By Brian Robertson, Pastor, FBC, Kenton, TN

_______________________________________________________________

Words, words, words. My, how their meanings can change. For example, “cool” in today’s verbiage means “great” as well as “cold.” When someone today says, “that’s bad,” they may mean “awesome” or something is not good. How a word is used always affects its intended meaning. Scriptural translation clearly is impacted by these changes. Several weeks ago, I was asked about the term “Counselor” in John 14:16. Newer translations (NIV, HCSB) interpret the Greek term “Paraclete” (“parakletos”) in this way. Older texts (KJV) use the term “Comforter” to represent the meaning. Both English words are used to describe the Greek term. The question is, Which translation best describes John’s meaning?

The Apostle John uses the term “Paraclete” five times in his Gospel (14:16, 26, 15:26, 16:7-11, 12-15). Jesus uses the term “Parakletos,” literally meaning helper or intercessor, to describe the role of the Holy Spirit. Jesus says that after He leaves the Apostles, the Father will send another “Parakletos” to them, insinuating that Jesus was also a Parakletos. Andreas Köstenberger states, “In secular Greek, ‘parakletos’ refers primarily to a ‘legal assistant’ or ‘advocate.’ In John’s Gospel, legal overtones are most pronounced in 16:7-11. Both the noun ‘paraklesis’ and the verb ‘parakaleo’ are used in the OT w/ regard to the ‘consoling’ expected to occur during the messianic era.” (Andreas Köstenberger, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004], 436-37).

It seems that the thrust of Jesus’ teaching carried legal overtones. In the Roman world, the word “advocate” could be used to describe John’s meaning. Though, the scene is one where Jesus instructs His followers that upon His return to the Father the “Counselor” will come and give them spiritual counsel similar to what Jesus told them. Regarding the Spirit’s involvement in their lives, Christ says,

When He comes, he will convict the world about sin, righteousness, and judgment: about sin, because they do not believe in Me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will no longer see Me; and about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged (John 16:8-11, HCS).

The Apostles had no idea the Holy Spirit would descend at Pentecost, baptize, and fill them with God’s power. They also were unaware they would be persecuted and martyred. Thus, Jesus refers to the Paraclete as one who would provide counsel or help, knowing the temptations and persecutions awaiting His followers.

Although the term “Counselor” is used in newer translations, perhaps the phrase “Helping Presence” is the best interpretation. The older term “Comforter” is still used and referred to by churches as the correct description of the “Parakletos.” Johannes Behm and others (D. A. Carson, Leon Morris) argue that the term “Comforter” is inadequate to describe Jesus’ meaning and description of the Holy Spirit (Paraclete) as seen in contemporary language. Gerald Borchert asserts, “The meaning ‘helper’ certainly would be applicable to part of the function of the Spirit, but it does not generally have a sufficiently encompassing meaning, and the term does not bring out the passive nature of the Greek word adequately. Moreover, this rendering could carry for readers the misleading implication that a human could be in charge of the relationship with the Spirit and the Spirit would then be demoted to the role of an assistant” (Gerald Borchert, John 12-21, The New American Commentary [Nashville: B&H, 2002], 123). Gary Burge further says, “The word does NOT mean ‘comfort’ (as the KJV comforter) except in the old English understanding of someone who strengthens (from Latin, confortare, to strengthen; fortis, strong)” (Gary Burge, John, The NIV Application Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000], 395.

It is not incorrect in John to interpret “Parakletos” as “Comforter” if you are using old English. “Comforter” at that time meant “counselor” or “advocate.” In modern, secular English, “comforter” communicates an entirely different meaning from the one John intended. Jesus refers to the Spirit as one who gives “strong counsel” to those who follow Christ. This is why in 15:26 Jesus refers to the “Counselor” as the “Spirit of Truth.” This “Spirit” aids believers in discerning right from wrong. Finally, the understanding of most commentators is that the term “Counselor” also is not completely perfect in its description; however, in contemporary English, it does present the Holy Spirit as someone who gives counsel or aid to another; thus, clarifying further the meaning of the text.

