active righteousness of children, I would be curious to hear how this works. If we don’t do what we are supposed to do, that in itself is sin. Sin isn’t simply doing what God tells us not to do – stealing when he says not to sin. It is also sin when we don’t do something God tells us to do – when we hold back from helping the poor, etc. If an unborn or small child is in some sense innocent or free from guilt, then he is innocent of disobedience either direction – he is innocent of doing what God says not to do, and he is innocent of not doing what God says to do. In which case, why would he need to be united with Christ? He already has perfect righteousness. If not, then he is a guilty sinner and in need of saving grace.
Chris,
You stated:
I beg to differ on all counts. While there is no particular sin that any sinner can point to with the excuse, “My nature made me do it,” it remains true that no sinner can overcome their own sinful nature—sin is an inevitable part of their existence. For God to put such a powerful bias toward sin within men and then condemn them would not be just. After all, that is not what He did in Adam’s case, so why do we not get the same fair chance?
No man can bring guilt on another man. God is the God who will judge every man for his deeds, and not for the deeds of other men. Justifying an undeserving man by giving him the righteousness of another is grace; but condemning an undeserving man by giving him the guilt of another is injustice. Biblically, condemnation is never like grace or a gift, but is always earned.
All men were “in the loins of” Adam when he sinned, just as Levi was in the loins of Abraham when he paid tithes to Melchizedek. It was that spiritual “inbeing” in Adam that identified us with him and gave us a seminal participation in his sin. But we have all been propagated out of Adam. Since we are no longer “in his loins,” then we no longer have that inbeing in him, and we no longer share his personal identity and personal guilt. Those of us who are saved now share a spiritual inbeing in Christ, and thus share in His personal identity and personal righteousness. You see, the parallel is not the same in every way, but is instead an inverse parallel. While the spirit of the first Adam is dispersed by propagation to many descendants, the spirits of believers are collected back into spiritual union with the Last Adam.
You stated:
Would you agree that God will not hold an unborn child accountable for not feeding the poor? –Or anything else for that matter? Even Paul, in Rom. 9:11, acknowledges that the unborn do nothing good or bad. But to gain heaven requires more than an empty slate. No one gets there with any sin that has not been atoned for, but neither can any get there without a perfect righteousness, or in other words, a record of having lived out all that God (and His law) requires. This is true even of those who are saved, as we are credited with the record of Jesus’ perfectly righteous life just as if we had lived it. Those who die prior to an accountable understanding have no sin on their record, but no righteousness either. They are the offspring of a sinful people and they inherited the same spiritually dead, self-centeredness that is the sin nature. They sinned in Adam, but in a spiritually corporate way, and while this allows them to escape personal condemnation, it leaves them without any moral merit. Since all men sinned in Adam in a real way, none can object that their situation is unjust. They still stand in need of the Savior to regenerate them with the spiritual life that only union with Him will bring, as well as the saving righteousness that only He can give. Since John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb, then such unborn conversions are not without precedent.
It is telling that at the Great White Throne Judgment, God will judge every man according to his works, and all who are not found in the Lamb’s Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire. There is no confusion of categories here. Only those who have sinful works for which to be condemned will not be found in the Book of Life. There will be none who are without any sinful works but are cast into the fire anyway because they are not found in the Book of Life. God does not allow any nonelect to die prior to accountable sin.
Dr. Patrick,
If you acknowledge that we all had a spiritual union (and corporate spiritual identity) in Adam when he sinned, then there is no reason to avoid the corporate meaning of “for all sinned [in Adam].” The context is emphatic and repetitive: it was “the one transgression” of the “one man” which is pivotal. I agree that we are not personally condemned for that sin in which we had a corporate spiritual participation, but nowhere in Rom. 5 is there personal condemnation for Adam’s sin. Rather, his sin “led to” and “resulted in” condemnation for all men, and it did so by the means of a propagated nature.
If you agree that we had a spiritual union of origin in Adam, and have been propagated from him in our entire being, then why would you say the following?:
Can you not acknowledge that “we were somehow present in [Adam] in a way that made us responsible for the sin that he committed”? I don’t mean personally responsible, but responsible as a race of people who had a spiritual origin in the one who sinned (and have been propagated from him).
Although we are only under personal condemnation for our personal sins, we are born under the racial (or corporate) death sentence that we corporately earned in the garden in Adam.
Ken,
While I admit that my union with Adam transmits unto me a sinful nature, I deny that God punishes any person of any age or mental capacity simply for possessing this sinful nature. He condemns and punishes us for our sinful ACTIONS, not for our sinful NATURES.
To put it another way, people will go to hell, not due to the sins of Adam or the sins of all humanity, but due to their very own personal sins.
Dr. Patrick,
Are you saying, then, that we are mere victims of misfortune in being born with a sinful nature? You say that no man will go to hell due to Adam’s sin, but isn’t it true that all who go to hell go there–in a sense–because of Adam’s sin. All go there due to being sinners, but none chose to be born with a sinful nature–or did they?
Dr. Robert Peterson (CTS) on mediate imputation:
Les,
You noted that Dr. Peterson teaches at CTS, which is Covenant Theological Seminary, a Presbyterian school. It should not be surprising that many Southern Baptists differ with Presbyterians on this issue.
In Him,
Adam
Adam,
Correct. He is at Covenant, a Presbyterian seminary. I had him for several courses. Fin prof.
I could have cited Baptists. For instance the LBC 1689:
“2. Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.”
“3. They being the root, and by God’s appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free.”
“4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.”
I’m sure I can find others as well. It is not just a Presbyterian interpretation.
God bless,
Les
Les,
Thanks for your reply. I don’t doubt that he was a fine professor. And I understand that many early Baptist confessions (as well as many of today’s Southern Baptist pastors and theologians) affirm inherited guilt.
My goal was to note that you offered a Presbyterian theologian as evidence that not all Christians agree with this view held by many (perhaps most) Southern Baptists. This view of inherited sinful nature finds support (this can’t be said too often) in the BFM 2000. My point, which remains, is simply that this should not be a surprise. Although both groups are Christians, Southern Baptists are not Presbyterians. There are many points of theological similarity but there are also differences. This happens to be one of those points of difference. Some Southern Baptists formulate a biblical view of man and sin which affirms our connection to Adam (with its universal and inevitable sinfulness) while rejecting the Augustinian-Calvinist formulation of inherited guilt.
In Him,
Adam
Les,
Physical death is a consequence of the race’s sin in Adam, but it is not a personal condemnation. Proof is found in the fact that believers die even though Christ died in our place and “there is therefore now no condemnation…”
Ken,
I don’t disagree, though that is the point of redemption in Christ, right? My point above is that physical death is part of the penalty and is proved by actual people dying. Redemption changes spiritual death to life, though we dies, we yet live. I’m not disagreeing with you, I don’t think.
“we dies.” I should have paid better attention in English class.
Les,
It is illogical to claim that physical death proves personal condemnation in unbelievers but does not prove personal condemnation in believers. Either it is a personal condemnation (a penalty for personal guilt) or it is not. If it is, then no believer would ever physically die. Since they do die, then it is proved to not be a penalty for personal condemnation.
KEN,
I’m not sure where I said physical death is the penalty for our personal sins. I’ll have to look back upstream. I think I may just be misunderstanding what you are objecting to about something I said.
I believe that physical death came to all mankind due to Adam’s sin and it comes to us because of his federal representation of us as our head. We participate. We are then also sinners and guilty because of our participation in Adam as our head.
Les,
Here’s what you had said:
Are those who have been saved in Christ still guilty? No. But yet, we still die. But from what you have said, we must still be guilty “else there would be no penalty.”
Ken,
I see the confusion now. I do not believe the redeemed are still guilty and still under condemnation though they all still die physically.
Les,
Then you disprove yourself by your own definition. If you “do not believe the redeemed are still guilty and still under condemnation though they all still die physically,” then you acknowledge that physical death does NOT presuppose or prove guilt.
Ken,
If I deny myself it wouldn’t be the first time. But I don’t think I am denying myself.
The effects of the fall are still in effect. There is both orignal and personal (actual) sin.
LBC:
“3. They being the root, and by God’s appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free.”
I agree. If I am denying something else I stated, then I mis-stated or you have misunderstood. Sorry for the confusion.
Les,
The difference is that, whereas before, you tried to prove inherited guilt of such confessions by asserting that physical death proves guilt; now you seem to be pointing to the confession to shore up your earlier assertion about death.
Can you give me a direct answer? Does physical death prove (or presuppose) guilt or does it not?
Thanks, Les.
Ken,
What I have been trying to say is that the consequences for Adam’s sin include physical death. From Romans 5:
“Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin” (v. 12).
“By the one man’s offense many died” (v. 15).
“Through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation” (v. 18).
“By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (v. 19).
I don’t know how to be any clearer.
Thanks brother.
Brother Les,
Are you being less than forthright? Now you say death is a consequence that falls on all because of Adam’s sin; but until now, you’ve maintained that death is a penalty that proves guilt. Consequences do not necessarily imply guilt. Which is it?
Ken,
No, I am not being less than forthright. Let’s back up to what I said at the beginning after the Machen quote.
“The very penalty for sin is death. Penalties are enacted to the guilty, not the innocent. This death penalty on all, even the very young (they do die after all) is not just because of actual sin but because of imputed sin and the associated guilt, else there would be no penalty.”
Let me summarize:
1. Adam, our federal head, sinned.
2. The rest of us sinned in him. We are guilty.
3. A penalty for that sin was death, physical and spiritual.
4. We are all born under that penalty and the consequences of that sin of Adam.
5. We all die physically, still.
6. We all need spiritual new birth, resurrection.
7. Physical resurrection is yet to come.
“Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?””(John 11:25-26 ESV)
I’ll bring one more Machen quote to bear,
Whatever lack or clarity I may have demonstrated may be due to my own ignorance and carelessness and to my not understanding exactly what you were objecting to. Agree with me or not, think I am consistent or not. But this is as clear as I can be.
Les,
What you fail to see is that, for the believer, even the imputed sin of Adam is forgiven and wiped clean by Christ. We still die not because we are guilty, but because physical death is strictly a physical consequence on a race of people that has no implications of individual condemnation whatsoever. Even animals die, Les, but they are neither guilty nor condemned.
Ken,
“What you fail to see is that, for the believer, even the imputed sin of Adam is forgiven and wiped clean by Christ.”
No, I don’t fail to see that at all.
“We still die not because we are guilty, but because physical death is strictly a physical consequence on a race of people that has no implications of individual condemnation whatsoever.”
I have said it is a consequence. I have also said it had a penal nature to it. I agree with Machen,
“…man suffering therefore the death that is the penalty of that sin, not only physical death but also that spiritual death …”
“Even animals die, Les, but they are neither guilty nor condemned.”
Agree, and they shall not be resurrected to eternal glory.
It has been fun Ken. Perhaps we acknowledge that we will not totally agree. I have a difficult time keeping up with older comments on these blogs. One is forced to keep scrolling thru looking to see if there is a new response. So feel free to have the last word.
God bless
Les,
Be blessed! Thanks for the discussion!
More Dr. Peterson, with a link (the reason I haven’t linked so far is I’m not sure anyone can view it without a sign-up. i.e. you are not “elect” to see it. You have to “elect yourself.:) )
NOTE: I AM NOT calling anyone Pelagian. Just quoting another theologian.
Link: http://worldwidefreeresources.com/upload/ST220_T_12.pdf
Rick,
Well presented and thought out article. Thank you. I have a couple of questions though.
1. So, you by necessity have to be arguing that there are a few (humans) alive today that are not under condemnation because they have never sinned. Maybe all adults have but not all children. So not all are under condemnation because not all are guilty. Just most. Right? I have a problem with this because the Bible constantly speaks about all sinning (Rom 3:23) etc.
2. So if the all in regards to sinning is not really all then could the all in some of the more used passages regarding the accessability of salvation not mean all also?
3. So even before I am pronounced guilty of anything I receive an inclination towards sin. In the inherited guilt (also) view one would receive the inclination when one receives the guilt. All come through Adam. Right? But in your position there are some who in sense receive a punishment (the inclination to go away from God) before any guilt. That seems strange to me. Adam did not have the inclination towards sin without the guilt. He had almost truly free will (as we think of it today). Can you give me some more evidence or reasons to believe that God gives an inclination to turn away from Him even before we are guilty of anything?
“When I assert, that in consequence of the Apostasy of Adam all men have sinned; I do not intend, that the posterity of Adam is guilty of his transgression. Moral actions are not, so far as I can see, transferable from one being to another. The personal act of any agent is, in its very nature, the act of that agent solely; and incapable of being participated by any other agent. Of course, the guilt of such a personal act is equally incapable of being transferred, or participated. (Dwight, Theology Explained and Defended, 478)”
this is not completely fair since this is just part of his text but this seems to be an argument based upon a more modern view of what is fair. Also I hope that i can participate in the personal act(s) of Christ through my union with Him. If not then there is no salvation. He might mean something different though. It is early morning after the holiday.
The passage above seems to go against Romans 6 below. That is if I can’t participate in the baptism, death and resurrection of Christ.
ROMANS 6
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin — 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.
8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.
Carl,
I’m not Rick, but I believe that all have sinned. And, of course children sin. We can see their little, sin natures every day. No one is saying that people are not born with a sin nature. But, when are we GUILTY of committing sin?
Also, ALL do sin. We are ALL guilty of committing sins. All of us. We just do not believe that babies and small children, and the mentally handicapped are held accountable for their sins….until they reach the age where they are KNOWINGLY and WILLFULLY sinning against God. Of course, some mentally handicapped people will never reach that point. Do you believe that the mentally handicapped go to Hell? even though they have no idea what they’re doing? Because, Brother, if you believe that all people are GUILTY before God, then babies and small children and the mentally handicapped MUST go to Hell. Because, they are never born again….they never repent and put their faith in Jesus…..So, you really must believe that they go to Hell to pay for the sin of Adam, forever. You’d have to believe that.
David
Your make the phrase, “…they are KNOWINGLY and WILLFULLY sinning against God.” dependend on age. Should that point depend, instead, on a person’s knowledge of God and sin? Thus, the person who never hears of God or sin should not be held accountable for their sin, should they?
rhutchin,
No. It’s an age when someone is old enough to be aware of what they’re doing….a 3 yr old has no way to know what he’s doing is sin against God. Now, a 10 yr old? or a 13 yrs old? Well, they realize that there is a God, and that there are rights and wrongs.
David
“Because, Brother, if you believe that all people are GUILTY before God, then babies and small children and the mentally handicapped MUST go to Hell. Because, they are never born again….they never repent and put their faith in Jesus…..So, you really must believe that they go to Hell to pay for the sin of Adam, forever. You’d have to believe that.”
And here we have what this rabbit trail is REALLY about: folks just NOT wanting to believe that babies, small children, and the mentally retarded would go to hell.
Again…synergists BEGIN with the premise and then jam it into Scripture.
Brother,
Is it possible that something else is occurring? What if the monergists have begun with a false premise (inherited guilt) and read that into Scripture?
Augustine did so and the result was salvation via baptismal regeneration.
Calvin did so and the result was salvation via election.
We are simply suggesting that the Bible presents a different view of our inheritance from Adam. We’re on the same page for 95% of our doctrinal affirmations and our presentations of the Gospel are probably indistinguishable. But on this issue, we differ.
We, like you, are simply trying to be faithful to God’s Word.
In Him,
Adam
One cannot have it both ways.
Imputed righteousness but not imputed guilt?
Perhaps you can explain why babies, small children, and the mentally retarded die.
“Calvin did so and the result was salvation via election.”
Is God not free to choose whom He will to be justified, sanctified, and glorified?
Does not the Potter have freedom over His clay?
David,
Interesting post but I think you missed a point. First there would logically be some who have not sinned but have inherited the sin nature. That is unless you believe that the infant sins immediately upon birth. But then again I thought those holding this view believed in a an age of accountability so really infants are not exactly sinning per se. If they were then they would be condemned. But God does not hold it against them because they can’t know any better.
Second Romans 3:23 I believe does not say that all will in their lifetime sin. It is that all have sinned.
Third, I am not sure what God does with infants and the mentally handicap. The Bible does not say precisely what God does. But as far as infants I believe that in a grand scope of things the elect will go to heaven and the non-elect will go to hell. I think in our understanding I think those infants and children who are part of a Christian family might have a better shot than those who are not. I think you can see this clearly in the OT. But I do not think that being a child of christian parents makes them elect. I would say the mentally handicap (that really cannot make the choice) are in the same position of infants and children.
Carl,
No, they are born sinners, and they sin. They are just not held accountable for their sins, until they reach an age where they’re knowingly and willingly sinning.
So, you just wonder if God elects babies and mentally handicapped, or not? And, you’re saying that He elects them without them coming to God thru Jesus? with no repentance and faith? Is that what you’re saying?
David
Rick,
You are one smart fella. Thanks for this wonderful post, which is very thought provoking and sound. It’s just a shame that we have people, who’ll come in here, and mischaracterize and attack a person, when you just simply articulated what you believe the Scriptures teach in this matter. And, the attacks on Dr. Hankins are getting tiresome. Some of these people are so mean spirited and just down right hateful in their verbal assaults on Dr. Hankins, and you, and anyone else, who does not adhere to their brand of theology. It’s really sad.
But, thanks again, for boldly standing on truth, and for faithfully sharing your views on this subject.
God bless,
David
David,
“It’s just a shame that we have people, who’ll come in here, and mischaracterize and attack a person, when you just simply articulated what you believe the Scriptures teach in this matter.”
David, this is not helpful. I just re-read back thru the comments so far. I see nothing even close to an “attack of a person.” Why would you try to frame my and others’ comments as an “attack?”
The last thread was horrible and an obvious attempt to “marginalize” Hankins. I don’t expect you to see it or agree.
Lydia,
Good morning. I did not see them as attacks. Maybe you prefer Bullying. Don’t see that either.
Les, I am aware you don’t see it that way. Perhaps “tactics” to “marginalize” is a better term. I am not concerned with what you may think about it. You are not SBC but a “ruling” elder type Presbyterian.
Lydia,
“I am not concerned with what you may think about it.”
Then why did you comment to me about it?
“You are not SBC but a “ruling” elder type Presbyterian.”
Au contraire. I am an ordained SB minister AND not a ““ruling” elder type Presbyterian.” I am a ruling elder in the PCA. You stand corrected. :)
Les,
I’m referring back to other blog posts on SBC Today and SBC Voices and in other places….and, just wait….the attacks are coming….just give it a little more time.
David
David,
Sorry about that. I thought you were referring to Rick already being attacked when you said, “It’s just a shame that we have people, who’ll come in here, and mischaracterize and attack a person, when you just simply articulated what you believe the Scriptures teach in this matter.”
I see now that apparently you were just assuming future attacks.
“I see now that apparently you were just assuming future attacks”
That’s a snide comment completely ignoring what the man actually said. He wasn’t just assuming future attacks but basing his observation on what has happened previously. But ya just can’t help yourself, Les.
Les,
And, looking at past attacks, as I said.
DAvid
Hi Mary,
I didn’t completely ignore what he said. In fact I re-quoted it and acknowledged what I understood him to be saying.
Maybe it would help to reproduce in one place the remarks.
David said, “just wait….the attacks are coming….just give it a little more time.”
I said, “I see now that apparently you were just assuming future attacks.”
Just an acknowledgement of my understanding of what he said. To quote Lydia, “Sheesh!”
The last thread was too obvious as to what is going on. I am simply amazed we are glossing over the fact tha an employee of the SBC said that people will be marginalized. SBC Pastors?
Has our polity changed?
“Au contraire. I am an ordained SB minister AND not a ““ruling” elder type Presbyterian.” I am a ruling elder in the PCA. You stand corrected. :)”
no matter. “Ruling” is an interesting word choice for polity descriptions. Very Calvin.
Is the chronology that you were ordained in the SBC and then became a Presbyterian? Or the opposite.
.
Lydia,
““Ruling” is an interesting word choice for polity descriptions. Very Calvin.”
Yes Ruling. Anathema I know for you. Not for the scriptures though.
“Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.”
“Is the chronology that you were ordained in the SBC and then became a Presbyterian? Or the opposite.”
Baptist first.
“Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.”
Who decides if they rule well? The other “ruling” elders decide or the people they “rule”?
25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Now, I realize that Calvin his own definition of “servant” that included magistrates and micromanaging the sheep’s lives totally ignoring Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 20 or using mental gymnastics to ignore it. So our discussing this could be moot.
Lydia,
“Who decides if they rule well? The other “ruling” elders decide or the people they “rule”?”
I don’t know about SB churches who have elders (which as I understand call themselves “elder LED”) but in the PCA an elder can be removed from leadership by he other elders AND by the congregation. And that has happened before.
In addition, harsh and/or elders who “lord themselves” over the flock of God do not negate the biblical model.
“So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.” (1 Peter 5:1-3 ESV)
If they are not “ruling” or “leading” in a godly, Spirit filled manner, they should have the opportunity to be corrected, repent and serve biblically or be removed. And there definitely should be a mechanism (as in the PCA) for such a one’s removal.
i.e. bad examples negate not the biblical model for elders or “pastors” (who also are elders).
Les, We simply have different definitions. Mine is not so formal and institutionalized. Elders are the spiritually mature. They would never desire “authority” over people. They are the ones with calloused knees who are humble servants. Who have been through the fire of sanctification. They have “gone before”. Wordly success or intellectual prowess has little to do with it.
I think what I have described above is considered even with the qualifications in Timothy. We would not want Diotrephes, who loves power, would we?
“Then why did you comment to me about it?”
Les, is this the schoolyard? You responded to MY comment and I responded to that.
Carl,
Thanks for reading and interacting.
1. Yes, it is fair to say that infants possess a sinful nature but are not yet under condemnation, not yet having personally sinned. In other words, I believe in the so-called “age or stage of accountability.” I do believe that, if they survive long enough, all those children (and other persons of moral capacity) WILL indeed commit sins personally and fall under condemnation, for they do, in fact, possess a sin nature.
It is fair to say, then, that I do not take Romans 3:23 to mean that the baby I hear crying in the church office right now has ever committed a sin. He may be annoying me, and he certainly possesses a sinful nature, but he is not yet under condemnation. At least not by God.
2. You speak of the “all not really being all” but I’ve already addressed the fact that I don’t think Paul has the infant in mind in this verse. If he does, then the infant has indeed sinned, stands guilty before God right now, and will logically go to hell if he dies. Does “all have sinned” really mean dead infants go to hell?
3. I hear your concern about separating inherited sinful human nature from inherited guilt, specifically as it relates to the characteristic of man’s inclination to sin, which you view as a punishment in and of itself, suggesting that we must be guilty of sin already, or we would not have the inclination to do it. To me, that almost forces me to have “sinned before I sinned.”
I think this largely breaks down to whether or not one believes we are condemned for our sinful nature in Adam or for the actual sinful actions we commit ourselves. I believe the latter. My inclination to sin proves my sin nature, my sinfulness if you will, but it does not prove that my condemnation precedes any actual sinful transgression on my part.
Gotta ask Rick; When is that age of accountability? What kind of measurement are we using? No agenda in asking this, just wondering what your take on it is.
Rick, do you believe that children who die below “the age of accountability” go to heaven apart from needing the death, burial, resurrection, and righteous of Christ?
If so, how do honestly say that Jesus died for children, if indeed, they don’t need His death?
Jared:
I have a sincere question. Can a child that dies before the age of accountability go to Hell? If so, what scriptures support this?
Tom, see my answer to David below.
Hello My Facebook Frenemy Jared,
I believe children who die before the age of accountability do indeed go to heaven. Don’t you?
As to the ground or basis of their eternal life, I agree with Dr. Adam Harwood:
“If God does welcome infants into heaven, then it is through the person and the work of Christ.” (“The Spiritual Condition of Infants,” 11)
Rick, you didn’t answer the question brother.