It is not the purpose of this article to discredit the feasibility of the KJV or the HCSB. The twenty-first-century world is 400 years removed from a text in which the translators lacked many of the tools available to translators today. This is one reason contemporary translations often offer more accurate renderings of the original text for twenty-first-century English speaking people. That is not to say the KJV or others are bad translations. They are not. I was saved reading a KJV Bible. However, the English language is in transition. The meanings of some words used 400 years ago are not in sync with the same words today.

People are lost spiritually and need God’s Word to demonstrate clearly their need for a Savior. In a postmodern world wording is crucial to one’s communication of the Gospel. Whatever text you use to share Christ, be sure that both you and the hearer can understand completely what the Word of God is saying. Clarity in an evangelistic presentation is vital to the working of the Spirit, though it is the Spirit alone who “convicts of sin.” One thing is certain, while words and their meanings may change, the Word of our Lord “stands forever!”

Regarding last week’s article, “Two Versions of Free Will in Southern Baptist Life,” there were several comments pertaining to my reference to Jesus’ reaction to Jerusalem’s rejection of Him in Matthew 23: 37-39 and Luke 13:34-35. One respondent observed that it is not clear why nonCalvinists think this episode in Jesus’ life counts against Calvinism. I will show why I think this text supports the idea that Jesus believed that the Jerusalemites had libertarian free will — they rejected Him but could have accepted Him.

Calvinist compatibilists will argue that the Jerusalemites are responsible for rejecting Jesus because they were acting on their deepest desire: they wanted to reject Jesus. Further they will argue that the Jerusalemites “could not have accepted Jesus,” while libertarians claim that the Jerusalemites had the real option to accept Jesus but chose to reject Him. NonCalvinist libertarians and Calvinist compatibilists differ with respect to whether or not the Jerusalemites had the real option “to desire to accept Jesus.”

The following is Matthew’s account of this incident (Matthew 23:37, KJV):

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Before laying out several reasons from the text why I think Jesus’ reaction best fits libertarian free will rather than compatibilism, let me support an assumption with which I think most everyone agree: as my title indicates, “Jesus’ reaction reflects the Father’s reaction.” It is this reaction by Jesus—pointing toward libertarian free will—that reflects an identical view of free will held by the Father.

The following points show that Jesus and the Father are in agreement on the things Jesus did, the things He taught, and—I would think by extension—the way he reacted to situations. We know from John 1:1 that Jesus is the Word, and is God. Further, Jesus taught that He is the only Way to the Father (John 14:6). In John 8:16, Jesus claimed that the Father was His Witness agreeing that Jesus’ testimony is true. Jesus claimed that his words (teaching) came from the Father who sent Him. His teaching was not His own; they belong to the Father. We know that he did many wonderful miraculous deeds. About these acts, Jesus claimed that he was doing these works because the Father was doing these things through Him (John 14:10). In other places in John’s Gospel, Jesus claimed that He was only doing what the Father does and what the Father approves. Finally, and perhaps closest to the Jerusalemites’ rejection of Jesus, we know that Jesus’ will is to do the will of the Father who sent Him (John 4:14).  These Scriptures support the fact that Jesus’ reaction to the Jerusalemites’ rejection of Him will not be inconsistent with the Father’s reaction regarding the Jerusalemites.

I turn now to making the case that Jesus believed that the Jerusalemites had libertarian free will. This belief will be consistent with the Father’s judgement about the type of free will the Jerusalemites had.

FIRST, Jesus holds the Jerusalemites responsible for rejecting Him. He said “You would not.” Both Calvinist compatibilists and nonCalvinist libertarians recognize that Jesus placed the blame for rejecting Him on the desire or “want to” of the Jerusalemites. Part of the reason for last week’s article was to show that both Calvinists and nonCalvinists maintain that the person who rejects Jesus is accountable (responsible) for rejecting Jesus. NonCalvinists hold that the Jerusalemites “could have accepted Jesus,” and Calvinist compatibilists maintain that the Jerusalemites “could not have accepted Jesus”—could not have even wanted to accept Jesus due to total depravity. On the Calvinist compatibilistic view they “were totally unable” to want to accept Jesus.

SECOND, Jesus’ action was a repeated action: He said “how often I would have gathered you to Myself.” Since He compared His action to a mother hen gathering her chicks, we see that He loved them and came to them on numerous occasions and deeply desired to gather them to Himself. Though they would reject Him on more than one occasion, still Jesus wanted them to accept Him. Jesus appears to express a genuine desire that the Jerusalemites want to be gathered to Him even though, on the Calvinist account they were unable to even want to be gathered to Him. Nonetheless, Jesus clearly states that He wants them to come to Him which would involve repentance. This reminds us of God’s desire that none should perish and that all come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). It seems that Jesus has made genuine and repeated offers to the Jerusalemites to accept Him. His offers were genuine reflections of Jesus’ will—“I wanted to gather you to myself.” If His will is consistent will the Father’s will (established above), then it follows that the Father also wanted the Jerusalemites to accept Jesus.

So, why did the Father not change the will of the Jerusalemites so they would accept Jesus given that Jesus and the Father have an identical will? Did Jesus have one desire and the Father another? I don’t think this is an attractive interpretation for either Calvinists or nonCalvinists. The nonCalvinist libertarian has a good explanation for why Jesus and the Father did not change their will. Jesus was giving them free choice in the sense of choosing to be gathered to Him. They “could have” willed to come to Him but chose not to will to come to Him. I am not sure how the compatibilist view explains Jesus’ plain statement that “you would not” come to me. Clearly, they did not want to do so. Surely Jesus would know that they could not even will to come to Him. Why then did He want them to choose to want to do something He must have known they could not do? Did Jesus and the Father genuinely want them to want to come to Jesus and to come to Jesus? If so, then why did the Father not change their will given they could not even want to come to Jesus?

FINALLY, Jesus’ reaction is interesting and makes perfect sense on the libertarian view. His reaction is twofold. First, as stated above, He is holding them responsible. This is a serious matter because a sustained rejection of Jesus leads to “eternal punishment.” Jesus told Nicodemus that “he that believeth not in Me is condemned already” (John 3:18). It is true the Jerusalemites sinned and deserved condemnation. However, for a Calvinist compatibilist, in what sense are the Jerusalemites responsible for doing that which they were unable to avoid — not wanting to accept Jesus? This inability led to their rejection and also led them into sin. The point here is important: Jesus is holding them responsible for not wanting to accept Him—not just for their sins. I am not downplaying their sins and their rejection of Him; however, Jesus focused on their “want to”—“you would not.” If they could not will to accept Jesus, why is He blaming them? So, the first part of his reaction is blame. I think the second part is equally as important.

Second, Jesus’ reaction was one of regret. Some commentaries say He was outside of Jerusalem “weeping over the city.” Why was He broken hearted? He tells us, “you would not,” meaning “you would not will to accept Me and then accept Me.” As stated earlier, Jesus’ reaction and the Father’s reaction are identical. So, we may conclude that the Father also was broken hearted over Jerusalem’s rejection of Jesus — both had deep regret because the people of Jerusalem refused to want to accept Jesus.

Regret with respect to human choice is not like regretting that Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans or regretting that cancer killed my mother or regretting the death of my grandson two years ago by some “undetectable” cause at birth. There can be tears of regret over determining acts of nature. But there is no regret because, given the antecedent conditions, the outcome could not have been different. One may wish that the antecedent conditions were different so that the determined result would have been different, but there is no holding the hurricane or the cancer cell morally responsible for the determined results.

It seems that Jesus’ tears are due a deliberate choice made by the Jerusalemites; they chose to reject Him, and time and again He offered to “gather them to Himself” but they “would not.” For this, Jesus regrets their decision. The text indicates Jesus’ sorrow was because they chose to reject Him. He was heartbroken over that decision. A libertarian interpretation of free will has more explanatory power regarding Jesus’ reaction than does the Calvinist compatibilist explanation, at least for me. Jesus is sorrowful because He wanted them to do something they could do: want to accept Him. This seems like the most natural explanation for His sorrow. I am at a loss to explain Jesus’ sorrow and the failure of the Father to do what Jesus and the Father willed—change their “want to” so that the Jerusalemites would accept Jesus. I freely choose to go with the libertarian option though compatibilists may offer a different interpretation. The interpreter must choose the option that seems best.