Do children who have not reached the “age of accountability” need salvation from God’s wrath? If they’re not under condemnation, I don’t understand how one can say that Jesus died for them. They don’t need Jesus’s life, death, resurrection, and imputed righteousness.
Yep, “Do children who have not reached the “age of accountability” need salvation from God’s wrath?” that is a key question that needs a clear answer.
Do these children go to Hell? What is your belief?
Tom, I agree with the LBC 1689 as far as it goes,
“Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. ”
I further clarify that I believe that all infants (and all who are “incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word,” i.e. severely mentally handicapped or deaf and mute) are “regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit.”
That is the real historical reason why Les’s church, the Presbyterians, baptize babies, Jared. And we are headed there, too.
Lydia,
Au contraire. You demonstrate a lack of knowledge why Presbyterians baptize babies. But of course you could enlighten us all with your understanding. Please….:)
“Au contraire. You demonstrate a lack of knowledge why Presbyterians baptize babies. But of course you could enlighten us all with your understanding. Please….:)”
Read my statement again. Historical reason. You dumbed it down since then. :o)
Jared,
So, you believe that small children and the mentally handicapped go to Hell?
David
David:
Wow! You and I agree on something. Surely, based upon the Bible, small children and mentally handicapped certainly do not go to Hell.
Maybe Jared will give us the scripture that supports his view these go to Hell if that is his position.
David, where did I say that? I’ve actually heard no Southern Baptist Calvinist argue this.
I believe all children go to heaven due to them having the inability to possess faith in anyone or anything. Somehow, they receive Christ’s imputed righteousness apart from faith because they do not possess the cognitive ability to have faith. God Himself cannot give them faith apart from maturing them miraculously. It’s not because they don’t need Jesus’s righteousness; they desperately do. They receive His righteous apart from faith because faith is an impossibility for them.
It blows my mind that some of you are so emotionally involved in wanting all children to go to heaven that you’re willing to abandon the exclusivity of Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and imputed righteousness for children. In order to do this, you have to argue that most of Scripture doesn’t apply to children.
At the very least, you must say children need Jesus’s life, death, resurrection, and righteousness; otherwise, you must argue that they don’t need an incarnated God the Son.
Jared,
You said, “Somehow, they receive Christ’s imputed righteousness apart from faith because they do not possess the cognitive ability to have faith.” What???? Where’s that in the Bible?
David
David, we’re dealing with little evidence in Scripture concerning babies. What do we know?
1. Every baby that died in Scripture, as far as we know, went to heaven. There’s even a few references of this being a fact.
2. Jesus died for the whole world. Salvation is through Jesus alone. No one gets to the Father, but by Him. All of history in Scripture since the Fall points to man’s need of a Savior, from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Do you really want to say that children don’t need this?
3. Faith takes belief, which takes a certain cognitive ability. Faith is not mindless. Belief is not mindless. Furthermore, Calvinists believe that faith is a gift. Since God gives both the gift of faith and salvation, He indeed can credit salvation to a child even though they do not possess the ability to receive the gift of faith; but, we have no Scriptural reason to believe any human being goes to heaven apart from the death, resurrection, and righteousness of Christ in their stead.
4. We cannot abandon the clear teaching of all of Scripture concerning man’s need for God to save him from the evil one, sin, himself, and God.
Jared,
1. True.
2. True, all people must come to God thru Jesus. I never said that children dont need this. Okay….
3. I’m seeing a lot of your own speculation here…a lot of your own reasoning here….okay…
4. No one is abandoning….surely not me.
Okay, Jared, I still didnt see any reason to think that you, and Calvinists who believe as you do, think that babies and the mentally handicapped go to Heaven.
David
My comment is below brother.
David,
Gotta ask; where in the Bible does it state that all children go to heaven?
“believe all children go to heaven due to them having the inability to possess faith in anyone or anything. Somehow, they receive Christ’s imputed righteousness apart from faith because they do not possess the cognitive ability to have faith.”
What happens to the imputed guilt? It is all over them according to your doctrine.
Lydia, it’s paid for in Christ. The same thing that happens to my guilt and your guilt in Christ.
Jared,
They are guilty, Bro. They have not repented and put thier faith in the Lord.
David
David,
Do you believe children and the handicapped go to Heaven on the basis of their merit (young age) or on the basis of Christ’s righteousness? If it is their merit, that they are not guilty of sin, then their place in Heaven is not by God’s grace and there are people in Heaven apart from the grace of God. If it is Christ’s righteousness, then they have need of his righteousness then they are not, on their own, innocent.
Chirs,
I do not believe that anyone goes to Heaven on their own merit.
I do believe that babies and the mentally handicapped go to Heaven, because they’re not held accountable for thier sins. They’ve never reached an age where they knowingly and willfully sin against God.
In your view, they go to Hell, because they are GUILTY of Adam’s sin….AND, no one will get to Heaven apart from faith in Jesus. I mean, if they’re guilty of the sin of Adam, and they die without repenting and putting their faith in Jesus, then they must go to Hell for their sins.
David
David,
First, please do not try to insist on what I believe. In my view, children who die go to be with the Lord. I could flesh that out if desires, but I’m more interested right now in your view. It is interesting to me how many non-Calvinists will try to turn this into an emotional argument by lying about Calvinists, insisting we believe something that many of us do not believe, even when we explain what we believe and why we believe it. Yes, I believe children are guilty. No, I do not believe they are held accountable, thus they are covered with Christ’s righteousness because of the grace of God.
Now, back to your view – you do not believe children are guilty of sin, thus you do not believe children need forgiveness. So what role does grace play? I will be received into Heaven because God, by his grace, has forgiven my sins. Children will be received into Heaven because, evidently, they are not guilty of sin and thus do not need saving grace? What grace do they need? If they are sinless, the logical conclusion is they enter Heaven on that merit.
You cannot say, on the one hand, that children are innocent and go to Heaven because they are innocent, then on the other hand insist that they do not go to Heaven by their merit. It is a contradiction, it does not work. If they go to Heaven because of their innocence, then their reason for Heaven is found in them rather than in God’s grace.
“I could flesh that out if desires, but I’m more interested right now in your view.”
Don’t fall for it. It is how they control. They always want people on the defensive. Don’t play their game.
Chris,
I believe that children will be in Heaven due to grace. I have already said that I beleive that children sin. They have a sin nature. I do not believe that they are guilty of Adam’s sin, and they are not held accountable for thier own sin’s, until they reach the age of accountability. They will get their due to the grace of God.
In your view, if they are guilty of Adam’s sin…and under the wrath of God…then how in the world can they go to Heaven apart from putting their faith in Jesus???
DAvid
Hi David,
Its me….the non-cherry-coke-drinking anti-christ… :-)
Could you give a biblical defense of “the age of accountability”? I can’t find it. What I do find is Paul’s declaration that “all the world” stands guilty before God. This would include infants, would it not?
They can’t. Ac 4:12 “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Here’s the rub. Neo-Traditionalists seem to believe that God can only save those who make a libertarian free will choice to believe. Hence, the logical conclusion must follow that infants cannot be saved (see Act 4:12).
Conversely, Calvinists believe that God regenerates the unbeliever and then gifts them with faith and repentance. If it is God who truly accomplishes the whole of salvation, it is no difficulty for Him to save infants.
If you believe God only saves those who make a libertarian free will choice to believe, you have a serious problem when it comes to infants being saved.
Grace and Peace
“First, please do not try to insist on what I believe”
That’s so funny cuz up thread Chris Roberts states what is Trads believe! Which just goes to show you that only Calvinist understand Calvinism and only Calvinist can truly understand and state what everyone else believes! Good job there Chris Roberts!
And then how could we forget the days and days and days that Chris Roberts has declared Trads are really semi-pelegian because he says so!
So yeah David, don’t tell Chris Roberts what he believes – he’s the only one allowed to make declaratory statements on what others believe!
“First, please do not try to insist on what I believe.”
Chris, this is exactly what you guys have been doing since day one of this statement whether you recognize it or not.
Mary and Lydia,
I thought one of you two kind ladies might try to go there.
Here’s the difference.
I look at what the Statement argues, consider the argument, and respond by arguing from Scripture and reason that the Statement, and following arguments, are logically inconsistent. I may be wrong, I may be right, but I make my argument. I am not saying you do not believe what you say you believe, I am saying what you believe cannot work, no matter how much you insist you can. What David above did was claim I do not believe what I say I believe. He did not acknowledge what I say I believe, he did not try to show where my beliefs about children are inconsistent, he simply insisted that I must believe something that I do not believe.
In the case of semi-Pelagianism (though I am hesitant to return to that can of worms), there again I am not going beyond the Statement or the Statement’s defenders. I am not saying you believe something you do not believe. Based on your own words, I look at the claims, the arguments, the beliefs, and I recognize they mesh very nicely with semi-Pelagianism. I am not claiming you believe something you don’t, I am saying what you believe is also what they believed. You can disagree with me, that’s fine. But when I am taking your own (well, the Statement and its defenders) words and showing how they match the words of semi-Pelagianism, it is not enough to scream, “We are not semi-Pelagian!” I have to be shown why. So far, most of the arguments against the comparison have fallen short of actually dealing with what semi-Pelagians believed.
Here is my question: Do you believe that human beings are capable of calling out for God’s help before God changes their hearts? Did God have to change you before you were capable of seeking salvation? If you do not believe God had to first change you, then you are either Pelagian or semi-Pelagian. Other clarifications in the Statement make it clear that it is semi rather than fully Pelagian. I have not put words in your mouth, I have dealt with the claims of the Statement and its defenders, and I have recognized that these claims match the historical semi-Pelagian position.
Jared:
You said:”It blows my mind that some of you are so emotionally involved in wanting all children to go to heaven that you’re willing to abandon the exclusivity of Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and imputed righteousness for children. In order to do this, you have to argue that most of Scripture doesn’t apply to children.”
It blows my mind that you can say the above. You are attacking people when that is simply not necessary. Aint no one I know of making the argument you make here.
Tom, what I said is exactly what these men are arguing.
Jared:
Would you be willing to name these men?
Tom, Rick and David are arguing this. Ask them. They don’t believe children need forgiveness because they’re not accountable for their sin until they willfully sin at or after “the age of accountability.”
Tom, Welcome to Jared’s world. It will go circular like this for hours if you let it.
Lydia,
Nice accusation – but is he wrong? Provide a meaningful, rational argument for why Jared is wrong. Yelling, complaining, belittling are meaningless.
“Nice accusation – but is he wrong? Provide a meaningful, rational argument for why Jared is wrong. Yelling, complaining, belittling are meaningless.”
Nice try, Chris. Where is the yelling? Complaining? Belittling, maybe. I have gone around and around with Jared over at Voices concering the fact that I am not a Calvinist yet he insists I am because Mohler said so. I was warning Tom that Jared argues in circles.
To accuse me of yelling and complaining is ad hominem attack and not worthy of what you claim to want: Unity. You did put forth a resolution for Unity after asserting the Trad signers were semi Pelagians and they had to prove they weren’t. You have strange notions of Unity, friend.
Now, am I to assume that you consider your responses to be meaningful and rational? As far as I am concerned you have a ton of cognative dissonance in your behavior and words.
I would gladly never reply to another post on this blog if Mary and Lydia would be banished from posting as well. Their tiresome, worthless ad-hominem attacks are taxing.
Rick,
The Neo-Traditionalists are claiming the Sandy Creek Baptists as their doctrinal forbears. Here’s their statement on the subject at hand:
Peace, my Neo-Traditionalist brother…. :-)
It always amazes me how words of fallible people are made the touch-stone instead of the perfect word of God.
Randall, how about you: Do you want to abide by God’s word or do you instead hold to some kind of confession? Please give a clear answer.
Holdon,
And it amazes me that an Open Theist, who is unwilling to reveal his actual identity (holdon?!), and who is using the TS to argue against Calvinism and for Open Theism, would call anyone to task on the issue of “abiding” by God’s Word.
Soli Deo Gloria
Did I ever say I was an Open Theist or arguing for Open Theism? You are resorting to false accusations. Duly noted.
I do not need to reveal my identity. I have used my nickname for online commenting for more than 8 years.
Yes, I am consistently unmasking the errors of Calvinism, as you well know….
“For walking in flesh, we do not war according to flesh. For the arms of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful according to God to the overthrow of strongholds; overthrowing reasonings and every high thing that lifts itself up against the knowledge of God”
holdon,
The response
Did I ever say I was an Open Theist or arguing for Open Theism?
is not a denial and you have yet to deny being an Open Theist. You have, however, denied the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer, which is a first-order doctrine, and have still not answered the four simple questions I asked in the other thread:
1. Do you believe God is omnipotent and omniscient? Do you believe He knows everything that will happen–not just hypotheticals, but what actually will happen?
2. Do you believe in substitutionary atonement? I’m not talking about limited vs general atonement–I’m asking if you believe Jesus suffered the very penalty, wrath and anger of God against sinners as their Substitute, taking their punishment in their place, having paid their actual sin-debt in full for them?
3. Do you affirm every part of the Traditional Statement in its entirety?
4. What denomination are you a member of?
I think you should be forthcoming with the other commenters, both the Calvinists and Traditionalists, concerning exactly where you stand.
“You have, however, denied the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer, which is a first-order doctrine”
Yes, absolutely. It cannot be “first order doctrine”, because it is not found in the bible. But I guess that is not a problem for Calvinism….
Randall,
I believe in holding to what the Scriptures teach…whether Sandy Creek held to it, or not…whether Southern Seminary holds to it, or not…..
The Bible is my authority, Randall. The Bible.
David
David,
Then you should stop claiming the Sandy Creek Baptist “tradition” and admit that the Neo-Traditional Statement has no historic precedent in the SBC.
Peace
The BFM 2000 is the confessional statement of the SBC.
Dr. Harwood,
Yet the Neo-Traditionalists are arguing that their TS has historic precedence in the Sandy Creek branch of the SBC. And they are doing so precisely because their TS exceeds the bounds of the BF&M. Yet the Sandy Creek Confession contradicts the TS.
What to do, what to do?!
But you already know that, right? :-)
Peace
Randall,
I am following the lead of Dr. Mohler, who mentioned in his June 6 blog on the TS: “The presence of more than one tradition and stream of doctrinal influence has been healthy for Southern Baptists. We have been strengthened by both the Charleston and Sandy Creek traditions, representing Southern Baptists who rightly prize their doctrinal understandings, but eagerly work together in the Gospel service.” (http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/06/06/southern-baptists-and-salvation-its-time-to-talk/)
Did I misunderstand Dr. Mohler’s characterization of the Sandy Creek tradition as non-Calvinists?
On a related note, Calvinists are not the only ones among the Christian tradition who have affirmed inherited guilt. Balthasar Hubmaier affirmed it and no one has accused him of being a Calvinist.
Dr. Mohler also notes that Southern Baptists are free to believe MORE not LESS than the BFM 2000. This statement articulates MORE not LESS than the BFM 2000.
I care little what the Sandy Creek confession affirms or disaffirms in this sense: I never signed that document. I have (literally) signed the BFM 2000 as a professor of theology at two different Southern Baptist institutions. I have also attached my name to this Traditional Statement due to theological convictions. I am not asking you to sign it and I am unsure why the strong opposition to it continues.
In Him,
Adam
“I have also attached my name to this Traditional Statement due to theological convictions. I am not asking you to sign it and I am unsure why the strong opposition to it continues.”
This is a good point. Why the strong opposition to something not mandatory to sign?
“I am not asking you to sign it and I am unsure why the strong opposition to it continues.”
In general, because of its divisiveness.
But in discussions such as this one, I don’t think there is opposition to the Statement, rather disagreement with its claims. We disagree, fine – noted and understood. Now, are we allowed to discuss our disagreements without being at odds? That’s certainly the greater challenge. Every argument I’ve raised in my comments on this post are not to oppose the existence of the Statement but are to argue why the Statement is wrong in its claims. I don’t mind a person disagreeing with me, but particularly in public forums such as a blog where one presumes discussion is welcome, be ready for me to note my disagreements. :)
Dr. Harwood,
I had some reservations about that statement when I read it. But, as you know, Dr. Mohler is like E. F. Hutton: When he speaks, everybody listens. :-) I think Dr. Mohler was trying to be gracious and conciliatory, but many are now taking that statement and arguing for a “Sandy Creek Tradition” to defend a soteriological statement that is at best Neo-Traditional and without substantive tradition at all.
Like I said, when Dr. Mohler speaks, everybody listens. :-)
What I and others are arguing is that the Neo-Traditionalists’ signing of the TS sets them at odds with both the historic background and understanding of the BF&M and traditional Baptist soteriology. Which brings me back to the point my original post to which you are responding: Neo-Traditionalists cannot legitimately claim their soteriological statement is traditional—not even by claiming “Sandy Creek Tradition.”
Brother, no one here would deny you or anyone else the right to sign the TS. The strong opposition to which you refer has everything to do with the stated motive behind the document and the fact that it is being defended as if it is somehow infallible. It ain’t.
Grace to you, brother
“In general, because of its divisiveness.”
You do not consider the Founders mission divisive? How about the remarks at the Founders breakfast about us being Apostate? Mohler’s remarks on a GC video a while back about New Calvinism being the only place for those who want to see the nations rejoice for Christ? How about funding Acts 29 churches with Driscoll DNA all over them? You think Miss Mildred would like to think of her tithe being spent on funding churches that teach sodomy as normal?
This statement, to me, is only a response to having Calvinism shoved down throats as being the only truth if you want to be saved. It is that simple. You all have trained and sent out young Patricks to churches all over and you wonder why there is divisiveness.
The cognative dissonance in the YRR movement is unbelievable. There is very little basic common sense. I can only attribute it to total depravity after being saved. :o)
Now, as to disagreements about the statement’s contents, the situation is simply that you do not accept the explanations unless they have the same Augustinian/Calvin filter. It is that simple. You refuse to accept them and do not think them biblical. You will have to live with that and think some of us Apostate or heretics.
What what you guys seem to be doing is rephrasing questions trying to catch people or back them into a corner. The problem with this is that questions are phrased using the Augustine/Calvin overlay. More and more people are catching on. :o)
Randall,
I can affirm every single word of that Sandy Creek statement, since it speaks of (a) Adam’s transmission of our sinful human nature, and (b) man’s inability or impotence to perform any kind of work bringing about his own salvation. Frankly, it sounds very much like the Traditionalist Statement to me, as well as the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.
Please note that man’s powerlessness in his own free will to regain his former state in the garden is NOT the same as his freedom simply to accept that which God has done to bring about his salvation.
On the other hand, the Sandy Creek statement you cited does not at all address (c) either the immediate or the mediate view of condemnation, and (d) man’s free response to accept God’s grace, without which no man can be saved.
In other words, I agree with that statement entirely, although I almost certainly disagree with you in our interpretation of what that statement really says.
Dr. Patrick,
You said:
The Sandy Creek Statement says:
Yet you said in your article:
The SC statement says that Adams sin was imputed to his posterity. Those to whom Adam’s sin is imputed are counted guilty and are under condemnation, just as those to whom Christ’s righteousness is imputed are counted righteous and are justified (Ro. 5).
You stated that “the condemnation comes only after one’s own personal act of sin.” That doesn’t accord with the SC statement.
Now you may disagree with my understanding of Romans 5, but I don’t think you can legitimately contend that the SC statement held your view of Romans 5.
NOTE: There is an individual who has been posting regularly on these threads for weeks who uses your same argument (by which you deny guilt/condemnation by Adam’s sin imputed) to deny the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. I and others strongly suspect (by some of the things this individual has posted) that he/she is an Open Theist. And not one Neo-Traditionalist has opposed anything this individual has posted.
I noted on another thread that the TS has opened the door to Open Theists and has given them an opportunity to plant a foot firmly in the middle our SBC. If I’m right, and the TS is widely embraced, we are going to be fighting the battle of the encroaching liberalism of the 70′s and 80′s all over again in the 20′s and 30′s.
Grace to you, brother.
Randall,
I’ll try to take these in order:
1. SIN (our sinful human nature) we inherit from Adam. The whole Sandy Creek excerpt deals with this topic, but never mentions guilt or condemnation.
2. GUILT (our condemnation) is due to our own sins. My whole article deals with this, a separate matter from the imputation of the sinful nature mentioned above.
3. RIGHTEOUSNESS
Although I did not address this, and neither did the Sandy Creek excerpt, and I’m not quite sure why OPEN THEISM is being discussed, and I don’t know who you’re talking about, but it’s not me, I believe in the imputed righteousness of Christ, as taught below:
“He made the One who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)
“There is an individual who has been posting regularly on these threads for weeks who uses your same argument (by which you deny guilt/condemnation by Adam’s sin imputed) to deny the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. ”
I guess that individual would be me. Nice try to stick a heresy label to me although I have said that I am not an Open Theist. You place yourself in the category of false accusers and slanderers Mr. Cofield and keep doing it now repeatedly.
But as I said before “Christ’s righteousness imputed to us” is not biblical doctrine, period.
And indeed I think there is a corollary here between the discussion of Adam’s sinful act and Christ’s righteous acts during His life. Because that is what is meant generally by “imputed righteousness”. It is then thought that a good bargain can be obtained as follows: Christ takes my sins and I get His righteousness(es). (I am putting as such because it is generally taught that Christ’s righteousness is a quantum that gets transferred to my account as opposed to the state. This is due to a misconception of the word imputation, which involves the estimation of the person’s state, not a transfer of accounts between persons. See the quote of Dwight in the OP: Moral actions are not, so far as I can see, transferable from one being to another. They call this Christ’s “active obedience” in contrast to His “passive obedience” which is His suffering death on the cross. It is taught that Christ’s works during His life somehow get transferred to us.
Interestingly we do see the accounting notion in Romans 5: 16, where a different word from “imputation” is used: there it is appropriate because it involves the counting of sins, but it is still not a transfer between persons. Never so in Scripture as also Rick Patrick has cited several places.
Now, the next question is if my sins are gone, why do I still need His righteousness? God has already imputed righteousness to me (that is: He holds me entirely righteous if I believe in Jesus Christ), my sins are gone on the basis of that same faith, why then is a “transfer from Christ’s righteousness” needed? There is no need for it: we have become the righteousness of God in Him.
We are completely justified by His blood. Even Calvin (not the later “calvinists”) says so. What other justification is necessary?
But this system puts forward man living in the flesh obtaining righteousness through Christ keeping the law for him. Paul puts the believer raised with Christ, entirely dead to the former state and law and fully accepted in Christ.
Sorry that should have been Romans 5:13 instead of 5:16. “but sin is not put to account when there is no law”
Randall,
Here is the 1845 version, the updated version that shows the move away from Reformed, it says,
III. Of The Fall of Man
“That man was created in a state of holiness, under the law of his maker; but by voluntary transgression fell from that holy and happy state; in consequence of which all mankind are now sinners; not by constraint but choice; being by nature utterly void of that holiness required by the law of God, wholly given to the gratifaction of the world, of Satan, and of their own sinful passions, and therefore under just condemnation to eternal ruin, without defense or excuse.”
I think only their early version is used on Founders website.
Today … Sandy Creek Baptist Church uses BFM2000 and no reformed confessions are mentioned.
Rick,
Great word my brother. I appreciate the point you made about the fact the BFM2000 states we become transgressors “as soon as (we) are capable of moral action” not before. Thus, in order to affirm the BFM2000 and hold to imputed guilt one must either believe a person is guilty but not a transgressor (which begs the question) or one must believe one of the following: 1) at the moment of conception man is capable of moral action, or one must believe 2) at some other point in the development of the fetus man is capable of moral action. It seems to me these are very difficult concepts to affirm. The first brings into question how without cognitive or physiological abilities one could be capable of moral action. The second seems to beg numerous questions. Two of which are: 1)when in the development of the fetus could it possibly be stated that he/she is not capable of moral action; 2) When does the fetus inherit guilt if not at conception.
Thus, the inheritance of Adam’s sin nature and not his guilt seems to me to fit best with an affirmation of the BMF2000.
It is interesting to note that ALL SEMINARY FACULTY have signed the BFM2000 affirming it as their belief! It is further noteworthy that the 1963 BFM states the same thing – kind of sounds like a historical Baptist belief.
Concerning those who are highlighting Romans 5 it should be noted that Paul’s is stating that righteousness and guilt are applied the same way. I think we can all agree that Christ’s righteousness is only applies via a conscious decision, which by way of application means Adams guilt is only applied via a conscious decision to sin (a concept not original to me – I read of this concept in Millard Erickson’s Christian Theology as he defended infants in heaven).
Hi Brad,
Would you therefore contend that if a person dies before they sin with cognizance they are assured of entrance into God’s presence?
Grace and Peace
“Would you therefore contend that if a person dies before they sin with cognizance they are assured of entrance into God’s presence?”
The mentally disabled in adulthood are assured of hell according to your doctrine, then?
Lydia,
Not at all. It is the Neo-Traditional insistence on a libertarian free will choice that either:
1) Consigns them to hell,
or
2) Requires a way of salvation other than repentance and faith in Lord Jesus.
See my response to David above @ July 5, 2012 at 11:48 am
I answered your question. Would you be so kind as to respond to my question: Would you contend that if a person dies before they sin with cognizance they are assured of entrance into God’s presence? If so, on what grounds?
Peace, Sister
Randall,
Please forgive my interjection. You ask about the rationale for infant salvation “other than repentance and faith in Lord Jesus.” That’s an unfair requirement. Unless a Calvinistic Baptist subscribes to a post-mortem opportunity (as does John Piper, see the footnote in my previous essay on this site), then his view fails to do so as well. Infants, according to a Calvinistic Southern Baptist, are saved by Christ’s work of atonement on the Cross–not an infant’s conscious acceptance of Christ or expression of faith in Christ. That is the answer we provide as well: the Cross of Christ.
I’m unsure that I can continue to comment on this subject today. Blessings, brother.
In Him,
Adam
Adam,
What are infants saved from?
Dr Harwood,
I actually offered my view this in response to a quote of yours @ July 5, 2012 at 1:41 pm on this thread.
Grace and Peace
Randall
I think Dr. Harwood provided the answer to your question. However, I want to make sure I and others understand a Calvinist view (as presented in your comment at 1:41 PM). Are you saying that God creates every embryo and then elects all of the embryos that He knows based on His foreknowledge will not reach an age of accountability and regenerates them in the womb and then gives them faith and repentance? Doing this before many of them even have cognitive or physiological abilities. If so then are you not also saying people can be saved without even knowing they are saved? This may prove more difficult to defend than Dr. Piper’s position (thus validating Dr. Harwood’s premise concerning infants that the Calvinist position seems more difficult to maintain than our position).
David and Rick, do children who have not reached the “age of accountability” need Christ’s death, resurrection, and righteousness? Do they need God’s saving grace? Do they need forgiveness of sin?
David, I’ve already told you that, as far as we know, all babies that died who were referenced in Scripture, went to heaven. That’s why I believe they go to heaven. I’ve also shared with you that, based on the continual testimony of Scripture, all humans need a Savior. All humans need Jesus in the same manner, period. We’re all sinners in need of a Savior.
I don’t understand why ya’ll are arguing that children somehow do not need the forgiveness of sin.
David, you say that children need “grace.” Why do babies who have not been credited with Adam’s sin or sinned themselves, need God’s grace? Do you also believe that they need Christ’s imputed righteousness/salvation?
“I’ve also shared with you that, based on the continual testimony of Scripture, all humans need a Savior. All humans need Jesus in the same manner, period. We’re all sinners in need of a Savior.”
Yes, absolutely. One key verse for believing that Jesus saves the little children is this:
“See that ye do not despise one of these little ones; for I say unto you that their angels in the heavens continually behold the face of my Father who is in the heavens. For the Son of man has come to save that which was lost.”
Scripture is clear: little children are lost. That has nothing to do with them being guilty of Adam’s sinful act.
“children somehow do not need the forgiveness of sin.”
Because the Bible never speaks of “forgiveness of sin”. It is always forgiveness of “sins”. The sinful acts. For the sinful nature (sin) there is no forgiveness. For that the remedy is only death with Christ.
A descendant of Adam is a sinner, because he has that nature. And because he is a sinner, he will sin, not the other way around. An apple tree will bear apples, because it’s a born an apple tree.
“David, you say that children need “grace.” Why do babies who have not been credited with Adam’s sin or sinned themselves, need God’s grace? Do you also believe that they need Christ’s imputed righteousness/salvation?”
Because they are dying! Sheesh! We are born “dying” because of Adam’s sin. The condemnation is death. We are born in corrupted bodies that die.
You believe in imputed guilt for Adam’s sin so you have a problem. Babies cannot repent of this sin they are guilty of so what to do? A lot of mental gymnastics as we see here.
a few threads ago some Calvinists were trying to show how babies sin all the time. That babies are selfish, greedy, etc to prove this imputed guilt. I have heard this a lot from guys like Washer who try to map crying for a bottle to the sin of selfishness. Praise God he did not have a baby that could NOT cry for a bottle. I know of a couple that has one like that with a feeding tube. They would love for their baby to be selfish. Perhaps these are survival instincts. Jesus was perfect so I am wondering if he ever cried to be fed?
Lydia, do babies need the imputed righteousness of Christ.
No one has answered this question yet.
“Lydia, do babies need the imputed righteousness of Christ”
Since I have seen the game played so much I simply must ask your definition of imputed righeousness. And we know your question is also asked because you are convinced there is imputed guilt. So around we go!
Lydia, imputed righteousness is Christ’s righteousness given to sinners through faith.
Do babies need Jesus’s imputed righteousness. The Scriptures are clear concerning Jesus’s death, resurrection, and righteous being needed for sinners to be justified in God’s sight. Are babies sinners? If so, then they need Jesus. They need to be cleansed by Him to get to God.
Do children prior to the “age of accountability” need Jesus as much and in the same manner as children after the “age of accountability.”
Lydia,
Ah! So infants are under condemnation because of Adam’s sin!
See, we do agree on this most critical issue.
Peace
“Ah! So infants are under condemnation because of Adam’s sin!”
Of course. The wages of sin are death. Babies are born “dying” as we all are. death is condemnation and the consequence for Adam’s sin. Death is the consequence and because of that consequence we are all born “sinners” into corrupted flesh and into a corrupted world. We have a gazillion sins. So what are babies guilty of? Crying for a bottle?
That is not the same as being” guilty” of Adam’s sin and inheriting some sort of sin juice or something for the sin of eating a forbidden fruit. How did the PERFECT ONE, Jesus Christ live in Mary’s womb with all that guilt sin juice in there?
Lydia,
I think if you look at the arguments being offered by your fellow Neo-Traditionalists they don’t agree with you.
I can’t believe you are not just absolutely thrilled to have found some common ground with a nasty old Calvinist. …… :-)
The answer to your question about Jesus is found in Mt. 1:20 “…for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.”
Peace
“I think if you look at the arguments being offered by your fellow Neo-Traditionalists they don’t agree with you.”
That is ok, you know. We are not monolithic. Free church.
“I can’t believe you are not just absolutely thrilled to have found some common ground with a nasty old Calvinist. …… :-)”
Not so fast…
“The answer to your question about Jesus is found in Mt. 1:20 “…for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.”
Are you saying the Holy Spirit took out from Mary the guilt sin juice first? According to your Calvinist doctrine, Mary had to have the imputed guilt sin juice or goo or whatever it is, in her. Was it taken out? Where do we find that stated? So, still Jesus Christ, the PERFECT ONE, was in a womb with imputed guilt sin stuff in there with Him.
Lydia,
Sigh….
We are talking about God made flesh, conceived by the Holy Spirit. Our sin nature is communicated to us paternally through Adam (Ro. 5).
Jesus had no earthly father.
Your constant, petty mockery and bitterness truly is tiresome. It seems you have become the very thing you despise in others.
Sola Gratia
Lydia,
“We are born “dying” because of Adam’s sin. The condemnation is death.”
So do you also agree with Rick Patrick who says in response to, “How then are they saved?”
“They are not under condemnation in the first place, having never performed a sinful action. God judges sinful acts, not a sinful nature.”
Are they under condemnation or not?
Les, My understanding is that death IS the condemnation (wages of sin) and we are sinful as we are born into corrupted flesh and a corrupted world where things like animals and trees die, too. And we do sin— tons. Babies are not aware they sin yet they are under the same death “consequence” as we all are. I do not think they are “guilty” for Adam’s of eating the fruit.
I think the Calvinist ask “How can babies be saved” because this whole issue does not fit their Augustinian/Calvinist paradigm WITHOUT infant baptism. So it comes overly complicated without infant baptism but insisting on imputed guilt. Another example of how complicated Calvinism becomes and does not pass my illiterate Romanian peasant test.
That “sacrament” of infant baptism became very important in an era of high infant death with the Augustinian doctrine of original sin which includes imputed guilt. I never once forget that Augustine is the father of the Catholic church. And I take that into consideration when reading Calvin/Luther. Funny how they did not see the problems inherent in the sacraments as a means of grace.
Because of imputed guilt the entire discussion concerning babies dying becomes a serious quagmire.
I am foolish enough to believe that God’s grace saves babies who die as infants. They do not need to repent because they are not aware they sinned or what they are “guilty” of.
I know that is not as glamorous or intellectual as the complicated Calvin position. But I am one who believes that Christianity was understandable in this repsect for the ignorant peasants of the 1st century. Because lots of babies died back then, you know.
Ok. So you disagree with brother Rick Patrick. That’s fine. I don’t think you’ve said you signed the document.
“Jesus had no earthly father.”
Women don’t get the imputed guilt???
“Women don’t get the imputed guilt???”
Rediculosity.
Lydia,
The Calvinist position isn’t complicated at all. It is no more difficult for God to regenerate an infant and gift them with faith than it is for Him to do the same in an adult.
It’s the libertarian free will choice camp that has to do the gymnastics. Gymnastics that require them to reject a primary doctrine of the Baptist faith for centuries–imputed guilt. Not to mention producing a contortionist’s interpretation of Romans 5.
And not to mention concocting a scheme whereby infants with an admitted sin-nature are received into the presence of an infinitely holy God without the atoning work of Christ ever having been effected in them.
Good grief. My flesh crawls to even type such…
Soli Deo Gloria
Oh, I meant,
“Women don’t get the imputed guilt???”
Rediculosity.:)
I was answering Randall, Les. And yes, it is ridiculous. The whole idea of imputed guilt brings tons of problems that require a ton of mental gymnastics with twisting scripture, etc. It was all taken care of convincing folks of the need for infant baptism but without that, it becomes even more complicated.
Lydia,
I don’t baptize infants, so your argument has no traction here.
Jared,
Are you then saying that all children who die before the age of accountability are all elect? Thus their death proves they are elect?
Or, that their death causes them to be elect? That they are saved by death?
David
I’m saying they’re saved by God’s grace through Christ, which is what the Bible says about all humans in God’s kingdom.
Great job on this article, Dr. Patrick. You’ve applied appropriate pressure on the soft spot of this theological discussion. If the denial of inherited guilt in Article 2 of the Traditional Statement is unbiblical, then so is Article 3 of the BFM 2000, because it allows (perhaps requires) such a view.
In Him,
Adam
Dr. Harwood,
I think a little disclosure may be in order here. Readers, consider the following:
And:
I could name quite a number of historic Baptist Confession that place condemnation prior to actual transgression, but I digress. Now to the BF&M 2000:
The language is poorly constructed here. Proper construction of the sentence would require the statement to read “Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and fall (or come) under condemnation. Plainly, the language is ambiguous at best.
So what to do? If we are truly “Traditionalists,” we go back to the earlier confessions and interpret the BF&M in light of them. This is how we interpret any document that has prior written forms.
However, Neo-Traditionalists want to interpret the ambiguous language of the BF&M 2000 on this point according to their new soteriological paradigm.
No thanks. I’ll stick with traditional Baptist soteriology.
If you guys want to establish a new paradigm, knock yourselves out. But at the very least you should not insult the integrity and rich history of the Baptist faith by calling your new paradigm “traditional.”
Soli Deo Gloria
The language is identical in the BFM 1963. Is it your position that this view of inherited sinful nature (along with a denial of inherited guilt) which has been permissible since the BFM 1963 is in error? Has the Southern Baptist Convention affirmed a sub-biblical doctrine of man for the last 49 years?
Dr. Harwood,
I don’t think so. But then again, I am interpreting the ambiguous area of the article on the doctrine of man by looking back to the prior written forms of the document.
Of course, the question cuts equally well, if not better, the other direction: Did Baptists for centuries affirm a sub-biblical doctrine of man?
Peace.
Randall,
That is a good question. My aim is not to argue AGAINST the inherited guilt view but to advocate FOR the inherited sinful nature view.
Blessings, brother.
In Him,
Adam
Dr. Harwood,
Ok. :-) Then you and I are in absolute agreement on inherited sin-nature. But I don’t think that is the argument of Dr. Patrick’s article at all. You were commending him for putting pressure on exactly the point of inherited guilt.
Anyway, thanks for the exchange.
You sharpened me, brother.
May the God of all Grace be with you.
Adam,
I think Article III of the BF&M is problematic, I think it reflects a disturbing drift toward liberal theology (and I have to wonder if there was any “modernist” influence on it) – even a fairly staunch non-Calvinist in my church commented that the change from 1925 to 1963 seemed more influenced by liberal thinking than biblical thinking. I hope we some day go back to the 1925 formulation. The shift is dangerous.
But the reason I can still affirm Article III is that although it opens the door to a frankly unbiblical view of humanity (one that goes beyond even the Statement, though I believe the Statement is surprisingly unbiblical in its anthropology), it does not close the door to the biblical view. It provides more room, not less.
Wow, so now, not only were all the good, godly, intelligent people, who signed the Traditional Statement, either igorant, or semi Pelagians; but also, now all the ones, who wrote the BFM, also either ignorant, or opening the door to heresy.
Brother, this is just arrogant and sad…..really, really sad. And, YOU are the one, who offered the resolution on unity?
David
David,
Chris Roberts is a Calvinist pastor in a non-Calvinist church. One has to wonder if he was up front with the search committee about his true beliefs before they called him. He doesn’t seem to want to discuss that. Believe me I have tried. I say it’s more than arrogance. It is agenda.
The Original Les
So…given the arguments presented here…
Why do babies die?
Shane:
What would you say to the parents of a baby that has died? I am speaking of in reference to this babies soul?
Interesting question, Tom…one that I have personally experienced.
But the original question remains unanswered.
Given the arguments presented here…
Why do babies die?
Shane:
You said to me:”Interesting question, Tom…one that I have personally experienced.”
And your response to the grieving couple was?
What Bible verses, etc.
I addressed your excellent question in an essay posted on this site last month:
http://sbctoday.com/2012/06/16/inherited-sinful-naturea-view-permissible-as-both-biblical-and-baptist/
Thanks so very much, Adam. I still would love to hear from a minister that has faced the opportunity to minister to a grieving couple what they shared from the Bible with them.
I sincerely want to know as I can not imagine what it must be like as a minister dealing with this type of situation.
“Why do babies die?”
Because we inherit our sinful human nature and death from Adam.
“What verses do we use?”
I would look at 2 Samuel 12:23 and Mark 10:13-16.
“Because we inherit our sinful human nature and death from Adam.”
That makes no sense.
Babies die because of their sinful nature?
Book/chapter/verse, please.
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned. (Romans 5:12)
“For the wages of sin is death…” (Rom. 6:23)
Death comes because of sin. What is argued here is not that absence of our inherited sinful nature and death from Adam, but rather the absence of our condemnation until we personally sin.
Rick,
What’s sad is that this has been said 100 times in 100 different places…even in this post…and still, we have someone asking these kinds of questions….it’s amazing to me.
David
“Death comes because of sin. What is argued here is not that absence of our inherited sinful nature and death from Adam, but rather the absence of our condemnation until we personally sin.”
That argument has been refuted.
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
(Rom 5:18)
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned–
(Rom 5:12)
Shane,
You quote those verses as if we dont believe them, or have never really studied them. lol.
Does what we are saying go against the BFM2K?
David
“You quote those verses as if we dont believe them, or have never really studied them. lol.”
“You quote those verses as if we dont believe them, or have never really studied them. lol. ”
Not at all, David.
YOU take it as though I am quoting those verses as if you didn’t believe them or never really studied them.
Exegete them, or point me to your already-completed exegesis.
I have to interject on this blog. I’ve been a casual observer for many weeks now, but I must interject. I have a special needs son who has a rare chromosome disorder which makes him autistic. He is what we would call “mentally incapable”. Part of my journey to embrace the doctrines of grace was struggling with this very issue.
In the non-Calvinist scheme, my son has no chance to use his free will to “accept Christ”. In the Calvinistic theology, one of the chief tenets is that regeneration precedes faith. In my understanding of sovereign regeneration, I believe that the Holy Spirit can sovereignly regenerate babies and mentally incapable people and yet they not actually express this regeneration with outward repentance and faith. They are still saved by Christ alone and all of His merits, yet they cannot articulate this faith.
Yes, I believe the moment my son was conceived he was under God’s wrath and condemnation and the only way he is to be saved is through the merits of Christ alone applied to Him through sovereign regeneration. He and babies can be regenerated by God’s grace and yet not have the capacity to express that in repentance and faith. He will indeed go to heaven but only on the basis of Christ’s imputed righteousness given to him as a gift.
Arminians and synergists don’t have a good answer to this because they have to change the playing rules on human guilt when it comes to this issue in order to preserve autonomous free will choice.
I respectfully present this not as a slam against any person but as a concerned Southern Baptist and Calvinist and a father of a mentally incapable child and a pastor who has had to help parents navigate these difficult water.
Hi Sean,
I was deeply touched by your post, and I found it not only poignant but also theologically sober and biblically sound. The hope that flows out of your understanding is both powerful and God-glorifying.
I’ve watched with interest since you posted this to see the response of the Neo-Traditionalists. The silence is deafening…and gutless.
This new soteriological paradigm is impotent in the face of reality.
May God richly bless you, your son, your entire family, and your pastor for your powerful testimony to His amazing grace.
Soli Deo Gloria
Thanks for your concern and prayers and kind words. I appreciate it.
Sean,
I was glad to read that you found peace by embracing a Calvinistic paradigm. For that reason, I felt no compulsion to present an alternate view. Even when you wrote that “synergists don’t have a good answer,” I did not feel compelled to present another view. What you have expressed is a Christian view and I have no desire to talk you out of it. I was grateful that you shared your story and my sense was that it would be neither helpful nor necessary to reply. After all, I thought, you didn’t address me in your post.
But your post left the impression that only the doctrines of grace can offer a reasonable, biblical response to your situation. And Randall followed up by referring to our non-response as “gutless” and our view as “impotent.” You did not object to his use of those words.
Please forgive me for not offering a reply. Perhaps that was poor judgment on my part. Although I sense that I have already written too many comments on this site, may I offer the reply that was rolling around today in my mind and heart? This is not meant to persuade you to adopt the “Traditional” Baptist view but to let you (and other readers) know that a biblically-informed pastoral reply can be made by Southern Baptists who consider themselves to be neither Arminian nor Calvinistic.
The situation of a special needs person (specifically a mentally challenged person, whether a child or an adult) can be regarded as similar to an infant. I understand the Bible to teach that sin and death (not guilt) comes from Adam. So, when does a person become guilty? Although there is no “age of accountability” in the Bible, there do seem to be “conditions for accountability:”
1. You know the difference between right and wrong. (The biblical concept of “knowledge of good and evil” is important. See Genesis 2-3; Deuteronomy 1:39; Numbers 14:29, 33; and Isaiah 7:15.)
2. You knowingly commit your first sinful act. (The Bible indicates that God judges sinful thoughts, attitudes, and actions; the Bible does not provide specific instances of God judging people for their inherited sinful nature. Passages key to understanding whether God judges sinful actions or an inherited nature include the following: Psalm 51:5; Romans 1:18-32; Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; and Ephesians 2:3.)
Only after those two conditions are fulfilled is a person guilty before God and under condemnation. If that is the case, then God may regard a special needs individual as lacking moral responsibility and not yet under condemnation.
I have had conversations with parents of special needs children. They have regarded this view to be both biblically sound and personally comforting. In addition to the explanation above, I would offer the following comments:
- Your child was fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139).
- Children should not be born with special needs. Although an opportunity to experience God’s grace (2 Cor 12), it is not the way life should be. But we live in a world that is broken and fallen due to sin.
- David modeled in Psalm 13 the appropriate response when we enter difficult times. He brought his questions and his pain to God–continually stating that his hope and trust are in God.
- People with special needs demonstrate in painful clarity that this world is broken. But Christ through His death on the Cross defeated death and will remake and restore His broken world. Because of God’s decisive victory in Christ, there will one day be neither tears nor pain (Rev 21:4). Jesus makes all things new (Rev 21:5).
- God is present. He can provide comfort and peace as you trust Him (Rom 15:13).
- Jesus welcomed little children (Mark 10). He pointed to them as examples for adults of citizens in God’s kingdom. Perhaps as Jesus welcomed little children during His earthly ministry, He also welcomes people who are children in their minds. If so, then Jesus does the same thing now that He did 2,000 years ago. He points to them as examples of citizen’s in God’s kingdom and takes them in His arms and blesses them (v. 16).
- Jesus alone is the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25). Jesus alone is our only hope for resurrection and reunion with our loved ones, whatever their “needs” and whether they are adults, children, or infants.
Sean, brother, my heart goes out to you and your family. And I am thankful to know that you are trusting God in your family’s challenges. Blessings.
In Him,
Adam
Dr. Harwood,
Thanks for such an excellent response to a very difficult situation. Brother, it’s easy to see why one of the best colleges in the country wants you to be a professor on thier faculty. Also, I appreciate that you take the time to interact in this blog. It is very beneficial to many of us. Thanks.
David
Thank you for your reply and I think it is very well thought out and I agree with almost everything you said.. I’m not into name calling or using the term “gutless”. My not responding to the person who called out “Traditionalists” as “gutless” should be addressed and I should have said something.
I do agree that we are judged based upon deeds done in the body whether good or bad and that babies and mentally incapable have not “committed sinful deeds’ and therefore cannot be judged based upon those. I also agree with all of the points you made. The only caveat that I have come to in my understanding of what little Scripture speaks about this is that God can sovereignly regenerate babies and mentally incapable and that I believe that all babies who die in infancy, or through abortion or stillbirth or as a mentally incapable person do indeed go to heaven, have been regenerated, are saved by the blood of Christ, but have not yet been able to articulate by faith what has happened in their hearts.
Thanks for the encouragement. I try to stay away from the invective that I’ve seen on these sites and want there to be godly conversations without name calling. I am a “compassionate Calvinist” and love my Traditionalist brothers and sisters–most of my family members fall into this camp and my own father has signed the statement as a Director of Missions, so we can agree to disagree on these points and focus on what is more important–getting the gospel to a lost world that desperately needs His grace.
Sean Cole & Adam Harwood
Brothers, my use of the terms “gutless” and “impotent” were in appropriate and sinful.
Sean, I ask you to forgive me for diminishing the beauty of your powerful post @July 5, 2012 at 1:12 pm.
Adam, I ask you to forgive me for using denigrating terms to describe your position on this matter.
Father, forgive me for not loving my brothers as I ought.
Soli Deo Gloria
PS. I’ll re-post this below so that others do not miss it.
Dr. Patrick,
You said:
Here’s where I struggle with that statement. Neo-Traditionalists contend that a libertarian free will choice must be made by man before God saves. Obviously, infants and mentally challenged individuals are not capable of such a choice.
How then are they saved?
NOTE: I do not believe infants and mentally challenged individuals go to hell.
Calvinists believe that God regenerates the unbeliever and then gifts them with faith and repentance. If it is God who truly accomplishes the whole of salvation, it is no difficulty for Him to thus save infants/mentally challenged.