In closing, I do not claim that Calvinist compatiblists do not have an explanation for why the Father did not change their “want to.” Jesus held them responsible for making the wrong decision, and expressed genuine tears over their decision to do the only thing they could do. Notice Jesus did not say “you could not.” He said “you would not” do that which I want you to do—accept Me. By extension we can also say that the Father wanted them to accept Jesus.

If God wants “all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4) and “all should come repentance” (2 Peter 3:9), and if Hell is a place Jesus labored to teach us is to be avoided at all costs (loss of hand, eye, metaphorically speaking), and if Hell is described in the most hideous, hopeless metaphors: eternal fire, utter darkness, weeping and gnashing of teeth, where the worm never dies and the smoke of their torment rises forever, then which interpretation of free will best reflects Jesus’ reaction and the Father’s view?

What is the impact of this for Southern Baptists? One respondent to my article last week stated that she felt the purpose of the article was “kick the Calvinists out of the SBC.” I am not among those who want to do that. I do think we can coexist. However, for the good of the SBC, I think that honest dialogue must take place so that churches do not continue to be hurt. We have honest differences on free will and other matters. Do most Southern Baptists know of these differences? Is it best to not discuss these things? What do you think?

This article is intended to be of interest to pastors and lay persons.  I do not begin with the assumption that all of the readers of SBC Today are familiar with the philosophical discussion surrounding the issue of free will. Nonetheless, the writer’s motivation is to encourage the reader to check out his/her view about free will with regard to an issue that is foremost in the mind of every evangelical Christian: whether one who rejects Jesus Christ as Savior, Son of God, Messiah, and Lord does so by one’s own free will choice and if so to ask: what does free will mean? It is assumed that most Southern Baptists will affirm that the decision to reject Jesus follows from a free will decision. In Southern Baptist life there are and probably have always been two versions of free will that separate most NonCalvinist and Calvinist Southern Baptists: libertarian free will and compatibilistic free will.

Most NonCalvinist advocates of libertarian free will maintain that in regard to a choice or action that was exercised the agent had a real option to have wanted to do otherwise. In other words, there were genuine alternatives other than the choice and action that was made.  Most Calvinists who hold to compatibilistic free will maintain that determinism eliminates real options but determinism does coexist with a free will.  So, the choice is determined but the agent also can be said to have exercised free will.  Clearly, there is a definitional difference among Southern Baptists over what it means to exercise a free choice.

If both Calvinist and NonCalvinist Southern Baptists hold that those who reject Jesus are thereby consigned by God to Hell for eternity, then one might well wonder what all of the debate is over.  Both sides agree that the unbeliever’s irrevocable, terminal state of separation from God’s grace and presence is deserved due to the unbeliever’s free will choice to reject Jesus. Differences arise because the two groups of Southern Baptists (Calvinist and NonCalvinist) do not mean the same thing by free will choice.

It will be helpful to proffer an explanation setting forth the importance of free will relative to moral responsibility. Most people believe that free will is a necessary condition for moral responsibility.  It makes sense to hold people morally accountable (blame, punish, praise, or reward) only if those people made a free will choice to perform the action.  So, if people are going to be condemned to hell (a form of moral responsibility) for rejecting Jesus, then that decision must be the result of a free will decision.  This means that if the decision to reject Jesus was not a free will decision, then the person should not be held morally accountable for rejecting Jesus. Both libertarians and compatibilists can affirm this fact; thus the disagreement between libertarian NonCalvinist Southern Baptists and compatibilistic Calvinist Southern Baptists is not because one side believes unbelievers have free will and the other side does not believe unbelievers have free will.  The disagreement concerns what each side means by free will.