Dr. Patrick, help me understand how these individuals are saved in the Neo-Traditional framework.
Soli Deo Gloria
“How then are they saved?”
They are not under condemnation in the first place, having never performed a sinful action. God judges sinful acts, not a sinful nature.
Dr. Patrick,
Brother, if they are not under condemnation, why do they die?!
If they are not under condemnation, are you not insisting upon a means of salvation other than faith and belief in Lord Jesus?! Do you realize the implications of this?!! The horrific thought comes to mind “they would be better off dying in the womb!” God forbid!!!
If they are not condemned why would they need the grace of God in the atoning work of Jesus?
Brother, it seems that your insistence upon a libertarian free will choice in salvation is forcing you far outside the pale of orthodoxy.
I beg of you, show me that this is not so!!
With heavy heart,
R. Cofield
Randall,
Rest at ease, brother, for I am not beyond the pale of orthodoxy. My position is that infants, though sinful and subject to physical death as a result of the sinful nature they inherited from Adam and the effects of the fall, are nevertheless NOT under condemnation for sin until they personally commit one, which, of course, a baby cannot do. Thus, babies do not reach the age of accountability and will go to heaven and not hell.
Once again, as to orthodoxy, the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 teaches this very same view of inherited sinful nature without inherited guilt. The condemnation only comes AFTER man personally sins.
I trust you will be released of your heavy heart.
“Rest at ease, brother, for I am not beyond the pale of orthodoxy. My position is that infants, though sinful and subject to physical death as a result of the sinful nature they inherited from Adam and the effects of the fall, are nevertheless NOT under condemnation for sin until they personally commit one, which, of course, a baby cannot do. Thus, babies do not reach the age of accountability and will go to heaven and not hell.”
You’re beyond the pale of Scripture, Rick.
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
(Rom 5:18)
Romans 5 ceases to make any sense in the context of the entire book when this false teaching is taken into account.
“Age of accountability?”
Rick…three simple words…
Book. Chapter. Verse.
:-)
Shane,
2 questions….
1. Does the Traditional Statement fit into the BFM2K?
2. Do you believe that babies and the mentally handicapped go to Hell? They never repent and put their faith in Jesus. They’re condemned due to Adam’s sin. They’re guilty of sin, because they were born as a human being. So, do they go to Hell?
David
David,
I had just about decided to exit this discussion. Then I see this by you,
“Do you believe that babies and the mentally handicapped go to Hell? They never repent and put their faith in Jesus. They’re condemned due to Adam’s sin. They’re guilty of sin, because they were born as a human being. So, do they go to Hell?”
and this by Sean at 1:12 PM Today, July 5:
“I have to interject on this blog. I’ve been a casual observer for many weeks now, but I must interject. I have a special needs son who has a rare chromosome disorder which makes him autistic. He is what we would call “mentally incapable”. Part of my journey to embrace the doctrines of grace was struggling with this very issue.”
and he writes more.
Why don’t you interact with Sean, a fellow SBC pastor who is actually living these questions out?
Not one of you guys of this neo position has bothered to interact with Sean.
Les,
Does the TS agree with the BFM2K? We believe it fits with the Bible, and with the BFM2K. We believe that it does not violate Scripture, at all. In fact, it agrees with what the Bible clearly teaches. And, it fits the BFM2K very, very well.
David
and the oscar goes to….
Between Mary and Lydia, I’m having a heck of a time determining which is the bigger witch.
Patrick,
That is unnecessary. Disagree with them all you want. But to call them witches is mean-spirited and unkind.
Les
At this point I’m so sick of their running off at the mouth that I meant to be mean-spirited and unkind.
Patrick,
But it is still not called for. Deal with arguments, deal with Scripture, uphold the Word, tear down faulty positions, and deal graciously with people. That can be difficult, particularly with some people (God know how much I struggle with that, and how often I have to revise what I have written, and at times realize I should have revised!), but it is still necessary.
I am bothered that some of the attitudes presented against Calvinism have not been called out, that some of the hate has not been named, but at the end of the day they will stand before God, not me. What God has told us to do is respond with grace. My pride wants to push back, but let’s kick the legs out of pride and let the Word stand in our place.
Extremely well said…particularly given some of the flack that you personally have received.
No worries, Patrick. I take your statement as a compliment. I am standing up for Miss Mildred, casserole baker and giver of tithes to subsidize YRR education so they can accuse of her being either a heretic or apostate.
And I realize I have come into a “guy” fight and less frilly, flowery women are not really welcome. I understand your problem well. And I am just glad it is not the 1500′s and Reformed punishment is illegal now. :o)
Please tell me, Patrick, you are not a pastor in the SBC. Please.
Patrick, Your words and disposition represent most of my experience with the YRR both in and out of church in my neck of the woods.
Chris,
Some of us believe that suggesting your brothers and sisters in Christ are heretics, semi heretics or Apostates is not loving or even fair at all. Especially since they are quite happy to take heretic money. This could even be considered by some as, hate.
I am constantly wondering why the same curtesies expected are not applied BY Calvinist.
You are not the arbiter of what is hate. Disagreement is not hate although I have seen a ton of that expressed in Reformed circles for those who dare to disagree with the ruling elders. They tend to call disagreement or dissent: Hate. And that is why I do not trust their words. The whole point seems to be to marginalize the person who disagrees. Paint them as haters.
I think it only shows how far apart we really are.We are called heretics and it is not hate. We disagree with interpretation or twisted words and it is called hate.
You are simply using liberal political tactics to marginalize people who disagree.
Lydia,
While I agree with others here that Patrick’s statement was of line, your comments are becoming increasingly ungracious.
While we all need to guard ourselves here, it is not helpful for you to point to other’s bad behavior to justify your own.
Sister, don’t you realize that you are becoming the very thing that you detest in others?
Peace….Please….
Wow, Patrick, that was so Christ like of you…..and, which fruit of the Spirit was that?
David
Patrick,
Lydia is a friend of mine. Lydia has worked in some rough situations and stood with grace and Christian integrity. I would appreciate it if you don’t call her a “witch” or anything else that would be considered rude behavior on your part again. And if you do engage her again, maybe you should throw in a “yes ma’m” or two now and again for a show of good faith and maybe a little contrition.
BTW, maybe you should abide by the same in Mary’s case also, you think?
“Lydia is a friend of mine. Lydia has worked in some rough situations and stood with grace and Christian integrity. I would appreciate it if you don’t call her a “witch” or anything else that would be considered rude behavior on your part again. And if you do engage her again, maybe you should throw in a “yes ma’m” or two now and again for a show of good faith and maybe a little contrition.”
Thanks CB, I am tearing up…. but stiff upper lip and carry on.
Oh, I wanted to thank you for really standing up to the “Servetus deserved it” guy over at Voices. Yes, there really are some out there who believe such things. Reminds me of the Nuremberg defense, “But it was the law at the time”.
One more time, just to sort of draw us back from the whole “witch” discussion, let me plead with everyone that if you truly desire to comprehend the view of “Inherited Sinful Nature Without Inherited Guilt,” which frankly and clearly finds expression both in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 AND in the Traditionalist Statement, PLEASE read Adam Harwood’s excellent “The Spiritual Condition of Infants,” available on Amazon.com at the following link: http://amzn.to/MM6Y6Q.
At the risk of being strung up, there are other Southern Baptists who disagree and make a strong case that the idea of no condemnation until actual sin by an individual is not only unbiblical but not in historic or “traditional” Baptist history.
and…
http://blog.founders.org/2012/06/response-to-statement-of-traditional_05.html
Les,
Be careful, brother! A few weeks back, out of sheer frustration at the lopsidedness of SBC Today’s coverage of this debate, I posted one of Dr. Ascol’s blogs in its entirety.
Got my butt banned for 24 hours!
Not The Original Les,
Thank you for highlighting the fact that the President of the Founders Ministries finds himself outside the parameters of our current Southern Baptist confessional statement.
Perhaps one day, I’ll write an article about that:
http://bit.ly/LGB4Z6
Rick,
Kill the messenger even though his message is spot-on accurate? This is what make these debates well-nigh impossible. The “other side” can’t possibly say anything of any merit.
God, give us more Paige Pattersons and Frank Pages.
Sheeesh.
Randall,
I’m being quite civil. I have no idea what you mean about killing any messengers. EITHER you believe Tom Ascol’s view is spot on accurate OR you believe that the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is spot on accurate, but you CANNOT believe both, for they completely contradict each other, by Ascol’s own admission.
I do agree with you in that I greatly admire both Paige Patterson and Frank Page. I also agree with Dr. Allen’s post yesterday in that we should come together in a polite and reasoned way, give credit where it is due, and generally keep a balanced and kind tone.
Thanks Rick, I wasn’t familiar with that. Now – should I get the $14, the $22, or the $150 version? :)
Chris,
If you click through on the link that says Hardback for 147.62 it takes you to an “any_book” page where they are selling cheap novels for 50 bucks. I would be surprised to find Harwoods book is in Hardback at all as it is listed as paperback only. Please correct me if I am wrong. It seems Amazon has a 3rd party bookseller playing some games. I have seen this same thing on several other books I have looked up recently.
I just did not want to leave folks with the wrong impression.
Lydia,
My guess is the $147 copy is a bound printing of his dissertation before it was released in book form. Bound copies of dissertations can be pretty pricy. I’ll stick with the cheaper version. :)
Chris,
That “unknown binding” link on Amazon kinda scares me. I’d go for the Kindle or the paperback.
Thank you, Dr. Patrick, for recommending my book on this topic. That is unexpected but appreciated.
I found a couple of paragraphs that are relevant to this discussion from my concluding chapter in the dissertation-turned-book. Below is one paragraph (without the footnotes). I’ll paste the next excerpt into a different comment so that the responses can relate to the relevant excerpt. Keep in mind: This is not the Traditional Statement. It’s simply the view of one person who signed the TS.
“Those who claim that infants inherit sin and guilt are faced with the following inconsistencies in their viewpoint: First, it would be inconsistent for God to hold infants guilty of the sin of another person (Adam) because he states that he holds people responsible for their own sin, not for the sin of another person (Ezek 18:20). Each of us will give an account of himself to God (Rom 14:12). We will not give an account to God of our parents or grandparents or even our furthest descendant, Adam. Second, because the Scriptures indicate that God judges people for their sinful thoughts, attitudes, and actions, it would be inconsistent for him to judge infants to be guilty of sin solely based on their sinful nature. Jesus was delivered over to death for our sins (Rom 4:25), not for our sinful nature. Third, if guilty adults must repent of their sin and confess faith in Christ in order to be saved from their sin and guilt (Rom 10:9-13), then why is such a confession not required of guilty infants? The obvious dilemma is that infants are not able to make any kind of confession. But that is not a problem for some people who teach that infants inherit guilt. They state that a confession of faith in Christ is required for the salvation of most guilty people, but not of guilty infants. Fourth, many of the people who affirm infant guilt also think that many (or in the cases of those with believing parents, all) of those infants who die will be cleansed of the stain of original guilt and enter heaven. If so, then they don’t regard infants to be under condemnation until they commit sinful acts. They effectively affirm an age of accountability, in which infants are not presently under God’s judgment but will later become culpable for their sin.”
Adam, I’ll try to respond briefly to each point you made.
1. It’s not inconsistent for God to hold us accountable for Adam’s sin if indeed his sin is our sin. So, when we’re held accountable for our own sins, Adam’s sin is included as our own. Also, do you believe it’s inconsistent for God to allow humanity and creation to be “stained by sin” they did not commit? Furthermore, Would you also claim it’s inconsistent for God to hold Jesus accountable for our sins, and thus, to credit us with His righteousness?
2. If Jesus was only delivered over to death for our sins, not our sinful nature, and you believe infants are not sinners, but only possess a sinful nature, then Jesus wasn’t delivered over for them. The only way you can affirm this is if you assume most of Scripture does not apply to infants. You have to look at all those references to the human race and sin, and say, “This doesn’t apply to infants,” but to the references concerning the human race and grace, say “This applies to infants as well.”
3. Faith and Repentance are required of infants, but they are incapable of it. God Himself cannot give them faith and repentance due to their cognitive ability, unless He miraculously matures them; thus, since they are incapable of even receiving or possessing faith and repentance, at death, they receive salvation through Christ’s finished work alone. In other words, infants still need Jesus as much as any other human being. To me, this is more consistent with all of Scripture, instead of assuming that children do not need Jesus the same way other humans do.
4. There is no age of accountability in Scripture. It’s assumed. If children are not “culpable” for their sin, then they do not need Jesus’s death, resurrection, and imputed righteousness. Only sinners need Jesus’s imputed righteousness. When Jesus said, “I am the only Way to the Father,” it did not apply to infants, only those past the “age of accountability.” All the other references in Scripture as well concerning Jesus paying for the sins of sinners does not apply to these children. Creation fell with Adam, but it was a by-product of Adam’s sin. In similar manner, are you saying that the redemption of children is a by-product of Jesus dying for sinners?
Finally, we’re dealing with mystery. All babies who died in Scripture went to Heaven, as far as we know. Thus, it seems that babies go to Heaven. Now, is it better to argue that most of Scripture does not apply to infants, or to argue that all of Scripture applies to them? Is it better to argue that children don’t need Jesus’s imputed righteousness, or that they only need reconciliation with God due to being a by-product of the Fall (Creation fell due to man’s sin).
I appreciate the interaction brother.
This excerpt, also from chapter 18 of my book (http://amzn.to/MM6Y6Q), attempts to explain how this denial of inherited guilt is not a denial of the work of Christ. This should address the questions by Chris Roberts, Jared Moore, and others in the comments above. My book does not focus on infant salvation but I address it because the issue typically arises after I present my thesis.
“For those readers who have been reading through this book waiting for a declarative statement on the spiritual condition of infants, here it is: Infants are sin-stained, not guilty. Infants are not sinless because they inherit a sinful nature. But infants are not guilty because God judges our thoughts, attitudes, and actions, not our nature. If I were pressed to speculate how God might deal with people who die in their infancy, I would offer this suggestion: All people who die in their infancy will be included in God’s restoration of his fallen creation through Christ’s work at the Cross. Perhaps this is the time Jesus mentioned as “the renewal of all things” (Matt 19:28). Paul said that creation would be set free from its bondage to decay (Rom 8:19–23). Although infants are not guilty of sin, they have been stained by it. Even though they have not knowingly acted in ways that would incur God’s judgment, they may be in need of God’s redemptive and renewing work. And it is Jesus who promises, “Behold, I make all things new” (Rev 21:5).”
I apologize if posting excerpts seems like a shameless attempt at selling my book. That is not my intention. I am simply attempting to present the biblical-theological rationale for a particular point in Article 3 of the Traditional Statement in order to address the charges that our view is sub-biblical. A fuller treatment of each of the claims made in the excerpts above can be found in my book. I’ll bow out of this comment thread in order to allow people to agree or disagree with the claims I made.
Blessings.
In Him,
Adam
Adam, so, children below the “age of accountability” do not need the substitutionary atonement of Christ?
That’s a place I’m never willing to go. In order to argue this view, you have to assume that most of Scripture does not apply to children.
That’s not my claim, brother. They are neither guilty nor under condemnation. But they (having a sinful nature) are still in need of redemption and renewal through Christ’s work at the Cross. But that is different than the salvation of a guilty person.
Do statements of God’s judgment against sinful actions not apply to infants? No. But I’m not sure how that is a bad thing. Instead, the view provides a more consistent theological system. And it’s not a new idea. I demonstrate in my book that the inherited sinful nature view pre-dates Augustine among both eastern and western theologians. In fact, I try to establish from Augustine’s own writings that early-Augustine did not affirm inherited guilt.
Blessings.
In Him,
Adam
Adam, but you say above that Jesus wasn’t delivered over for our sinful nature. You’re saying that’s all infants have. How do infants benefit from the substitutionary atonement if Jesus wasn’t delivered over for our sinful natures?
Jared,
Thanks for your note. My aim (as is yours) is to say what Scripture says.
What I wrote was this: “Jesus was delivered over to death for our sins (Rom 4:25), not for our sinful nature.”
Romans 4:25 (ESV) refers to Jesus as one “who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.” The word rendered “trespasses” is paraptoma. (See TDNT – 6:170,846 for more info.)
Are you asking me to say more about the nature of the atonement than is found in Romans 4:25? In order for me to state that Jesus died for our sinful nature, I will need to see a passage of Scripture that makes such a claim. That’s all I mean. Otherwise, I’m left to speculate about how God might redeem an infant with a sinful nature apart from an explicit confession of faith in a similar way that you are left to speculate about how God might redeem a guilty infant apart from an explicit confession of faith.
In the sentence immediately prior to the one you cited, you will find the idea I was writing to support. I wrote, “Second, because the Scriptures indicate that God judges people for their sinful thoughts, attitudes, and actions, it would be inconsistent for him to judge infants to be guilty of sin solely based on their sinful nature.” Furhter support for this view can be found in my previous essay: http://sbctoday.com/2012/06/16/inherited-sinful-naturea-view-permissible-as-both-biblical-and-baptist/
In that essay, I wrote: “Ronald Nash was a well-respected theologian and philosopher who taught at Christian colleges and seminaries for 40 years and wrote more than 30 books. He attempted to reconcile infant guilt and the hope of heaven in his 1999 book entitled When a Baby Dies. Nash insists that infants are guilty because of their sinful nature. So, infants are guilty. However, “divine judgment is administered on the basis of sins committed in the body.” He cites 1 Cor 6:9–10, which includes sexual sins and says this excludes infants. So, infants are not guilty. But, Nash writes, infants are guilty due to their sinful nature. So, infants are guilty. However, infants don’t know the difference between good and evil, so they are incapable of personal sin. Nash cites Romans 1, which is “clearly dealing with responsible adults.” So, infants are not guilty. Typically, Ronald Nash is consistent and clear. But in this case, he insists that infants are guilty before God and at the very same time not guilty. How can that be?”
Ronald Nash was a self-identified Calvinist. He taught at both Reformed Theological Seminary as well as The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Bapitst Press quotes Dr. Mohler calling Nash “brilliant” (“http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=22843″).
But even when writing an entire book on this topic, Nash could not argue from Scripture that God judges people for their sinful nature. When saying what the Bible says, Nash was only able to cite Scripture which supported the view that God judges sinful, thoughts, attitudes, and actions.
I also wrote:
“(7) In the Bible, God judges sinful actions, not our nature.
Consider the following statements from Scripture about God judging sin: 2 Cor 5:10, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.” What is the basis of God’s judgment in this verse? Our nature or our actions?
Consider the argument that Paul builds in his letter to the Romans. In chapter 1, God’s wrath is revealed against the following actions: the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness (v. 18), fail to honor or thank God (v. 21), claim wisdom (v. 22) but choose idolatry (vv. 23–25), and practice homosexuality (vv. 26-27). What is the basis of God’s judgment in this passage? Our nature or our actions? The same things can be seen in the rest of Romans 1.
Romans 3:10 is a classic statement of man’s unrighteousness, “There is no one righteous, no not one.” What follows in vv. 11–18 is not a summary of man’s sinful nature but his sinful actions. We fail to understand or seek God (v. 11), turn aside and fail to do good (v. 12), speak sinful words (vv. 13–14), kill, destroy, fail to live peaceably, and fail to fear God (vv. 15–18). What is the basis of God’s judgment in this passage? Our nature or our actions?
Reflecting on Romans 1-3, New Testament scholar Harold Hoehner writes, “Paul makes it very clear in Romans that it is their willful acts of transgression and disobedience that bring this wrath.”
The significance? Augustinian-Calvinists argue for our guilt and the judgment of God based upon our sinful nature but Paul argues for our guilt and the judgment of God based upon our sinful actions, which excludes infants.”
I hope these excerpts answer your question.
In Him,
Adam
Dr. Harwood,
Good, good stuff, Bro. Judged for our sinful actions….that is what the Bible teachs. We are not judged and condemned for just being born.
David
Adam, thanks for the continued interaction. I also responded above to your other comment.
First, do you have Scripture that proves the nature and sinful actions are separate? For example, in the verse you quote above (Rom. 4:25), the sinful nature would be assumed, if actions cannot be separated from the sinful nature. The heart isn’t mentioned in that verse either, but surely it’s assumed. Also, is the nature different from the “heart”? At the very least, the nature is included with the heart. Scripture pointedly argues that the heart is the source of evil (Mark 7:20-23). Are you saying that Jesus wasn’t delivered over for wicked hearts or that Jesus was delivered over for sins and portions of wicked hearts?
Second, I’m familiar with Ronald Nash. Just from what you’ve written, it doesn’t seem fair to assume that Nash’s Calvinism is the crux in his book. How many in Christian history have “figured out” why infants go to Heaven? I’m sure you know the answer due to your dissertation being on this subject, but there’s much mystery to this.
Third, you asked for Scripture references. Here’s a few:
Rom. 6:4-6 – “4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.”
Do you believe “our old self” includes our sinful natures? I believe it includes everything that is our “old selves,” not merely our sinful actions, but also our sinful natures.
Rom. 8:1-4 – “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”
Jesus was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, and in Him God condemned sin in the flesh. Do you believe this passage includes the sinful nature?
“I Never Ate the Apple.”
No.
But you would have.
Thus you share in Adam’s guilt and condemnation.
Well posited!
So, can I send you my speeding tickets?
Well, hypothetically, IF I HAD BEEN ADAM, then yes, I WOULD have been guilty of eating the apple, and would therefore have been under condemnation for my own personal sin and no one else’s.
Shane and Randall, I really wish I HAD been Adam, for then I could look down and answer a mystery that has plagued me for years–did Adam have a belly button? The only other advantage in being Adam that I can see is that I would not be forced to respond to harsh and false charges of heterodoxy from fellow Southern Baptists over the internet.
Blessings!
Rick,
I once heard a guy explain that Adam and Eve had belly buttons this way: After creating them, God stood them up, poked Adam and then Eve in the stomach with His index finger, declaring–”You’re done, and “you’re done.”
….to which Adam promptly spluttered “But…but…but you just violated my libertarian free will! This thing is unsightly!”
:-)
Brother, it is not my intention to be harsh. I’m having difficulty absorbing some of what I am reading here. I’ve occasioned people before who denied imputed guilt, but I was completely unaware there were any such critters in the SBC. This is gonna take some getting used to.
Grace to you, brother
No Rick…
You don’t get to hide under your “hypothetical” shield, although it is not for a lack of trying.
You WOULD have eaten the forbidden fruit. You WOULD have plunged humanity into sin.
The soul that sins shall die, Rick. Do babies die? Do small children die? Do the mentally retarded die? People don’t die for having natures. People die for being condemned.
Speaking of death…this false teaching will–God willing–die a quick death in the SBC.
Shane,
I already admitted in my second sentence that I would have sinned in the garden. As it turned out, though, my first sin was in the late sixties or early seventies. In the Bible, people are condemned for their actual sins.
You speak of a “false teaching” dying a quick death, but “inherited sinful nature without inherited guilt” has been around a long time. Not only does it not qualify as “false teaching,” but it is the view sanctioned by the BFM 2000.
We do not sin because we are guilty. We are guilty because we sin.
Shane,
ARe you saying that the SBC is teaching false doctrine?
David
“In the Bible, people are condemned for their actual sins.”
In the Bible are people justified for their actual righteousness?
“You speak of a “false teaching” dying a quick death, but “inherited sinful nature without inherited guilt” has been around a long time. ”
As long as there has been the true Gospel preached, there have been false ones, yes. My comment was specifically directed toward the SBC.
“We do not sin because we are guilty. We are guilty because we sin.”
Wrong. You are guilty because you are in Adam.
“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
(Romans 5:12-21 ESV)
“ARe you saying that the SBC is teaching false doctrine?”
The SBC? The SBC doesn’t “teach” anything. It’s not a person.
There ARE, however, false teachings running rampant within the SBC, this being one of them.
Does that clarify?
Shane,
What I meant is that the BFM2K teaches what Traditionalists are saying. The BFM2K is the statement of beliefs of Southern Baptists. So, are you saying that the SBC is teaching false doctrine? Is the SBC heretical? Because, the TS goes along with the BFM…..
David
Dr. Patrick,
Dr. Patrick,
These questions really do beg an answer (concerning infants/mentally challenged.
Brother, if they are not under condemnation, why do they die?
If they are not under condemnation, are you not insisting upon a means of salvation other than faith and belief in Lord Jesus?
If they are not condemned why would they need the grace of God in the atoning work of Jesus?
If they are not in need of the atoning work of Jesus, have you not just created a means of entering into God’s presence other than by Jesus Christ?
Randall,
You should read the book. You can buy it at amazon!!
Indeed! I’ve heard that rumor.
Well boys and girls,
Hat to admit it, but this cause is likely lost.
Hat should be hate.
Let me add that thankfully the SB I know, and most of them would not be the YRR or Calvinists type, do not and likely will not subscribe to the neo-traditionalist viewpoint. There is hope. Of course with our sovereign God there is always hope.
I don’t know if I hate your hat or not, because I have not seen it. But I can assure you I don’t care much for your cap.
Rick,
I asked this question once before, but I don’t know if it was ever posted as I could never find it. I’ve looked at so many posts that I was unable to remember where I asked the question. I will keep up with this one.
Were you “reformed” when you first came to Hueytown? I ask this because someone told me that you had told him that you were. Is that true, and if so, what happened?
I distinctly remember the conversation with the Search Committee in asking if I was a Calvinist, and I informed them that I was NOT. This was twelve years ago, so I struggled a bit with what to call myself. I said my views were more Arminian, at which point the leading theologian in the room then probed me on eternal security to make sure I wasn’t one of those either! This illustrates how helpful the Traditionalist label can become.
I’m not sure how the misunderstanding you mentioned came about. If you want to explore the subject further, it might help me to know the name of the person who took me for reformed. A more private conversation is available through email or telephone using the contact information on the church website.
“I may be right, but I make my argument. I am not saying you do not believe what you say you believe, I am saying what you believe cannot work, no matter how much you insist you can.”
Chris, You had a long comment and there was no where to reply so I came down here. You explained your reasoning for the accusation of semi Pelagianism, etc in the commen,too. Taking your explanation on that and the above I quoted, all I can say is that this discussion is not going to work for the simple reason that many of us do not use the Augustine/Calvin filter to read scripture. We have not embraced their hermeneutic. I don’t speak for everyone but that is what I am seeing. So the round and round is pointless.
That is why “what” many are saying cannot work FOR YOU or any other Calvinist. You want to claim that it is why it won’t work from a scriptural point of view as if you only have that truth and they really don’t. It is just arrogant. Was your resolution on unity based up on this belief? How could you ever even think of unity when you do not think what they believe can be scriptural or “work”? Do you see yourself as the one to “enlighten” people?
That is why exegesis does not work in this debate and never will. For some of us and I don’t want to speak for anyone else, our Triune God is not a Determinist God. When we say that, YRR folks immediately interpret that to say we do not believe He is Sovereign. When in fact, I believe he is Sovereign over His own Sovereignty.
At this point, after weeks, I think it is clear that many YRR like yourself are simply trying to “catch people out”. This is done by rephrasing questions, taking statements and twisting them to mean something they don’t mean, etc. At this point it just seems like tactics to paint another group as apostate.
What has touched my soul in this is that Trads have not resorted to hyper Calvinism claims and other such nefarious and vague accusations as the YRR did. They have been fair and patient. This debate did not start on SBCToday with the article. This debate has been going on in many churches for the last few years and tearing them apart. Why? Because YRR guys think people in churches are just ignorant. And that is the only reason I am here. I have seen one too many kind and tolerant person abused by the YRR. This whole movement is psuedo intellectual because you love your knowledge too much and fail to see that it is from man and man’s knowledge and therefore you only read scripture from a man’s perspective. But worse, the YRR movement tends to love knowledge more than what they view as the ignorant people in pews.
I see the Platonic influence on Augustine all over this movement. Man is incompetent and needs a few enlightened ones to lead the masses. The lack of being able to see the arrogance and condescention will eventually be this movements demise or it will go liberal as it has historicially. But not before it has a trail of bleeding and wounded in it’s wake.
“While we all need to guard ourselves here, it is not helpful for you to point to other’s bad behavior to justify your own.”
Randall, If my name was Larry or I were a YRR, you would have not responded.
Lydia,
May I borrow your crystal ball?
Randall, you don’t need one for the obvious and consistent. :o)
Lydia,
You’ll be pleased to know that there is a blog over at SBC Voices about your beloved Miss Mildred.
Seems she turned 95 yesterday, and a bunch of Calvinists went to the rest home and threw her a birthday party. It is reported that all the meanies present sat enthralled as she regaled them with accounts of God’s grace in her nearly century-long life.
Whodathunkit? How terribly out of character for a bunch of arrogant Calvinists.
(Obligatory emoticon inserted and then expurgated…because…well…its obligatory and I’m a nasty Calvinist)
Peace
Randall,
You want to blow my mind? Find me a Traditional Miss Mildred at a YRR or Acts 29 church. :o)
I was not aware Dave’s church was known as New Calvinist. Maybe it is.
Lydia,
The hard-case shtick is wearing a little thin.
You guys need to make up your mind whether you are deeming SBC Voices Calvinism Central or not. This back-and-forth thing to fit whatever argument you are in the mood to make is too thin to splatter.
Les,
So, according to you, we’re all a lost cause. lol. Okay. Then, I guess the SBC is a lost cause then, because most SB’s believe what we have stated in the TS, or close to it… really close to it.
David
Also, over at SBC Voices, we’ve got a fella saying that Calvin was right in burning Servetus for heresy….I’m not kidding. CB is taking him to task, and he’s actually arguing that it was okay for Calvin to put people in prison and burn’em, if they didnt believe like ole Johnny C.
Wow.
Les, do you see the personal attacks now? Incredible.
David
I’ll have to get back to yall later….Swamp People is on, and they’re catching gators in Bayou Sorrel and Pierre Part…..
Choot it, Lizabeth! Choot it!
David
Brethren,
I consider myself to be in the nonCalvinist camp, but have you guys really decided that you’re willing to deny a doctrine that we have always believed as baptists,namely that all humanity is guilty before God? Do you not remember the liberal path that our General Baptist cousins took because of their Arminian doctrine? Your zeal to rid the convention of Calvinism will actually undo the hard fought results of the CR.
Hi John,
I’ve raised this exact issue on 3 separate occasions over the past two days and have been summarily dismissed. Probably for no other reason than that I am a Calvinist in the middle of a feeding frenzy.
I hope that you making the same observation as a nonCalvinist will gain some traction.
Thank you, brother, for what I consider to be a wise and insightful post.
Grace and Peace.
John,
Thanks for your note. Please don’t confuse a legitimate view of affirming an inherited sinful nature with either Arminianism or “zeal to rid the convention of Calvinism.” For several weeks, serious and careful contributors have been writing on this site in order to clarify that neither is the case. If you are new to this conversation, then you might be helped by reading some previous posts on this issue as well as the Traditional Statement itself. Welcome to the conversation.
Blessings, brother.
In Him,
Adam
Randall,
Thank you so much for your kind comments. I am really distressed by what I see as a serious departure from our baptist faith.
John,
No one is dening original sin. No one is saying that people are not sinners. No one is saying that people are not born with a sin problem in their heart and souls. In fact, this part of the Trad Statement goes along with the BFM2K. So???
David
John,
Hopefully we will see a return to more traditional (and biblical) views of humanity in which we recognize the Bible’s teachings that we are truly and completely dead in our trespasses and sins. I have been quite disturbed by the trend of some in the SBC to try and preserve even a hint of natural human goodness, despite the overwhelming biblical evidence to the contrary.
Take heart! Many of us do not go along with the Statement.
Chris,
Can you show me where the TS goes against what the BFM2K teaches?
David
David,
What is being denied is that all humanity is guilty before God. I don’t have time to list all the scriptures that refute this untenable position. What Adam passed down to us was more than just a sin nature, he passed down to us a death sentence.
John,
Many highly intelligent, godly men have said that this statement does not go against what the Bible teaches, but rather, expresses what it teaches. Also, can you show me where this statement goes against the BFM2K? which is our statement of faith….which many, many more highly intelligent, godly men wrote….
David
David,
Who, prior to the 21st century, said such things? I’m genuinely interested in reading some of their works to see how they dealt with all of the accompanying problems that this position creates.
ab,
Does this statement agree with the BFM2K, or not?
David
David,
Yes, but the BFM2k allows for Calvinism as well.
Who, prior to the 21st century believed this way about imputed guilt?
Will you answer my question now?
David,
I dealt with this further up the thread. The 2k statement is poorly written syntactically and is ambiguous. This requires that we look at prior statements for clarification. That’s what ab is referring to. There is no support for the Neo-Trads interpretation of this article prior to 1963.
AB,
I never said that the BFM2K didnt allow for Calvinism. I have always believed it did. But, when Calvinists start crying “false doctrine,” or “unBiblical view,” or “Semi Pelagianism,” or “heresy,” then they are calling all SB’s the same…because the TS goes along with the BFM2K, and goes along with the teaching of the Bible…what the Bible clearly teaches; not the speculations and philosophy of men.
David
Randall,
EY Mullins was one of the main writers of the 1925 BFM. EY Mullins. Is he not the man, whom Calvinists claim took the SBC away from the Founders???
And, I think you’ve been shown over and over again that the Sandy Creek crowd was not nearly as Calvinist as your Charleston crowd. And, lets not forget the AnaBaptists.
But, I’d rather go ALL the way back to the Bible…not just to the confessions and creeds of a group of Christians in history.
David
Inherited sin nature is affirmed along with the death it brings. Condemnation is also affirmed, but is transmitted not immediately upon conception, but mediately upon one’s first actual, personal sin. We are judged not for our sinful nature or inclination, but for our own sinful actions, and not for the sinful actions of another.
“We are judged not for our sinful nature or inclination, but for our own sinful actions, and not for the sinful actions of another.”
I see…but we ARE judged as righteous for the perfect obedience of Another (2 Cor 5:21)…or do you believe that you can be declared righteous by God by YOUR OWN righteous actions?
You cannot have it both ways.
Shane,
I embrace my guilt and condemnation which stems, of course, from my sinful nature inherited from Adam, and which was ratified or confirmed or made real in my life at that moment when I personally committed a sin and thus fell under condemnation.
In the same way, I embrace a righteousness which is not my own, but which stems, of course, from my new nature in Christ, which was ratified or confirmed or made real in my life only in that moment when I personally accepted God’s grace through repentance and faith and became a Christian.
Both views embrace the imputed sinfulness of Adam and the imputed righteousness of Jesus.
The ONLY difference is in the timing of condemnation.
“I embrace my guilt and condemnation which stems, of course, from my sinful nature inherited from Adam, and which was ratified or confirmed or made real in my life at that moment when I personally committed a sin and thus fell under condemnation.”
All who are in Adam are condemned. The “judgment following one trespass (not YOUR trespass, btw) brought condemnation…” (Romans 5:16). “One trespass (not YOUR trespass, btw) brought condemnation” for YOU, Rick.
This trespass is not YOUR trespass; it was Adam’s. But it brought condemnation to YOU (unless you’re going to tell us that “all” doesn’t really mean “all”–which would be shocking for a synergist such as yoursself).
The judgment following ADAM’S trespass brought condemnation for YOU, Rick.
You’re reading your tradition back into the text.
Your arguments are refuted by a plain reading of Scripture.
“In the same way, I embrace a righteousness which is not my own, but which stems, of course, from my new nature in Christ, which was ratified or confirmed or made real in my life only in that moment when I personally accepted God’s grace through repentance and faith and became a Christian.”
A lot of credit you take there for your salvation, Rick…but my first problem is with your statement “in the same way…”
It is NOT in the same way. One man’s trespass did NOT bring you condemnation, you claim…so how can one Man’s perfect obedience bring you righteousness? It is not “in the same way,” at all…no matter how many times you say it is.
“Both views embrace the imputed sinfulness of Adam and the imputed righteousness of Jesus.”
And both the imputed sinfulness of Adam and the imputed righteousness of Christ have direct implications for all of us. You deny the condemnation that Adam’s trespass brings yet embrace the righteousness that the Second Adam’s obedience brings.
Please jettison your tradition, Rick…and allow Scripture to explain and defend itself.
The ONLY difference is in the timing of condemnation.
Shane,
Notice Dr. Patrick’s statement:
There’s the rub on the whole TS right there. “I” must “ratify” “my” salvation, else God’s hands are completely tied and He cannot save me and impute Christ’s righteousness to me.
When one thinks they are in control of their salvation, it is a natural extension for that one to believe they are in control of their condemnation.
And there you have it–denial of imputed/inherited guilt. I Never Ate The Apple….therefore I determine whether or not God can save me.
Libertarian Free Will at its finest….the Neo-Traditionalists have swallowed the “apple” alright; stem, peel, seeds and all.
Your earlier assessment that Neo-Traditionalists would have eaten the forbidden fruit was spot-on, brother. They have just devoured it.
Soli Deo Gloria
Brother Rick,
Greetings from Vineland Park! Your article is very good, even if I don’t agree.
I am probably rehashing what was already discussed surrounding your previous article which focused on the BFM, but I must say that the BFM section III (Man) is so poorly written that it can be interpreted more than one way. When I read (rede) it, it sounds extremely Calvinistic, because it says (for example) that as soon as you are able, you sin, and (for example) MAN (not Adam) fell from innocence (and by implication must now be guilty). But after seeing your comments here I realize it can be interpreted also as you describe. However, it would need to say ADAM, not MAN in almost of section III, for it to clearly agree with the mediate view. Likewise, where it says, “are under condemnation” would need to be reworded for it to clearly agree with the immediate imputed guilt view.
Thanks for your clear, thoughtful statements.
May the Lord bless you,
Bob
John,
Brother, I’ve been ’round and ’round with these guys on this thread. I think it is clear at this point they intend to stick to this aberrant teaching. Let’s pray together that more seasoned, cooler heads prevail at the Convention and in the pulpits of our Churches.
Grace to you, brother.
To me at least it seems that PRIDE is the main issue. They have got to know by now that the neo-trad document contains aberrant teachings. But instead of editing it, which is what is obviously needed, they rather, dig in their heals. Heresy is more appealing it seems than admission of any mistakes in their document. Plus, they don’t want to have to ask 1000+ people to sign a new document again. So stick with the document just as it is with aberrant teachings and pretend they don’t exist is what they have chosen to do. Pride.
T.R.,
I’ll be the first to admit that I am prideful. My sins, even as a saint, cause me to regard myself as the chief of sinners. I like to be right and I like to be viewed as smart. That is pride.
God opposes the proud. And if there is ONE who I don’t want to oppose me it is God. Thankfully, He gives grace to the humble. So, I continually humble myself before God’s mighty hand and deny myself and follow Jesus. The only reason I would do things like pursuing God and submitting to Him is that I am in Christ, a new creation.
So, I acknowledge your point about pride but think it has little to do with this doctrinal statement.
I see several points at which the Traditional Statement differs with Calvinism but none at which it differs with the Bible. I am unsure why you would call the Statement “Heresy.” If you will offer nothing more than unsupported accusations, then I ask that you either offer evidence to support this serious charge or kindly refrain from making such a claim.
Blessings.
In Him,
Adam
Dr. Harwood,
Amen. And, it’s awfully hard to have “unity” with people, who keep calling us heretics. It’s just shameful and concerning how some Calvinists behave.
David
David,
I have at no point on these threads accused anyone of heresy. If your comment was in any way aimed at me, you should retract it immediately.
Peace
To deny that Adam’s guilt is imputed to us as the logical result of also denying that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us, since Romans 5:19 cannot sustain the biblical teaching that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer “if” it is argued that Adam’s guilt is not imputed to the human race.
“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.”
Since Article II of the neo-trad document clearly and unmistakably denies that Adam’s guilt is imputed to the human race, I indeed call that aberrant teaching heresy. To deny Adam’s guilt is imputed to the human race is heresy. The result of that teaching is clearly heretical because it cannot, according to Romans 5:19, permit Christ’s righteousness to be imputed to the believer. Now you may disagree with me. But this is the stand I am taking. I believe that part of the neo-trad document is heretical. It needs to be reworded. Until or unless Article II is edited, the signers have signed a heretical document that places them outside of Christian orthodoxy. Again I say “To deny that Adam’s guilt is imputed to the human race is heresy.” That is the stand I take.
It could further be argued that it is heresy to declare infants innocent of guilt (and this is surely being argued by the neo-trads). The logical result of this aberrant teaching is that infants are not in need of the sacrifice of Christ and that infants will get to Heaven based on their own innocence, rather than on the innocence and righteousness of Christ. They will have no need to praise Jesus for their salvation. They have no need of salvation! This too is a heretical teaching.
tr,
So, you are calling the SBC heretical? Seriously? You are calling the SBC a heretical organization, which is teaching false doctrine? Because, the Traditional Statement lines up with the BFM2K…..
Do you really want to say this????
David
No. I am saying your neo-trad document puts you outside any stream of the SBC, including Sandy Creek.
tr,
Then, you need to read the BFM2K again, because the TS fits perfectly into the BFM2K.
You are wrong.
David
I’m curious.
To Rick…
At what age did you become condemned for your sin?
About the same age that you told your first lie, disobeyed your mother, or stole someone’s toy in the sandbox, realizing it was wrong and you shouldn’t have done it. Only God knows, but it was probably somewhere in the 5-10 range, I guess. I was not saved until seventeen. I shudder now to realize that if I had died during those years after I had reached moral capacity but before my conversion, I would have gone to hell.
Rick,
Hallelujah, Brother! I didnt really get saved until I was 19 yrs old. I’m very thankful for the grace of God towards a rebellious, sinful, out of control, young man. I’m very grateful that God saved a drunken, partying, young man, who was spiraling downhill faster and faster.
David
Rick,
You make a good representation of your argument. I grew up in a SBC church and graduated SWBTS with a MDIV/BL and absolutely NO knowledge of Calvinism. I can remember the few times it was mentioned in passing.
There are certainly occasions in the Bible where one person felt the wrath of God because of another\’s deeds. While you give a good way to look at Romans 5 and avoid federalism I believe it will be more problematic as one reaches Chapter 9.
The implication of your comment above is what moved me to Calvinism. We need a reason for having moral capacity and not following Christ as well as a reason for choosing Christ while maintaining the thrust of Eph. 2:8-9. I struggle with the idea that someone can be the effectual agent in their own salvation and yet have no reason to boast.
For me, monergism harmonized not just Romans, but a soteriological thread that runs from Genesis to Revelation. It avoids the necessity of self moral \’goodness\’ in order to become a child of God.
Thanks,
Darryl
Wow…so not only does your salvation ultimately depend on you, but you also determine when you are condemned for your sin.
This is, of course, 100% speculation on your part.
I will stick with Romans 5.
“Moral capacity.” Ugh.
Shane:
I may have missed it but one last attempt to get you to answer the question of what do you say to the grieving parents of a baby–verses from the Bible etc.
“I may have missed it but one last attempt to get you to answer the question of what do you say to the grieving parents of a baby–verses from the Bible etc.”
I am the parent who lost the child, Tom. My wife and I went through that together–and continue going through it.
Hence my “personal” qualifier.
Shane:
I am sincerely sorry you and your wife are going through this. I was not smart enough to pick up in the “personal” qualifier and ask your forgiveness if my approach was rude or hurtful to you or your wife. It was not my intent.
Dr. Patrick,
Brother, that is not what John was objecting to. It is the denial of imputed guilt that troubles him, as he plainly stated in his post. This denial is clearly out of step with…dare I say traditional…Baptist belief, and the manipulation of the BF&M to support it is going to draw some serious fire, even from your own camp.
Based largely on the extra-biblical idea of an “age of accountability”–in your estimation, 5-10 years old–you deny imputed guilt. This creates a class of individuals who have both a sin-nature AND ACTUAL SIN who, according to you, when/if they die, are not held accountable for their sin. This aberrant denial of imputed guilt has several significant implications that are unbiblical.
1) It creates a class of individuals who, according to you, are not under condemnation, but who often suffer the penalty of condemnation–death.
2) It allows for those with both a sin-nature and with actual sin to enter unchanged into God’s holy presence.
3) It creates a class of humanity who have no need of the grace of God in the atoning work of Jesus.
4) It creates a means of entering heaven other than through the salvation wrought by Jesus Christ.
I’ve posed these problems in question form several times. Your response to some of them has been to gloss over them with postulates for which you have no biblical support. Some of them you have not bothered to answer at all.
It is you who have posited this denial of imputed guilt. It is therefore your responsibility to support that denial with clear, scripture-saturated, exegetically sound answers to reasonable objections. That is the nature of positing doctrinal positions, and three-line sound-bites in response to objections do not qualify as a reasoned defense.
A good place to start would be a verse-by-verse exegesis of Romans 5. This necessarily must take into account Paul’s entire argument in the whole book–universal condemnation and justification by faith alone.
Brother, it is not my intention to be harsh here, but you have opened a can of worms that many Southern Baptists see as inherently dangerous. You should either defend it with convincing brilliance or retract it with repentance. The Gospel is worthy of nothing less.
I’ll not trouble you further on this point.
Sola Gratia
Randall,
On at least one point, you are mistaken. You addressed your latest response to me, when the person who wrote the quotation you have referenced is Adam Harwood, a seminary professor who has written an entire book on the subject.
Because, with respect to this view, I think he is unlikely to, in your words, “retract it with repentance,” you might wish to consider personally whether or not he has already endeavored to, in your words, “defend it with convincing brilliance.” I, for one, consider his book brilliantly convincing.
You may acquire it here: http://amzn.to/MM6Y6Q
Dr. Patrick,
My apologies, brother. That was a clear oversight on my part.
Brother, it is quite clear in my post that I was addressing your denial of inherited/imputed guilt–part of the very sub-title of your article. And it was to you I addressed my post.
Come, now.
Well, if you are talking to me, then obviously I am not going to “retract with repentance” the mediate imputation of guilt view written into the Baptist Faith and Message (which I supported in June 2000) AND the Traditional Statement (which I signed last month) AND which is the very subject of my last two articles.
When someone writes something, it’s a little bit odd to just ask them to take it back. Brother, you may disagree with this view. That’s fine. But it is NOT heterodox. It does not require repentance. It is very widely held by respected Southern Baptist scholars and pastors and leaders. It is the view of our confessional statement.
If, as you say, I have “opened a can of worms” then the can has been sitting on the table since 1963, when condemnation was first placed after the commission of sin in The Baptist Faith and Message. Those worms are all dead. Mine is the viewpoint reduced to writing in our official Southern Baptist confession of faith. Instead of asking me to repent, perhaps you need to address your passionate concerns in the direction of that document.
Dr. Patrick,
You seem to have missed the first part of my request: “You should either defend it with convincing brilliance…or retract it with repentance.”
Coupled with my prior exhortation:
You seemingly feel no compulsion to do so.
I find that odd.
Soli Deo Gloria
Rick,
For the record, I’ve already done exactly that further up this thread. Article III is poorly written syntactically, ambiguous at best, and thus it must be interpreted in light of earlier forms of the document.
Baptists have for centuries affirmed imputed/inherited guilt, and Southern Baptists have boldly done so as late as the 1925 BF&M.
The Neo-Traditionalists, in trying to support their new statement on soteriology, are forced proffer a doctrine that accords neither with Scripture nor with Baptist tradition.
At least one self-identified non-Calvinist on this thread has already voiced objection to the denial of imputed/inherited guilt. I predict that many in the Neo-Traditionalist camp will also object, some vociferously.
Which is precisely why you should either produce an articulate defense of the doctrine (beginning with Ro. 5) or retract it.
Soli Deo Gloria
“But it is NOT heterodox. It does not require repentance. It is very widely held by respected Southern Baptist scholars and pastors and leaders. It is the view of our confessional statement. ”
Then it should have no problem being explained in light of Romans 5.
You have directly contradicted the inspired teachings of the Apostle Paul as laid out in the book of Romans.
Please either explain/refute this apparent contradiction, or receive correction and repent of your error.
David,
The BFM2k is wide enough to allow for myriad beliefs regards effects of fall, both orthodox and non.
As to E.Y. Mullins, whom you point to as a person who “agrees” with this NEO-trad understanding of imputed guilt prior to the 21st century. I have done no reading of his systematic theology, but I do know that he affirmed the 1925 BFM which EXCLUDES the NEO-trad understanding of imputed guilt.
Perhaps, if Mullins’ views did evolve into the NEO-trad understanding, you all could drop the costumed moniker “Traditionalists” and just call yourselves “Mullinists”. This would be very helpful in delineating the “historical” traditional views from the “populist” traditional views. (since you seem to like the claim that your views are “popular” today)
Is there anyone, prior to the 21st century, that the NEO-Trads can point to in orthodox Christianity (doesn’t have to be baptist) who denies imputed guilt the way that the NEO-Traditional document and defenders do?
Ab,
The Bible.
David
Prove it.
Randall,
We already have….over and over and over again. You just dont want to accept it. I guess you’re just not one the chosen ones, who can see it. :)
Also, you show me where what the TS says contradicts the BFM2K? Where? So, I’ll ask you, like I’ve asked the others….what are you saying about the SBC? since the TS goes along with the SBC’s statement of faith…the BFM?
David
David,
The belief that God is a Bagel is also within the BFM2k.
humm……
Your argument doesn’t hold water. The BFM2k presupposes that a consistent, orthodox hermeneutic will be used to interpret the biblical text on matters not specified within the BFM2k.
Someone told me once, “Read your Bible….”.
“And if you come up with an understanding that no one has held before inside of orthodox Christianity, you have a wrong understanding.”
It doesn’t seem that you fellas are the least bit concerned about this.
Of course, it could be that Hankins, et. al have a superior intellect than all theologians throughout time.
AB,
That has been patently postulated by more than a few on these threads.
Prepare yourself now to be labeled yet again an “arrogant” Calvinist because you dared point out the arrogance of defending the arrogance of those who arrogantly hold themselves above the arrogance of anyone who might point out their arrogance.
What on earth were you thinking?
Soli Deo Gloria
Randall,
Yes, I am putting my rubber suit on to avoid the squirt gun shower.
Humility is not natural to me, as I am the ultimate example of sinful man, formally bound by my sinful nature, with the sin still waging war in the members of my body.
Of course, there are some who see Paul’s treatise differently but there is no better explanation of our natural self in Romans for me than to look in the mirror.
“Humility is not natural to me, as I am the ultimate example of sinful man, formally bound by my sinful nature, with the sin still waging war in the members of my body. ”
Should I will lock up the silver and keep my hand on my wallet?
You should meet our Savior who makes it possible for you to have a new heart, to be Born Again and be a new creature in Christ. The sin you once loved, you will come to hate. You will not want to “practice” sin as the “ultimate example of sinful man” or be forever bound by it until Jesus comes back.You will no longer want to “Sin Boldly”. Will you sin? Yes. But less and less as HE changes us inside. Will you ever not sin? No, impossible living in that corrupted flesh. But:
“Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.”
1 John 4
We do not have to remain totally depraved. We can grow in Holiness, friend.
abclay,
You quoted:
abclay,
Sorry. My block quotes got all messed up. But this link will take you to W. T. Conner’s views:
http://bit.ly/LToqFA
The Reagan quote was: “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”
Please stop implying this is some new, weird fringe viewpoint. It’s not. It’s a solid biblical and Southern Baptist doctrinal position.
No problem..those block quotes can get messy if one isn’t closed right.
I would disagree. While it may be what you and a few others believe, just saying it is solid and biblical and southern baptist doesn’t make it so.
And I can understand your frustration with someone questioning your beliefs on infants being saved without the need of the righteousness that is found in Christ. It hurts me to even say it.
I’m researching the beliefs of Infant Salvation by those Church Father’s from Adam Harwood right now, but when I get time I’ll look up old W.T. Conner too.
Then, when I have convinced myself that this is within orthodoxy and I will no longer be held responsible for not sounding the alarm, I will stop pestering you all.
Peace to you brother.
The BFM2K was set up to show what SB’s believe is a good, sound believe in what the Bible teaches, and it’s the minimum of what someone, or a Church, should believe, in order to be considered a Baptist Church. Thus, if someone’s beliefs fit within the BFM2K, then they should be considered orthodox in their beliefs enough to be a SB. If a Church’s beliefs can fit into the BFM2K, then that Church should be considered sound enough, and Baptist enough, to belong to the SBC.
Thus, Calvinistic Churches and Traditionalistic Churches would be considered sound enough to belong to the SBC. Reformed Churches, who practice infant baptism and Elder Ruled Churches, would not fit. Semi Pelagian Churches, who believe that a person can be lost again, would not fit. Churches who believe that a person is saved by his good works….like baptism and taking the Lord’s Supper and being a good person…. would not fit. Churches ordaining women as Pastors would not fit.
But, Churches with sound doctrine, who at least agree on the basic teachings of the BFM2K, would fit into the SBC….even if they disagree on minor points of theology. We must, at least, agree on the main things, the clearly taught black and white teachings of the Scriptures.
The TS agrees with the BFM2K.
David
David,
The belief that God is a Bagel is “allowed” by the BFM2k.
My intent is not to equate your (and the other NEO-Trads) denial of imputed guilt with the belief that God is a bagel.
My intent is to show that your defense of your denial of imputed guilt by stating that it’s within the BFM2k is invalid.
Respectfully,
Anthony
And also, you state:
I agree. Up until a couple of months ago, it was understood that one of those “Black and White” things was the imputed guilt of Adam among the whole of humanity.
Anthony
Pardon my interruption but I have consistently addressed this issue w regard to the BFM – I would go further than “allowed” and state the BFM Affirms a denial of imputed guilt unless one is willing to state at the moment of conception an embryo is capable of moral action. Which of course begs numerous questions.
Also, God could not be a bagel in the BFM2K teachings….how ridiculous….
AB, I think you need to re read the BFM2K.
David
David,
Nothing in the BFM2k precludes God from being in the form of a Bagel.
Your inability to grasp my simple argument against your defense is somewhat perplexing.
God, a bagel. Ridiculous? Yes………. That’s exactly my point.
AB,
You thinking that the BFM2K would allow for God to be a bagel is beyond ridiculous. Read the description for God in the BFM. Let’s at least stay in the realm of sensible reality, okay?
And, ab, your ignorance of what the BFM2K does is astounding. The BFM2K was set up to show what Churches were good, sound Churches, which could fit into the SBC. It’s a very good, sound document, which was written by a whole group of men, who are much smarter than you and I. The arrogance of your statements is also astounding.
David
Friends,
It seems that there is one more challenge leveled against this view, which is basically this: Name one Christian theologian besides EY Mullins who denied imputed guilt.
I’ll get to that.
First, allow me to make an observation about the nature of this theological discussion. At present, it’s backwards. This is the way theological discourse should work: I make an assertion with supporting evidence. If you disagree, then you bring a counter-claim with contrary evidence. Instead, a theological assertion has been made. In this case, the assertion is roughly this: People inherit from Adam a sinful nature, not his guilt, and they will become responsible for their own sin before God. Supporting evidence has been provided in the form of biblical, confessional, and logical support. What is now being requested, it seems, is historical support. Fair enough. But before we deal with the historical support, realize what has been happening–not only on this post but since May 30. Rather than making a contrary claim and providing contrary evidence, there is simply a contrary assertion, an appeal to the same passages of Scripture we cited, and the charge that we must prove that our view is within the bounds of orthodoxy.
The burden is not on us to prove that our view is orthodox. Rather, the burden is on critics to establish with an actual demonstration from the primary resources that there are biblical-theological flaws within the Statement. That requires more than simply repeating secondary sources (“Olson says so” or “Mohler hinted at it”) that disagree with the Statement. It is necessary to form a clear argument which cites particular assertions in the Statement which violate orthodox Christian theology. Keep in mind that the Traditional Statement will contradict certain points of Calvinistic theology but that does not mean that it has transgressed the realm of orthodoxy. That would only be the case if one adopted the notion that among all Christian groups in history, only Calvinists affirm and maintain orthodox theology. None of us are making that claim, are we?
So, I’ll provide some historical support for this view. But it’s important for you to know that we don’t have to work to prove our view’s orthodoxy to our more Calvinistic brothers. If they view it to be unorthodox, then they must make their case. Simply labeling it “sub-biblical” or “unorthodox” or “semi-Pelagian” is only name-calling which is sinful (because it is untrue) and off-putting behavior.
So, the historical challenge. abclay posed the challenge today as follows: “Is there anyone, prior to the 21st century, that the NEO-Trads can point to in orthodox Christianity (doesn’t have to be baptist) who denies imputed guilt the way that the NEO-Traditional document and defenders do?” Below I’ll provide five examples and also throw in a mention of the legitimacy of the view by a prominent Southern Baptist theologian. These examples are culled from my book, excluding some of the footnotes (http://amzn.to/MM6Y6Q):
#1.
John Chrysostom (374–407). Known as “Golden Mouth” for his skills in oratory, he is regarded as one of the most significant preachers in the first thousand years of Christian history. He wrote: “We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins.” (John Chrysostom, On Infants, in Later Christian Fathers, 169)
#2.
Gregory of Nazianzus (ca. 330–390) preached, “For this is how the matter stands; at that time they begin to be responsible for their lives, when reason is matured, and they learn the mystery of life (for of sins of ignorance owing to their tender years they have no account to give), and it is far more profitable on all accounts to be fortified by the Font, because of the sudden assaults of danger that befall us, stronger than our helpers.” (Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 40.28, in NPNF2 7:370.)
Gregory held forth in the passage above the following two ideas: First, people are not born with the responsibility of Adam’s sin. Rather, they become morally responsible at the point in life at which their reason matures and “they learn the mystery of life.” Second, they are not responsible for sins committed prior to this time of responsibility. Infancy is obviously included in the earliest period of life; Gregory called this period the “tender years,” which is a time prior to people becoming “responsible for their lives.” All sins committed during these “tender years” are regarded by God as “sins of ignorance,” for which the person will not have to give an account.
#3.
In On Infants’ Early Deaths, Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 335–394) addressed the spiritual condition of infants. They were neither good nor bad; infants who died would be with God because their souls had never been corrupted by their own sinful actions.
#4.
It wasn’t only Eastern theologians who rejected (or failed to advocate for) inherited guilt. Among the pre-Augustinian Western fathers, Tertullian (ca. 145–ca. 220) is often cited in support of the view that infants inherit sin and guilt. Although he mentioned that their souls are unclean in Adam, he also questioned why there was a rush to baptize infants, referred to their souls as innocent, and differentiated between infants and children based upon their capability to commit sin.
#5.
Inherited guilt was even rejected by one of the most important of the Magisterial Reformers, Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531).
Like Luther, Zwingli rejected the Augustinian notion that baptism removed the guilt of original sin. However, he admitted to holding that view at one time. In 1525, he admitted that the controversy with Anabaptists “has shown us that it is not the pouring of water which washes away sin. And that was what we once believed, although without any authority in the word of God. We also believed that the water of baptism cleansed children from a sin that they never had, and that without it they would be damned. All these beliefs were erroneous, as we shall see later.” Zwingli still affirmed both Adam’s seminal unity with humanity and sin’s devastating effects upon humanity. But he stated the effects on infants in new ways. Luther attacked his position as Pelagian because of his use of free will, so Zwingli offered a reply to Urbanus Rhegius in Augsburg. In defending his view of original sin, Zwingli wrote his thesis statement in the form of this question: “For what could be said more briefly and plainly than that original sin is not sin but disease, and that the children of Christians are not condemned to eternal punishment on account of that disease?”
Zwingli continued the defense of his alterations to original sin by distinguishing between the words disease and sin. Disease refers to the “original contamination of man,” “defect of humanity,” or “the defect of a corrupted nature.” Rom 5:14 reveals that Adam’s fault brought this to every person. Sin, however, “implies guilt, and guilt comes from a transgression or a trespass on the part of one who designedly perpetrates a deed.”
#Bonus: A Prominent Baptist Theologian
In his Systematic Theology, Baptist Theologian James Leo Garrett Jr. (b.1925) categorizes Zwingli’s view as one of five “Theories Not Teaching the Imputation of Guilt” and labels it “Theory of Uncondemnable Depravity.” Garrett identifies Zwingli as the originator of this view and explains, “This theory holds that human depravity always leads to sin but is not sin per se, and hence human beings are not condemned for their depravity but for the sins to which depravity has led.”
—
Blessings, friends.
In Him,
Adam
“This theory holds that human depravity always leads to sin but is not sin per se, and hence human beings are not condemned for their depravity but for the sins to which depravity has led.”
Adam Harwood,
Thank you for posting this in your comment. This concept is one that should drive us to humbly search for more light from the Scripture and illumination from the Holy Spirit.
Again, thank you. I, for one, have never read this before and I consider it helpful in the quest for truth.
Wonderful post… God-honoring in content, character, and charity.
Adam,
Thank you for the response though I haven’t got time to read it now. I want to spend some time with it for you have gone to a good deal of time to put it together.
I like that you included Zwingli.
“I’ll be bhaak”
Dr. Harwood,
Thank you for shedding light here. Truth is unkillable. And although accusations have and will continue to fly, truth will prevail. We stand where Baptist have historically stood, especially Southern Baptist. Both the 2000 and the 1963 BFM seem very clearly to deny imputed guilt and contrary to some assertions that the 1925 BFM affirmed inherited guilt, it actually may not have. One may interpret that it did but one may just as easily interpret that it did not since when speaking of mankind it actually states “whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and in bondage to sin, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors.” It is far more vague on this than either the ’63 or 2000 and since the 2000 is what our institutions have agreed to, we find ourselves in the company of all seminary faculty with regard to “Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors.”
Why is it so important to you all to hold on to this false teaching, which denies imputed guilt, which cannot line up with Christ’s righteouness imputed to us in Romans 5, which makes innumerable infants have no need for Jesus Christ? Why do you stand so firmly on such shaky ground?? Really I would like to know. Does your whole theology fall apart if Adam’s guilt is imputed?????
It’s so very important because we feel that’s what the Bible teaches. Why do you feel so strongly the other way?
David
Very good point, David. I feel so strongly because of what I believe the Bible teaches.
Thank you brother.
Federal headship via suzerain covenant.
Thank you, Dr. Harwood and Dr. Brad Reynolds, for inserting good, sound, educated comments into this comment stream. And, I, for one, appreciate highly intelligent men like you, two, who will give us such good, deep things to chew on. God bless you, fellas.
David
Sean Cole & Adam Harwood
Brothers, my use of the terms “gutless” and “impotent” were in appropriate and sinful.
Sean, I ask you to forgive me for diminishing the beauty of your powerful post @July 5, 2012 at 1:12 pm.
Adam, I ask you to forgive me for using denigrating terms to describe your position on this matter.
Father, forgive me for not loving my brothers as I ought.
Soli Deo Gloria
Forgiven, brother.
Here’s a good blog post that is interesting reading about a theological giant in the SBC.
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2012/07/wt-conner-on-the-imputation-of-adams-sin-by-peter-lumpkins.html#more
Something that’s interesting about this discussion is that Scripture groups all of humanity into one of two groups: God’s people and not God’s people/the elect and the non-elect. There’s not a third category. Where do infants fit in based on your view? For example, where do infants fit into the many eschatological verses that discuss the elect like this verse:
“31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other” (Matthew 24:31).
It’ll be bad to be a living infant on that day, since they are not “the elect” according to your view.
There are just so many problems with the belief that infants don’t need salvation in the same manner as conscious sinners do.
I am amazed and truly disheartened that we in the SBC are even talking about anyone NOT needing salvation through Christ. I’m amazed that there are even Christians who would want to stand up for such a thing. Imagine your epitaph reading “He convinced people that Jesus was unnecessary for salvation.” Isn’t that what you are doing in regard to infants?? That ephtaph may well be how neo-trads will be remembered in the next generation of the SBC.
Jared,
Can a 2 yr old get saved?
So, your option, then, would have to be that children go to Hell. And, that the mentally handicapped go to Hell. And, why do they go to Hell? Just for being born.
David
David, I’ve already explained my position. You can disagree if you want, but quit arguing that I’m saying something I’m not. I’ve already told you why I believe children and the mentally handicapped are saved. It’s through the death,burial, resurrection, substitutionary atonement, and righteousness of Christ. It makes more sense that those who do not possess the mental capacity to possess faith and repentance, are not required to possess it, and thus, receive Christ’s finished work credited to their accounts due to God’s grace.
In order to hold your view, you have to rework so much Scripture. For example, are all infants “elect”? That’s a question you must answer. The problem is that if infants are all part of the elect, then everything Scripture says about the elect applies to them, which destroys your assumption that they don’t need the righteousness of Christ credited to their accounts.
Jared,
Where in the Bible does it teach that babies and the mentally handicapped are saved by ??? And, how can they get to Heaven as sinners, who were born with the guilt of Adam upon them, and the condemnation of God upong them, and the wrath of God against them????
I see no where in the Bible where infants are called the elect.
Thus, the logical conclusion to your view….as far as I can see….is that babies and the mentally handicapped go to Hell, forver, to pay for the sin of being born a son of Adam.
David
David, where does Scripture separate infants from the rest of humanity? It doesn’t. You’re the one saying that infants are in another category. The Bible doesn’t argue this. All humans need all the work Jesus accomplished in our stead. Infants need Jesus’s imputed righteousness.
I don’t understand why you think it’s more biblical to argue that children don’t need all that Christ accomplished on the cross, including His imputed righteousness, than it is to say (my view) that children need all that Jesus accomplished and His imputed righteousness just like any other sinner, which are credited to their accounts by God through His grace due to their inability to possess any form of faith and repentance. Thus, they are part of the elect.
I see no where in Scripture where infants are labeled some other category than the rest of humanity. The argument that they’re not sinners must necessarily argue that all Scripture which groups all humanity together as sinners doesn’t apply to infants. In other words, “all” means “all humans except infants,” according to your view.
Either infants are part of the elect or they’re not part of the elect. These are the only two possible categories. There is no other category for humans in Scripture.
” There’s not a third category. Where do infants fit in based on your view?”
Infants are saved by Jesus, who came to save the lost. Mt 18:10 and 11.
But what has this to do with them being guilty of Adam “eating the apple”?
Suppose you’re a US soldier in Afghanistan right now with your cohorts searching through a village that is suspected to have shelled the road nearby. They are enemies. And suppose you see a small child half-hiding behind his mother. Do you hold him guilty for the acts of the villagers? Do you put a bullet in him, because he happens to be born an enemy?
If you hold to “imputed guilt” you should.
holdon, so, you believe that infants are lost? That’s not what Rick, David, or Adam are arguing.
Yes. It should be clear that I think (based on Scripture) that infants are lost (however saved by Christ).
I think you’re misunderstanding Rick and the others: Rick wrote somewhere here above:
holdon, Adam explained what he meant by that statement. He believes that children are saved somehow through the same way Jesus redeems the rest of creation. He doesn’t believe children need the imputed righteousness of Christ because they’re not sinners. (If I’m understanding him correctly. I think I am.)
Adam,
Thank you for the opportunity to do some good research. Though I’m certain my library and available resources pale in comparison to yours, I will try to make my case and be brief.
My original challenge was
You have given me some examples from early church fathers who never wrote in English. Also, because of the limited volumes available of some of their original work, there may be little to cross reference as I genuinely wanted to explore how they dealt with the problems that a denial of imputed guilt brings. A quote or two from a church father, or from anyone for that matter, can be used to make a great number of cases for the person doing the quoting when little is readily available from the quoted to substantiate or refute the original claims. I don’t say this to disparage your efforts or motives, but to make note of my own difficulties in substantiating or refuting your claim.
As to John Chrysostom
You quoted John Chrysostom, “We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins.”
It seems that Julian of Eclanum had used this quote by Chrysostom against Augustine during the Pelagian controversy to which (of course) Augustine had a reply.
Here is the full Quote to the best of my findings
This is attributed to John Chrysostom though I never found it “in his own words” in a volume. To the best of my findings, it is attributed to Chrysostom by Augustine in his arguments against Julian of Eclanum during the Pelagian controversy. I do not know if that is how your source has the quote listed. I assume that the modifier “personal” in reference to sins was added by Augustine for clarification as he was arguing that Chrysostom was not denying imputed guilt with this quote. The basic argument used by Augustine was that because Chrysostom had used the plural “sins”, Chrysostom was speaking of sins that had been committed by the babe and not inherited sin. If the quote by Augustine is accurate (which I have no reason to believe it isn’t), I believe the context clearly shows if the baby was not guilty of something, it would not need holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, etc.
We may not be certain, based on Augustine’s interpretation of (and possible addition to) the quote, exactly what Chrysostom’s view was.
In any case, Chrysostom did well to write a Homily on the Epistle to Rome by the Apostle Paul (and other scriptures) for the early church to share and for us to enjoy even today. I thank you for nudging me to indulge in this commentary for a bit. I got the feeling while reading the homily that it has less emphasis on doctrine and more on practice and I do enjoy this type of writing considerably.
While the thrust of the reading for Romans 5, verses 12-19 is that God’s grace and life through Christ is so much more great and beautiful than the death and condemnation through Adam, there is one nugget that might shine some light on Chrysostom’s view of imputed guilt.
In his homily on verses 18 and 19 of chapter 5; “Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous.”
Chrysostom comments
Emphasis mine.
It may be because of his definition of “sinners” in verse 19 that Chrysostom baptized the babies, even though they “were not defiled by [personal] sins” themselves?
Please forgive my grammatical errors and my sophomoric researching and reporting abilities but my degree is in engineering and the hour is late. I hope to research and address the others very soon (regardless if anyone cares or not).
Peace
Anthony, I meant to place my reply here so as not to get lost. I apologize, but it is below, posted at 8:49 AM.
Anthony,
I appreciate your research and contribution here. It is most beneficial to the conversation. However, I do think you may have missed Dr. Harwood’s point before he gave numerous historical examples. The point was:
“The burden is not on us to prove that our view is orthodox. Rather, the burden is on critics to establish with an actual demonstration from the primary resources that there are biblical-theological flaws within the Statement…It is necessary to form a clear argument which cites particular assertions in the Statement which violate orthodox Christian theology.”
Once this is actually done (it has not been done yet and perhaps there is good reason it has not been done yet) then one may have a legitimate charge of unorthodox views and could “sound the alarm.” Allow me to share how this might be done. One could actually quote from Scripture where Scripture condemns a denial of imputed guilt as heretical. Or one could actually quote from a legitimate Church counsels where the early church found such a view as heretical and condemned it as so.
Debating over whether Chysostom did or did not hold such a view misses Dr. Harwood’s point. Nevertheless, it does get to your challenge, which I will offer a comment about momentarily but first allow me to issue you a challenge: can you find where the church condemned a denial of imputed guilt as heretical?
Concerning Chysostom, I think you address very well our concern that Chrysostom did not affirm a denial in imputed guilt (based on your interpretation of his comments in his homily) when you say “A quote or two from a church father, or from anyone for that matter, can be used to make a great number of cases for the person doing the quoting when little is readily available from the quoted to substantiate or refute the original claims.” only I would add, “especially when the one doing the quoting then interprets the meaning of the quote.”
What Dr. Harwood did was exactly what was asked of him. He was asked “Who, prior to the 21st century, said such things?” He provided ample evidence. And yet, apparently more is wanted without ever addressing the problem he stated…namely, making an accusation of unorthodoxy or heresy without evidence.
Finally, while he cited numerous examples allow me to cite Southern Baptist Convention examples. Namely, the BFM 1963 and 2000 which states “Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.” Now unless one is willing to state that an embryo is capable of moral action at the moment of conception then the BFM2000 and the 1963 both affirm a denial of imputed guilt. Since, we are Southern Baptists and the BFM (not the Second Baptist London Confession or the New Hampshire Confession) is the actual confession for Southern Baptists it appears we find this denial of imputed guilt very orthodox!
Thanks again for the participation – you write very well and very thoughtful.
Jared,
Where in the Bible does it teach that babies and the mentally handicapped are saved by ??? And, how can they get to Heaven as sinners, who were born with the guilt of Adam upon them, and the condemnation of God upon them, and the wrath of God against them????
I see no where in the Bible where infants are called the elect.
Thus, the logical conclusion to your view….as far as I can see….is that babies and the mentally handicapped go to Hell, forver, to pay for the sin of being born a son of Adam.
David
David, answered you above.
David, Just answer how John the Baptist was “filled with the Holy Spirit” in his mother’s womb. Did he repent and believe in there? Was he born again before he was born? Stop playing marbles with the diamonds of God, namely the diamond of “election”.
“John the Baptist was “filled with the Holy Spirit” in his mother’s womb. ”
Weird. Where did you get that from?
Anthony,
No, John the Baptist did not repent and put his faith in the Lord in his mothers womb. John the Baptist was a very special situation. I dont believe there was anyone else like this in the history of man. And, this does nothing to the view, which I, and others, have been declaring. And, no one is playing marbles with the doctrine of election.
I believe the Bible teaches that repentance and faith are necessary for someone to be saved. And, no one will go to Heaven apart from Jesus…He is the only way to God. Thus, we come back to the problem with infants and the mentally handicapped. They never have the mental capacity to even understand repentance and faith.
So, as we look at all the Scriptures about God juding men for thier works…their actions; not just for being born….and, we look at the example of King David and his baby that died….and as look at the different passages about the one’s not knowing the right from thier left….and, even in the wilderness, the people under the age of 20 were not held responsibility for doubting God, whenever Joshua and Caleb came back with their report; but the older ones were not allowed to enter the Promised Land. I really do see that infants and the mentally handicapped are not held accountable for their sins by God. Not that they’re innocent. They’re not. Not that they dont have a sinful nature. They do. But, I really do think that they go to Heaven based on the grace of God.
There are no other John the Baptists out there. No one else can say what was true of John the Baptist.
David
So whose sin do the babies in the womb die for? Their sin or Adam’s. “The wages of sin is death”. There is no other biblical definition of death or reason for it, unless God is unjust. (Jesus only died for sinners, He didn’t come for a righteous man, but sinners)
Death came upon man thru Adam. Sin came into this world thru Adam. The whole creation fell because of Adam.
Anthony, we dont deny original sin. We just dont believe original guilt. We believe that men are held accountable for thier own sins….like the Bible teaches many, many times….God will judge people for thier own works….He will condemn people for the sins, which they’ve committed.
David
The parallel is that Jesus takes our sin and we get His righteousness. The parallel with Adam is that as Adam is the first of us sinners, and by his sin we too become sinners, so Jesus is the first man born of God, the Word made flesh, and those saved by Him also become born of God.
I am a 5 pointer, by the way.
We are condemned by our own sin. There are too many places in both the OT and NT that say that quite explicitly to ignore that truth.
I wonder if anyone would care to interact with a statement by Grudem in a footnote in his chapter on inherited guilt where he discusses Romans 5:12
Romans 5:12 NKJV
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—
“The aorist indicative verb h?marton in the historical narrative indicates a completed past action. Here Paul is saying that something happened and was completed in the past, namely, that “all men sinned.”
Rom 5:12 is somewhat difficult to translate and how you translate depends on what concepts you have. But to say this aorist is a completed past action is not so simple. The aorist is basically “timeless” and indicates the character of the verb rather than it’s happening in time. Thus in Rom 5:12 the fact is stressed that “all sinned”: that is their character, and Paul elaborates that in the following parenthesis (v 13 – 17).
The same aorist is found in Rom 2:12 (2x) and 3:23. No one would argue that there it means “a completed past action” at Paul’s time of writing, but rather again the character, the principle, is expressed.
As with all things I can see how one\’s perspective can help determine the conclusion. As background I was thoroughly anti-Calvinist up until my early 30\’s (I\’m presently mid 40\’s), and I received most all of my doctrinal foundation in Independent Baptist churches. We were not Calvinists by any means, but yet I never heard anything close to what is being currently presented on Original Sin by many Southern Baptists. I was always taught that we stood as sinners and condemned before God (because of the sin of Adam and us as being constituted as in Adam at that time). Of course the difference between us and Calvinists is that we believed that God could and would overcome our spiritual state of being completely dead in sins by coming upon an unbeliever in the conviction and power of the Holy Spirit where the gospel was being presented and giving them the ability to make a free choice.
I want to make some exegetical points regarding Romans 5 and this particular issue, but just to give a little more background in this post I will say in the interest of full disclosure that I now consider myself Reformed with respect to Theology. Although I would not say I\’m a 5 pointer. I have gone back and forth over the last 12 years on the scope of the Atonement and presently I lean away from LT. I think I\’m also somewhat unique in how my Theology was formed, and so I think I can bring a somewhat unique perspective into the discussion. I had no exposure to Reformed authors, teachers, preachers, Internet sites, etc. up until my early 30\’s when I was given a tape by R.C. Sproul. I listened to about 15 minutes and took it out in anger and put it away. I was a \”Whosoever Will\” Christian, and that was that. It was probably 7 or 8 months later when studying some Scripture that is not ordinarily associated with Reformed Theology or soteriology that I felt like I saw something for the first time, and my journey into Reformed Theology progressed from that point.
So having said that I\’ll post a follow-up sharing some thoughts on this particular subject and Romans 5.
Regarding the Greek construction of the verb “sinned” in Romans 5 I will confess that I’m working on limited knowledge at this time. I am just beginning my study of Greek and have not gotten into verbs yet. But from what I can tell from looking ahead and also doing a quick search what I found does seem to back Grudem up. But there could be exceptions and context is always key. So with that I’ll look at the verse itself:
Romans 5:12 NKJV
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—
There are 3 verbs, and here they are with their noun subjects: “sin entered”, “death spread”, and “all sinned.” All 3 verbs are in the second aortist indicative. Now as I confess I’m not a Greek expert by any means, but what I believe I can readily get from this is that all these things happened in the past. I know that “sin entered” was definitely a completed action, and I think I can reasonably say the same thing about “death spread.” So that leaves “all sinned.” We know this is describing a past event, but when did it happen? From the context I don’t know any other way to interpret this then to conclude that “all sinned” at the same time that “sin entered” and “death spread.”
Romans 5:19 NKJV
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
Here we see that “may were made sinners.” But when? Again I think context would indicate that “many were made sinners” when the “one man’s disobedience” took place. On the other hand the “many will be made righteous” indicates to me that while sin is imputed at the same time as the one man’s disobedience, righteousness is imputed at a future time.
Some have suggested that you either have to interpret Romans 5 with the understanding that sin and righteousness are both imputed in the future because of resultant actions (thus backing up Hankins statement) or they must be interpreted to say that both are already imputed and thus backing universalism. I don’t believe this is the case. I believe verse 19 shows that the sin that was imputed to us was in the past and that the righteousness that is imputed to us is at a future time. When is the future time that righteousness is imputed? I believe verse 17 has the key (also see v. 15).
Romans 5:17 NKJV
17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
I believe righteousness is imputed when the gift is received. I believe Romans 10:9-13 gives more context as to what happens at that time.
In addition to what I see in Romans 5 I have come to see verse after verse after verse that convinces me that I was born in a spiritually dead state in which I would never have chosen God no matter how much “woo’ing” or convicting the Holy Spirit may have done. I believe my old nature (which is the only one I had prior to salvation) while being completely free to choose would never choose to respond to the Gospel.
I have read this thread and a few others almost exhaustively discussing this most recent statement by Hankins, and I’ve seen the circular discussion with the endless point and counter-point. I don’t wish to get into that because for one thing just about everything has already been said. But also I know from my own personal experience that up until my early 30′s there is absolutely nothing anyone could have said to me that would have convinced me to even consider the possibility that Reformed Theology could be correct. You could have shown me Scripture, you could have shown me Greek, and you could have presented point after point, and it would not have done any good. I saw the Bible from one perspective, and that was that. I had the presupposition that there was no way God would have chosen people in advance and not given everyone the opportunity to choose with their own free will.
And here is where I’d like to share something with my Reformed brothers. As long as I was seeing things with that lens then I was not hearing your arguments. However I was hearing your tone and disposition. And far too many times I heard arrogance, condescension, name-calling, and pride. It was just a couple of years ago that I began to venture out onto some Reformed blogs, and most of the time I was disgusted with the tone. I don’t want to be associated with those kinds of attitudes. While I was not Reformed for most of my Christian life I still loved Jesus, and I was committed to walking with Him. I sincerely believe that Reformed Theology will continue to gain ground because I believe it is consistent with God’s Word. But it is God’s Word that will be the catalyst and not our arguments. If we truly believe in the Doctrines of Grace then let us be a whole lot more gracious toward those who disagree.
A Suggestion To Resolve the Current Theological Impasse
After six weeks of wrangling, one thing seems apparent: “Talking” about Calvinism and Neo-Traditionalism is not going to resolve our differences. Neither will “blogging” or “commenting.” This should come as no surprise, for these issues have been debated by better theologians than ourselves for the better part of 2000 years.
As Calvinists and Neo-Traditionalists, we find ourselves bound together by the commonality of the Baptist faith and the more specific denominational distinction “Southern Baptists.” Calvinists are no more or less Southern Baptists than are Neo-Traditionalists, and Neo-Traditionalists are no more or less Southern Baptists than are Calvinists. And we are stuck with each other, like it or not.
I, as a non-hyper Calvinist, do not consider my Neo-Traditionalist brothers and sisters to be heretics. I trust that my Neo-Traditionalist brothers and sisters do not consider me a heretic. If this be the case, I would offer the following as a solution for our current impasse.
Calvinists should resolve to avoid telling Neo-Traditionalists how they should preach and proffer the Gospel, and vice versa.
Neo-Traditionalists should resolve to avoid telling Calvinists that we cannot live, preach, and teach our beliefs with liberty in the SBC, and vice versa.
Calvinists should resolve to avoid telling Neo-Traditionalists how to do mission work and plant churches, and vice versa.
Neo-Traditionalists should resolve to avoid telling Calvinists that their leaders are unworthy of leading entities within the SBC, and vice versa.
Both Calvinists and Neo-Traditionalists should resolve to love one another with a pure heart fervently.
There is a point which is being completely overlooked in this debate: Both sides have errors in their respective theologies. As Calvinists, we do not know what our errors are, else we would correct them. Conversely, Neo-Traditionalists do not know what their errors are, else they would correct them.
If we give ourselves to the above five resolutions and to advancing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with abandon, errors on both sides of the divide will be exposed and corrected over time.
Soli Deo Gloria
PS: The fact that there are 5 resolutions in my proposal is of NO significance whatsoever. And to my Neo-Traditionalist brothers and sisters: No, the devil did not make me do it. :-)
Very good suggestion, Randall.
“Here we see that “may were made sinners.” But when? Again I think context would indicate that “many were made sinners” when the “one man’s disobedience” took place.”
Right. The many were made sinners. NOT: the many sinned when Adam sinned. Big difference. In order to sin, you have to be a sinner. In order produces apples, you have to be an apple tree. What is so difficult to understand here?
As far as the aorist in v 12 goes: “death passed to all men” is certainly not completed in the past: it still happens every day. The intent of the whole argument (also in the following verses) is the condition that came about, has these characters: sin entered the world; death passed to all; death reigned; grace abounded; etc. You could translate as well by saying: sin enters, death passes to all, death reigns, grace abounds, etc.. as that is what Adam’s act and Christ’s act bring about. In other words you cannot infer from these verbs that “we committed a sin when Adam committed his sin”. (if that were at all possible somehow).
By the way, there is no “imputation” of sin in Rom 5. In v. 13 you have “counted” or “accounted”, but it’s a different word from “imputation” as in Rom 4:22, 23. So, you don’t have to worry about that thought here.
Here is something else I found on the aorist indicative that seems to agree with Grudem, and also seems to agree with my Greek Grammar book:
However we parse the meaning of the verb tense what seems clear to me is that the verbs being used are past tense. “Adam sinned”, “death spread”, and “all men sinned.” These are in the aorist indicative. From what little I know of Greek verbs it would not have been difficult to find a verb tense to express something that is still ongoing and will happen in the future if that was the intended meaning.
I think the whole point of Romans 5:12-21 is to compare what happened in Adam to what happens in Christ. When Adam sinned we were counted as having sinned as well. But the great news of the Gospel is that just as we were “constituted sinners” we can be constituted as being righteous. No we didn’t eat the apple, but neither did we live the perfect sinless life that is required to be reconciled back to God the Father. If it doesn’t seem fair that we were counted as sinners in Adam, that is overwhelmed by the grace of God where we are counted as righteous in Christ and have his perfect record imputed to us.
“From what little I know of Greek verbs it would not have been difficult to find a verb tense to express something that is still ongoing and will happen in the future if that was the intended meaning.”
I think it is an error to assign a time to the aorist. Aorist is not about the time of the action, but about the nature or character of that action. If Grudem and al. want to argue and that “all sinned” happened at the time when Adam took “the apple” and not thereafter (“a completed and past action), then he has to be consistent and say that “death reigned” (also aorist) then and only then (as “a completed and past action”). This of course is nonsense: death still reigns.
And it is even more disturbing if “grace might reign” (v 21 aorist) were only in the past.
I think you may not be understanding that Grudem is making the point about the aorist indicative. The aorist verb tense can have different moods that alter what it means. For instance the aorist subjunctive can be a future event that is contingent. So for instance the phrase in Romans 5:21:
“those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.”
The verb translated “will reign” is from the aorist subjunctive.
When Grudem says that the aorist indicative indicates a past completed event this is not just a matter of his opinion. It is a matter of grammar. I don’t have Daniel Wallace’s book in front of me, but I read a summary of someone citing his book on this issue saying that Wallace says that the aorist indicative indicates a past completed event unless there is something else nearby in the Greek that would make it clear that it is otherwise. In just about any source I’ve come across they concur that the aorist indicative indicates a past event that has already happened.
While I know this gets somewhat in the weeds I do think it is important to note that Greek is a precise language, and the Holy Spirit inspired precise words, tenses, moods, etc. to convey precise points.
So I just have to go back to my original point which was that the 3 phrases in Romans 5:12 of “sin entered”, “death spread”, and “all sinned” are all linked to each other occurring in the same sentence with the exact same verb tenses and moods. I also think it’s important to note that this negates the argument that we are being held accountable for someone else’s sin. Whether we understand it or even agree with it Romans 5:12 is teaching us that God regards all of us as having sinned in Adam and with Adam. So it is our sin (in Adam) that we’re held accountable for.
I don’t see this as a Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist issue. I would have argued for this interpretation of Romans 5 and for the doctrine of original sin in my non-Calvinist days, and I suspect a good number of Baptists today would as well.
“So I just have to go back to my original point which was that the 3 phrases in Romans 5:12 of “sin entered”, “death spread”, and “all sinned” are all linked to each other occurring in the same sentence with the exact same verb tenses and moods. I also think it’s important to note that this negates the argument that we are being held accountable for someone else’s sin. Whether we understand it or even agree with it Romans 5:12 is teaching us that God regards all of us as having sinned in Adam and with Adam. So it is our sin (in Adam) that we’re held accountable for.”
No I don’t buy your conclusion. And you keep adding to the text what is simply not there: “sinned in Adam” is not found in Scripture. Not in Rom 5, not anywhere else.
It is people with a certain mindset that want to foist that thought onto the text. It’s not about a precise time indication for the “sin entered”, the “death passed” or the “all sinned” in v. 12. It is about what the one man brought about: “sin entering the world”, “death passing to all humans”, “all sinning”.
As to the subjunctive, it doesn’t change the tense at all: it’s just a subjunctive expressing the result.
Could someone who does not hold to the inherited-guilt view of Adam’s sin please interpret Joshua 7 in light of that view, especially 7:1, (“for the people of Israel broke faith in regard to the devoted things, for Achan…took some of the devoted things.”) 7:10-12?
The Israelites had to pay the consequences for what Achan had done. What has this got to do with imputed guilt of Adam on mankind?
On a side note, notice that only Achan was PUNISHED for this sin. All of Israel was not stoned.
Joshua 7:25…”And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the Lord shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.”
David
David,
The connection seems fairly obvious. Joshua 7 is clear that the entire nation of Israel was being held responsible (guilty) for the one man’s (Achan) sin. 7:1 says that Israel broke faith, but it was only Achan who had taken of the devoted things. Likewise in vv. 10-12, God is clear that Israel has sinned..they have transgressed my covenant…they have taken…they have stolen… This is why the entire nation of Israel could not defeat Ai (v. 12).
I will agree with you that only Achan was punished for the sin, though it would seem that some in his household were stoned/burned along with him, probably his children who were possibly accomplices with him. However it is clear that God held the entire nation of Israel responsible/guilty for the one man Achan’s sin.
I think that’s pretty relevant to this discussion and just would like to see how someone who does not hold to an inherited guilt view of Adam’s sin interpret this passage.
This has nothing to do with imputed guilt from Adam.
Also, again, only Achan was PUNISHED for the sin, even though all of Israel suffered the consequences of his sin.
David
David,
The principle seems to be exactly the same. The argument of this post holds that mankind as a whole is not guilty with Adam’s sin because we didn’t actually commit Adam’s sin, therefore we cannot be guilty of Adam’s sin only our own sin. Also, according to this post, God would not hold the entire human race guilty for sin (Adam’s sin in the Garden) that they did not actually commit.
However, in Joshua 7, God holds the entire nation guilty/responsible for a sin that only one man, Achan, committed.
I don’t see how the principle that this post advocates isn’t contradicted by the clear teaching of Joshua 7.
Phillip,
The entire nation of Israel suffered the consequences of Achan’s sin….just like the whole human race is suffering the consequences of Adam’s sin. But, only Achan was punished for the sin he committed. The whole nation of Israel was not stoned. Only Achan. Mankind suffers the consequences of Adam’s sins… death….a sin nature….but, we are punished personally for the sins that we personally commit.
David
David,
I am not denying that the nation of Israel was suffering the consequences, though not the punishment of Achan’s sin, at least to the extent that he suffered punishment. (Though the entire nation suffered defeat by Ai due to Achan’s sin, which was a form of punishment).
My question to those who hold to the view defended in this post is “What does the text of Joshua 7 mean when God says, ‘ISRAEL has sinned; THEY have transgressed my covenant that I commanded them; THEY have taken some of the devoted things; THEY have stolen and lied and put them among THEIR own belongings.’” (7:10-11)
What does 7:1 mean when it says, “But the PEOPLE of ISRAEL broke faith in regard to the devoted things…and the anger of the LORD burned against the PEOPLE of ISRAEL.”
Those texts clearly are ascribing a solidarity of guilt between Achan and the nation of Israel even though only Achan (and maybe his sons) actually committed the sin of taking of the devoted things.
The view defended in this blog article clearly states that their is no solidarity of guilt between Adam and the rest of humanity in regards to Adam’s sin because I presume it is believed to be unfair of God to do such a thing. However, Joshua 7 clearly states that this is just what God did in regards to the nation of Israel and Achan’s sin.
Philip
Big difference between individuals being affected by our personal sin and individuals being held guilty for our personal sin. You may want to consider the theological implications of people being held guilty for the sins of others (Achan).
I’ve seen God withhold blessing on a church because of the sin of one individual. When that individual repented the entire church experienced revival. Her sin affected her covenant fellow believers but her guilt was not placed on them.
Brad,
Again, I don’t deny that Israel was affected by Achan’s sin, but the text clearly says more than that in 7:1, 10-12. God clearly says that collectively Israel has sinned, transgressed, taken, stolen, and lied even though it was only Achan who actually did those things. God is assigning responsibility/guilt to the entire nation of Israel for Achan’s sin. When Achan sinned, He viewed the entire nation as being guilty of the transgression of taking of the devoted things.
If that is not what these verses are saying, which it seems clear that they are, then what do these verses mean? Again, how does someone who holds to the view proposed by this post interpret these verses?
“God clearly says that collectively Israel has sinned, transgressed, taken, stolen, and lied even though it was only Achan who actually did those things.”
I don’t agree that “it was only Achan who actually did those things”. As the commandment was a collective one, the trespass was a collective one also.
And that is the difference between Adam’s guilt and those after him. Adam had an explicit commandment. Those after him sinned had not, but “not sinned in the likeness of Adam’s transgression”. Rom 5:14.
We did not commit Adam’s transgression either.
Philip
I would not concur with you or holdon here although I usually agree with his comments. Something is going on in OT and especially in Joshua which may help shed some light. But whatever is happening it should not conflict with more clearly stated teachings about sin “But EACH ONE is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then when desire has conceived, it gives birth to SIN…” or “and they were judged each one according to his works.”
While others may be affected by our sins and perhaps we at times bring God’s judgment down on all for which we are responsible (the business we own (and all the employees therein), our family, etc) that does not mean they are guilty for our sins. Such would cause me to repent for my grandfather’s sins. This is the implication I am encouraging you to avoid.
A few things we can observe from the text:
1) open rebellion (sin) was not to be allowed in the camp (all of Israel was responsible to keep others from taking items) – if this was allowed all of Israel would be guilty of allowing it.
2) Achan confessed it was his sin not Israel’s (notice the very personal language in verses 20-21 “I…I…I”).
3) God would not be with them until they destroyed the accursed from among them (notice they did not destroy the entire nation even though the entire nation was said to have committed an accursed sin – rather they just destroyed the one who confessed he had sinned – apparently the “cursed” was not the entire nation).
Don’t miss the fact they made a “heap of stones” (vs. 26). They did the same thing after crossing the Jordan (4:19). We are told in chapter 4 why this is done (a common practice in the ancient near east) – standing testimonies (reminders) of what God had done. I think the entire nation repented of her sin of breaking the covenant at the time of Achan’s death and this was a memorial of their turning back to God.
4) at the beginning of the narrative we are told the children of Israel sinned and we are further told how – Achan sinned by taking.
5)Israel was being treated as a whole (the individual and group being merged)
6) The wording in the text is covenantal language – they broke the covenant. We don’t see anywhere in the text where God made a covenant with Israel not to take items.
We see where God TOLD them not to take items but the covenant was He would be their God and they would be his people. Time and time again God judged nations even though there may have been individuals in the nation who had not bent their knees (the prophets are examples of God judging the nation for her sin as a whole but the prophets had not bent their knees).
Israel was a special nation, the chosen nation – God’s chosen one. But that covenant was being broken at the time and Achan’s sin was personal but perhaps indicative of what was going on in the heart of the nation as a whole (notice their self-confident reliance in verse 3, they were not relying on God anymore).
7) Notice we are told before the incident what would happen if someone took something 6:18. Since the one and the group were merged he would bring a curse on the whole nation.
Now, it is not my job to help others connect the dots. The Holy Spirit has helped me to connect the dots without contradicting Scripture.
Perhaps a further article should be made to the neo-trad document, such as saying “We neo-trads deny that infants need Jesus Christ to save them. Christ’s sacrifice has nothing for them.” That’s what you are teaching. Why not just say it bluntly.
I believe people get to Heaven ONLY by the grace of God….period.
David
TR
Dr. Harwood’s article “Inherited Sinful Nature” may help. In it he makes clear our position that infants are sinful and are in need of the cross of Christ for salvation. So please allow us to speak our own position instead of assigning us to the one you think we should hold (although we are finding that tactic somewhat systemic in debates).
But he also points out the dilemma a Calvinist is in in regard to infants. If infants are guilty of Adams sin then they must consciously repent of that conscious sin of Adam or else they cannot be saved. Now unless you claim embryos can repent at the moment of conception (which in itself begs questions) you have people in heaven who never repented of their sin.
Brad,
That’s not really a problem for us monergists. God can surely regenerate in or out of the womb. The LBC says about saving faith,
“The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word.”
The key word in understanding how monergists account for such as infants is “ordinarily.” The same would apply to those who are severely mentally handicapped and unable to comprehend the proclamation of the word and neither respond in repentance and expressed faith.
But I have another question. The LBC says re effectal calling,
“Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.”
Would it be fair to say that you all would agree with this portion of this section (obviously stopping at ;renewing…/
“Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh…”
Thanks,
Les
Brad thanks. Since I believe that fallen man is blind, deaf and spiritually dead, I don’t believe it is any more difficult for God to impart faith to an infant than it is for Him to impart faith to a spiritual corpse. I believe John the Baptist is a good example of a baby filled with the Holy Spirit and faith in his mother’s womb.
“I believe John the Baptist is a good example of a baby filled with the Holy Spirit and faith in his mother’s womb.”
I saw this earlier as well. Where are they getting this from?
Holdon: From Luke 1:39-45:
“Now Mary arose in those days and went into the hill country with haste, to a city of Judah, and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. Blessed is she who believed, for there will be a fulfillment of those things which were told her from the Lord.”
“the babe leaped in my womb for joy.”
John the Baptist rejoiced at the presence of Jesus from his mother’s womb!
FURTHERMORE, Holdon: Luke 1:15 also says about John the Bapist “He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.”
John the Baptist was born again in his mother’s womb! He had faith in Christ before he was born. And that is not a problem for the Calvinist. But it sure does provide a problem for neo-trads!!!
“John the Baptist was born again in his mother’s womb! He had faith in Christ before he was born. ”
This is ridiculous. None of these texts say anything about John being filled with the Holy Spirit before he was born. Actually, it says exactly the opposite: “after he was born”, lit. “out of the womb”.
No text says that he had faith in Christ before he was born.
No text says that he was born again before he was born.
Les
Are you saying at the moment of conception some infants (those who die within the first week or two after conception) are enabled to believe (and thus repent of their sins) even though they have NO cognitive abilities (nor physiological abilities at this point). If so then persons can repent without knowing they repented? That seems to deny repentance and further begs numerous questions (seems to be similar reasoning used by Universalists, ie – people can be saved (repent and have faith) without knowing they are saved).
Either you are saying the above or you are saying infants do not repent of their sins. Either way it poses a problem.
Concerning your question I am answering it with infants in mind. And yes I can personally (I try not to speak for others) affirm up to that point, but I would probably not understand “call” the same as you.
Les,
The problem many of us have with the position you and Chris and Jared and others hold is you have unrepentant guilty sinners (infants) in heaven (which contradicts Scripture) unless they are capable of repenting at the moment of conception which begs so many questions we would reject that also.
Brad,
Thanks for your observations. I would agree with several of them and I would likewise agree that it would be unbiblical to confess and seek forgiveness for my ancestors’ sins.
That being said I found a contradiction in some of your points, namely point #3and #7. In point #3 you said, “rather they just destroyed the one who confessed he had sinned – apparently the “cursed” was not the entire nation,” while in point #7 you stated, “Since the one and the group were merged he would bring a curse on the whole nation.” Which is it? Was the nation as a whole cursed because of Achan’s sin or were they indeed counted as responsible/guilty along with Achan?
The point that I most resonated with, which is really the point I’ve been trying to make, would be #5 where you mentioned Israel and Achan being merged together as a whole. That’s been my point in a nutshell. In Joshua 7 Israel and Achan are treated as a whole, with Achan being representative of the entire nation, thus when Achan sinned, all of Israel was counted as guilty or having transgressed God’s command. Likewise humanity is treated as a whole with Adam, with Adam being our representative. Therefore when Adam sinned, all of humanity was counted as being guilty of Adam’s sin, since Adam represented us all.
The view defended in this blog post seems inconsistent with the corporate solidarity clearly taught in Joshua 7 and it would be enlightening to see how this passage is specifically understood by those who hold the view of this blog post. Thank you for your contribution to that understanding.
Philip
Again note the premises my entire comment was based upon – OT -and Joshua – especially Israel. Something was happening with Israel in the entering of the Promiseland where God wanted them as a whole to be clean – if they allowed any sin in the camp they were all guilty. We are not Israel. Further according to the way you are interpreting the text – at that time all of Israel was guilty for Adams imputed sin and now Achans imputed sin which means they did need to repent not only of Adams sin but also Achans sin – which leads us down the road of repentance for our ancestors sins because surely you are not saying Achan was the representative for all Israel (if anyone was that it would be Abraham) – which in line with your reasoning I find it interesting Israel never repented for any of Abrahams sins.
Thus I think your understanding carries with it implications you want to avoid. Thus, my comments about whatever is happening it is not something that contradicts other plain teachings of Scripture.
Concerning the apparent contradictions you saw allow me to clarify – BRINGING a curse on the whole nation (something the leaders could do according to Kings and the Prophets) is not the same as the whole nation being guilty and thus accursed for an individuals sin. I can bring damage (curse) on my business and all who work there but they are not guilty (accursed) for my sIn.
Finally, please don’t overlook Points 1.2 and 4 – one must reconcile all the Biblical data with other clear teachings of Scripture. There is a HUGE difference in saying we are imputed with Adams guilt (which I do not affirm) and saying Israel was imputed with Achans guilt. The latter contradicts the very Scriptures to which you would go to refute we are guilty for others sin.
A final question which is really minor but is interesting to me. Shouldn’t those who hold that we are guilty for Adams sin state that we should therefore repent of Adams sin as well as ours to be saved?
“In Joshua 7 Israel and Achan are treated as a whole, with Achan being representative of the entire nation, thus when Achan sinned, all of Israel was counted as guilty or having transgressed God’s command. Likewise humanity is treated as a whole with Adam, with Adam being our representative. Therefore when Adam sinned, all of humanity was counted as being guilty of Adam’s sin, since Adam represented us all.”
I don’t buy it. Achan was not representative of Israel. Actually, more the other way around. Israel had a collective command. They as a whole failed, by keeping everyone in check.
But it is said that those who came after Adam “did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s transgression”. Therefore they did not commit Adam’s sin at all.
good word
Luke 1:15
Luke 1:15 says about John the Bapist
“He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.”
Obviously, GOD must have gifted the infant with faith. How does this Bible truth fit with the neo-trad anti-Calvinist doctrine?
“He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.”
Obviously, GOD must have gifted the infant with faith. How does this Bible truth fit with the neo-trad anti-Calvinist doctrine?”
Non-calvinists have no problem with this. We don’t infer that “God gifted the infant with faith” from that.
TR
Most of us would not make the leap from Luke 1:15 to John therefore repented of his sins and had faith in God in the womb.
Keep in mind a few things that may help in trying to understand this verse – 1) it is before Pentecost – God chose to work differently in the OT in relation to the HS. 2) We also know that Jesus called John – Elijah (Who had come in the OT but would come again and Jesus said Elijah had come again via John the Baptist (Matthew 17:10-13 – personally I have my own ideas about this but Scripture doesn’t explain the meaning). So John the Baptist (the greatest man who ever lived according to Jesus) might not be the best example for the point you are making. Perhaps if Paul said “and those of you who will come to faith will receive the Holy Spirit in the womb” we might more readily affirm your assertion.
I hope that helps.
I do love that verse though – “he will drink no wine or liquor, and will be filled with the Holy Spirit…”
TR
On further thought it might be interesting to note that no adults ever leapt for joy upon their initial meeting with LIFE (Jesus). But an infant in the womb did. Could it be the infant was not guilty of sin yet and thus leapt in the presence of purity? That might be a better explanation than he had already repented of his sins in the womb.
“Most of us would not make the leap from Luke 1:15 to John therefore repented of his sins and had faith in God in the womb.”
Oh, now I get where T.R. is coming from. Because little John leaped, it must have been a leap of faith.
ok
I have to admit that one brought a grin. Although, since I watched Robinhood with my kids the other day “little John leaping” triggered other thoughts as well.
From the Adventures of RobinHood: Little John at the Nottingham Fair
“Thereupon he cast the cudgel upon the stand and, leaping lightly after it, snatched it up in his hand again”
Holdon, I’ve got to admit, your “leap of faith” comment was quite witty.
Although Romans 5:18-19 finally made it into an article about imputed guilt, there was no exegesis of that text.
The disobedience of Adam resulted in the condemnation of all; the obedience of Christ resulted in the justification of all. By “all” I believe we must understand “all in Adam” and “all in Christ,” otherwise we are left with universalism.
But here is where I see a REAL problem with the TS position. The TS position says,
1. All men in Adam inherited a sinful nature from Adam and
2. All men are condemned before God only because of their own personal sin.
3. No man is condemned on the basis of Adam’s sin.
But where does that leave us with the doctrine of imputed righteousness? To be consistent, it would seem to me the TS position would have to be
1. All men in Christ inherit a righteous nature from Christ and
2. All men are justified before God only because of their own personal righteousness.
3. No man is justified on the basis of Christ’s righteousness.
Before anyone tells me this is unfair, please go back to previous discussions in the past weeks where you will find some posters denying that justification is based on the imputed righteousness of Christ. See John Piper’s “Counted Righteous in Christ” where he defends justification by faith through imputed righteousness against the teaching that our faith is our righteousness and we are not counted righteous because of the righteousness of Christ.
Respectfully submitted
Mike
Mike
Thanks for sharing. I think you may be reading things into the TS – but before addressing that let me make sure I understand your position.
In the very same passage and even the very same verse “all” with Adam means all humanity but “all”with Jesus just means the elect. If this is your understanding I would kindly disagree because of principles of interpretation.
Dr. Erickson, a modified Calvinist, argues that Paul is saying we are saved in the way we are condemned. We are saved via a conscious decision and thus the same of our condemnation. Which is why infants who die can go to heaven. Per your understanding ofnthe text either infants are capable of repenting on the day of conception or they don’t go to heaven, or there are people in heaven who never repented of their sin. Hence a dilemma.
Concerning the TS we would probably say:
1. All men inherit a sinful nature from Adam at conception and are sinful and in need of salvation.
2. This sinful nature ensure that when men “are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation” (BFM 2000) via a conscious decision.
And
1. No man inherits a righteous nature from Christ at natural conception although as many as “receive him” (vs 17) receive a righteous nature when they are born again.
2. This righteous nature is given via conscious decision.
Hope that is helpful
1.
Mike,
“The disobedience of Adam resulted in the condemnation of all; the obedience of Christ resulted in the justification of all. By “all” I believe we must understand “all in Adam” and “all in Christ,” otherwise we are left with universalism.”
True in itself. However, Scripture is not ambiguous, if we pay careful attention.
5:18 “so then as it was by one offence towards all men to condemnation, so by one righteousness towards all men for justification of life.
5:19 For as indeed by the disobedience of the one man the many have been constituted sinners, so also by the obedience of the one the many will be constituted righteous. ”
What v. 18 means that the 1 act of sin of Adam was towards all men to condemnation. The “towards” here is crucial. Some translations have “extends to” or “leads to” something to that effect. (however the “towards” is better as it harmonizes with 3:22 where we find the same word: “righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ towards all, and upon all those who believe”) What Paul argues is that 1 act of Adam was so powerful that it, has its bearing to all in potential result: “condemnation”. Condemnation here is the final judgment as in Rev 20:15. This is what all men are threatened with; what the single act of Adam leads to inevitably.
However, there is a remedy to escape that final judgment “katakrima”: the one righteous deed of Christ: His death on the cross. That powerful deed also, has its bearing to all. It is available to all. Just like Rom 3:22 says that “righteousness of God towards all” is the universal extent, and the “upon all that believe” indicates how it can be availed: you have to believe in order to have it; so it’s only for believers. (some translations have “unto” instead of “towards”, but the fact is the same).
Thus v. 19 expresses that again in matching terms but now to the actual results (in v. 18 we had the potential result): by disobedience of one many men became sinners (the human nature became corrupt); and also by the obedience of one (Philippians 2:8), many will be made righteous.
So we can say that the scope is “universal”, the application is for believers only.
Also, we see here that our righteousness rests on 1 person (Christ) and 1 act “one righteousness”, that is His death for us on the cross.
Holden:
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
Here is my concern. You wrote,
“By disobedience of one many men became sinners (the human nature became corrupt); and also by the obedience of one (Philippians 2:8), many will be made righteous.”
In the first part of your sentence, you defined “many became sinners” as “the human nature became corrupt.” You did not define”many will be made righteous.” What does that mean? Respectfully, it appears that to be consistent you would have to say it means “the human nature became righteous.” To which I would respond, “Is that the nature of justification?” Is it infused righteousness or imputed righteousness?
HONESTLY, thanks for the interaction. I do want to understand those who support the TS position.
Mike
Faith is imputed as righteousness
“those who receive the abundance of grace and of the free gift of righteousness” Rom 5:17
“being justified freely by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; Rom 3:24
“for we reckon that a man is justified by faith, without works of law.” Rom 3:28
“his faith is reckoned as righteousness.” Rom 4:5
“wherefore also it was reckoned to him as righteousness. 4:23Now it was not written on his account alone that it was reckoned to him, 4:24but on ours also, to whom, believing on him who has raised from among the dead Jesus our Lord, 4:25who has been delivered for our offences and has been raised for our justification, it will be reckoned.” Rom 4:22-25
“Therefore having been justified on the principle of faith, we have peace towards God through our Lord Jesus Christ” Rom 5:1
As to the corrupt nature: the believer gets a complete new one. Not a “repaired” one.
Holden:
I agree with your statement – “Faith is imputed as righteousness.” That’s what the Bible says. But the question I keep asking TS supporters is, “What does it mean for faith to imputed as righteousness?”
So I will ask you – Do you believe that the righteousness of Jesus Christ was imputed to your account when you believed? Or to ask it another way, what is your righteousness before God – your faith or Christ’s righteousness?
Respectfully,
Mike
Holden:
I think we all agree that the Bible says faith is imputed as righteousness. The question is, What does that mean?
Does it mean faith is considered by God to be our righteousness? or does it mean that faith is the way in which we receive the righteousness of Christ to be our righteousness?
I agree with your statement about the “new nature.”. Here is the question: IS THAT JUSTIFICATION?
Thanks,
Mike
M.R.
I see there are 2 posts from you waiting for me. As this page is now pushed from the front page, I will no longer monitor it. (it’s already hard to do as it is). So, if we want to discuss this further we would need to tag onto a new post.
“Does it mean faith is considered by God to be our righteousness? or does it mean that faith is the way in which we receive the righteousness of Christ to be our righteousness?”
Neither. God considers us righteous when we believe. It’s not about “receiving the righteousness of someone else”, but what our standing is in God’s estimation. This estimation we obtain through faith and grace.
The new nature gives us the practical capacity in two ways: “he who died is justified from sin” and “we have become slaves to righteousness”.
Brad:
Thanks for responding. I do not want to be guilty of reading into the TS position. In fact, I have discussed some of my concerns regarding imputed guilt/imputed righteousness with SBC Calvinists and many of them believe a host of the TS signers would still hold to justification by imputed righteousness. But I am having a difficult time seeing how they could hold to the latter (i.e., the imputed righteousness of Christ) and still reject the former (i.e., the imputed guilt of Adam) when it seems to me that Paul is arguing for that very thing in Romans 5:18-19.
Please excuse my ignorance. Dr. Erickson? Who is this and where does he make the argument you mentioned? I would like very much to read it.
What’s kind of ironic to me is that I too believe that Paul is arguing that we were “saved” (specifically, “justified”) in the same way we were condemned. But not by means of personal decision but rather a by representative man. I WANT TO SAY, THOUGH, THAT I DO BELIEVE IT IS BY A PERSONAL EXERCISE OF FAITH THAT GOD JUSTIFIES ME IN CHRIST.
I do believe that the “all” who are justified in Romans 5:18-19 are the elect, but only because of the implications of my entire understanding of the doctrine of salvation. I don’t necessarily see the term as having to be used in Romans 5. I preach to my church that all who Adam represented are condemned and all who are in Christ are justified. Those who are in Adam are in that position by their natural birth. Those who are in Christ are in that position by faith.
Thanks
MR
Dr. Erickson would be Milliard Erickson the concept came from his comments in his book Christian Theology. I am not at my office so I don’t have the page number in front of me. I think most TSers would say we are imputed with Adam’s guilt (that is: we are guilty sinners) in the very same way we are imputed with Christ’s Righteousness: a conscious decision. To say we are imputed with Adam’s guilt without a conscious decision but with Christ guilt with a conscious decision seems to deny the very parallel Paul is making.
If it is just representative man then the text would be saying as Adam represents mankind so does Jesus and thus Universalism (which you deny by arguing all “in Christ”). But that is: 1) not what the text says and any reading of the text without the paradigm of Calvinism (or Doctrines of Grace if you prefer) would never draw such a conclusion – in other words were my small child to read Romans 5 he would think all means all; 2) problematic in implying that God’s created being’s (Adam) work of death was for all of God’s creation but God’s sons work of life was just for part of creation which seems to deny Paul’s word in that context about how much more greater Christ’s work was than Adam’s (“MUCH MORE did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.”)
Finally, those who hold your position have the very very difficult task of explaining how an infant (that would die in the womb) goes to heaven. Many, will say God gives the infant faith…but what of repentance of Adam’s sin? How does an infant repent at the moment of conception? To date no Calvinist has taken up this challenge to explain this. Once, you can reconcile this then perhaps I can agree that you have good reason to reject imputed guilt.
Hope that is helpful as we seek to understand God’s Word and each other.
Brad:
You wrote, “To say we are imputed with Adam’s guilt without a conscious decision but with Christ guilt with a conscious decision seems to deny the very parallel Paul is making.”
First, I think you meant “Christ’s rghteousness.” And I understand why you are saying that. I am seeing the text from a different perspective. I see the text as dealing with the FOUNDATION of our acceptance with God. I think you see it as dealing with the MEANS by which it is accepted.
Can I ask, how do you view justification? Is justification the work of God in which He imputes the righteousness of Christ to us through faith alone?
thanks
Mike
Mike
I would see it as the foundation and the means. You seem to see it as the foundation for ALL MEN with Adam but the foundation just for the ELECT with Christ and further the means for Christ is a conscious decision but the means for Adam is being conceived (no conscious decision) thus making a distinction in the parallel which is not only not made in the text but seems to diminish the parallel itself.
Let me explain my position which may make what I just said more clear. I see the guilt of Adam and the righteousness of Christ foundational to ALL MEN (that is the foundation is laid for ALL men via Adam’s sin and Christ’s work) AND further the means by which these are imputed are the SAME – by conscious decision.
As for my view of justification I would say it is God’s gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ.
Now would you mind to indulge me and be the first Calvinist to not avoid my question concerning how an infant repents in the womb?
Thanks for engaging
Brad:
I’m afraid I may not be much help to you. I don’t believe in “infant repentance in the womb” (or “infant saving faith in the womb” or “infant regeneration in the womb”). I do not believe John the Baptist’s leap in Elizabeth’s womb is an example of infant regeneration in the womb.
If you have to believe in “infant repentance in the womb” in order to be a Calvinist, guess I ain’t one. Matter of fact, although I believe in unconditional election I probably am not a very good Calvinist by some Calvinists’ standards. For example, I believe there is a repentance that takes place prior to regeneration (cf. Acts 11:18). And although I do believe regeneration is prior saving faith, I think they are so close they are practically simultaneous. I’ve had discussions with Calvinists who believed people were regenerated long before they repented and believed. I believe that is horribly wrong.
I take it from your request none of the Calvinists that hold to “infant repentance” will talk to you about it? Frustrating I’m sure.
LIKEWISE, I’m frustrated because my biggest concern is what is going to happen to the doctrine of justification when the imputation of Adam’s guilt is denied. How long before it is denied that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the accounts of believing sinners? Is that where the TS document leads us? Is that what the framers believe?
I can’t get anyone who support the TS statement to answer my simple question: Do you believe that we are justified on the basis of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us by faith? Even you didn’t answer my question.
Respectfully,
Mike
Dr. Patrick:
You wrote,
“Proponents of inherited sinful nature without inherited guilt interpret these verses as broadly applying to the very effects of the fall we inherited in our sinful nature. Indeed, this sinful nature leads to our own transgression resulting in our own condemnation and in the death which comes from our own sin. In contrast, through the obedience of Christ, we are able to be made righteous as a result of His perfect sacrifice for our sins upon the cross when we appropriate His grace through repentance and faith.”
By “made righteous” do you mean “we are made righteous in our standing because the obedience of Christ is imputed to us”? In other words, do you believe justification is the act in which God IMPUTES to us the righteousness of Christ when we come to Him in faith, or is justification actually the INFUSION of righteousness into our nature? Does justification a change of our standing or a change of our nature?
Thanks,
Mike
I’m sorry . Let me reword my last question: “Is justification a change in our standing or in our nature?”
Thanks,
Mike
Look at this interesting piece of history…
Primitive Baptist Articles of Faith [Depravity & The Fall, article III.]
“We believe in the total depravity of man. That Adam, in his first transgression, fell under the just and full condemnation of God’s holy law; that each and all of his posterity were then represented by him as their earthly head, and consequently in their descent from him have inherited his very same fallen nature and condition of guilt and depravity; so by nature they are (of earthly birth) corrupted and defiled (in body, soul, intellect, will, and affections), and justly condemned under the great penalty of Adamic-sin …..”
So, the Hyper Calvinist view is “guilt of Adam passed down to all people.”
Interesting.
David
David:
I suppose we could go through lots of different articles of faith and prove “guilt by association.”
I found another primitive Baptist site that said, “We believe in one God, and that the Father, Son or Word, and the Holy Ghost are one God, eternal, immutable, infinite in wisdom, power, justice, holiness, mercy and truth.”
That is the Hyper-calvinist view of God. Is it yours? It’s mine, but it doesn’t make me Hyper-calvinist. Likewise, my position on the guilt of Adam is that it was imputed to his descendants. But that doesn’t make me a Hyper-calvinist.
Respectfully,
Mike
The position taken in this article, that Adam’s guilt is not imputed to us, only a sin nature, will ultimately effect how we view the cross and Christ’s imputation of righteousness to us (at least it will if we’re being theologically consistent). Dr. Patrick’s position is not the historically held view of Baptists, nor is an accurate representation of Romans 5. This is made quite clear in this article that critiques Patrick (http://www.pulpitandpen.com/blog/index.php?id=1413458642293337698).
I might add that the position taken in this article seems to try to place a wedge between sin and guilt (which can’t be done). If we have truly inherited from our first parent (Adam) a sinful nature, we must also conclude that this entails guilt. Patrick’s referencing OT passages on how a child will not be put to death for the sin of his father is a bit of a stretch, as such passages do not speak to our natures, nor is there a direct relation between our immediate biological parent (father) and our first parent (Adam).
I guess I’ll be flogged here, because I think the idea of anyone, lost or saved, having a sinful nature or a nature to sin is rather goofy and not biblical.
Romans 5:12 is NOT saying we are born sinners or that we inherit sin or are guilty of sin in some way before we actually commit an act of sin. It is talking about death passing upon all men, for that all have sinned. Death came because Adam was cut off from being able to eat of the tree of life and because we to were cut off when Adam was put out of the garden, we could not eat of it either. But we must remember what else happened. Not only did Adam break the fellowship he was created to be in with God, but now we are born outside of that fellowship. Being born outside of that fellowship God created man to exist in, we are left to our own spirits to lead us. Depending on our own spirits to be able to overcome the desires of the flesh on a consistent basis, just ain’t gonna happen. For that we all sin.
Ephesians 2:3; Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lust of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
I think the Calvinist have put the cart before the horse here. It’s not saying we do these things because we are sinners by nature, but rather, the wrath of God is the natural consequence of our sinning.