I turn to a version of free will that is probably familiar to most readers: libertarian free will.  In general, libertarians hold that free will means having real options—that is, having genuine alternatives to choose some action other than what one chose to do. With regard to the issue of “rejecting Jesus,” NonCalvinist Southern Baptist libertarians maintain that the choice to reject Jesus was a free choice because the unbeliever had the real option to choose to accept Jesus.  Since the unbeliever freely rejected Jesus and could have wanted to accept Jesus, the unbeliever can be held morally responsible for the choice to reject Jesus.  Therefore, it is the unbeliever and not God who is morally accountable for the decision to reject Jesus.

Interestingly and significantly, the Calvinist Southern Baptist compatibilist also affirms that the unbeliever is responsible for the decision to reject Jesus despite the fact that the unbeliever did not have the genuine alternative to accept Jesus.  The unbeliever made the free choice to reject Jesus because compatibilistic free will does not mean having real alternatives to do otherwise or even to want to do otherwise. The reason that there can be no real alternatives is because one’s desire, want, choice, and action were determined.  Given the determining force of a totally depraved will (due to the fall), the unbeliever cannot want to accept Jesus; therefore, the choice to accept Jesus is not a real option because of the presence of determining depraved will.  Yet, there is still room for free will—just not libertarian free will.

For the Calvinist compatibilist, free will means: being able to do what one wants to do when one’s “want to” reflects the deepest values, reasons, and desires of the individual. In essence, this means that one has compatibilistic free will as long as one can do what one wants to do. Given this understanding, it is clear why compatibilists maintain that the unbeliever can be held morally accountable by God for the choice to reject Jesus despite the fact that the unbeliever’s “want to” was determined by a depraved will.  Since the unbeliever wants to reject Jesus and since nothing forbids him/her to act based on that want to (deepest desire), the unbeliever’s choice to reject Jesus is one for which he/she must assume the responsibility.

If there is any doubt, just ask the unbeliever:  “Don’t you want to accept Jesus, come to church and worship Him, and read the Bible to find out more about His plan for your life?”   Without hesitation, the answer will be—NO!! I REALLY DO NOT WANT ALL OF THAT!! Clearly, Calvinist Southern Baptist compatibilists will affirm that since the unbeliever is doing what he/she wants to do, the unbeliever is making a free will choice; therefore the unbeliever is responsible for the decision to reject Jesus and is responsible for going to hell.

In conclusion, it is hoped that two things have been accomplished in this article regarding the important theological term: free will.  First, it should be clear that both NonCalvinist Southern Baptist libertarians and Calvinist Southern Baptist compatibilists affirm that the unbeliever has made a free will decision to reject Jesus. Hopefully this article will also serve to inspire pastors and laypersons to think seriously about free will and its implications.  What does one’s Southern Baptist congregation think it means to freely accept or reject Jesus?  Is it time for this discussion about free will to take place in one’s local church, at the Southern Baptist Convention, and surely when the Pastor Search Committee of the local Southern Baptist congregation meets with a prospective candidate for a church ministry staff position?

As a philosophically-trained theologian, it causes me considerable chagrin to see some of the most basic errors in logic committed over and over again in theological discourse.  This fuzzy thinking arises in every area of doctrinal from time to time, but (perhaps because of my interest in this area) I note it particularly in regard to soteriological discussions relating to Calvinism vs. Arminianism.  Over the next few posts, I want to identify several common logical errors which lead to ill-formed arguments, fallacious logic, and unsound conclusions. I apologize in advance that this discussion gets a bit technical at points, though I have attempted to convey it for a non-specialist audience. I beg for patience from those for whom it seems overly technical.

The Fallacy of False Alternatives (also known as the False Dichotomy Fallacy, False Dilemma Fallacy, All or Nothing Fallacy, or Black or White Fallacy) results when we simplify everything into an “either-or” choice, and thereby fail to take into consideration other viable alternatives. One of the common mistakes made by “shade tree” theologians is to oversimplify theology into Calvinism or Arminianism, as though those were the only choices regarding any given theological issue.  They are not.

In logic, an “either/or” statement can be described as a disjunctive syllogism (“either A or B is true”). The logic goes pretty easily from there – if not A, then B; or if not B, then A.  But many possible disjunctive syllogisms fall into the fallacy of false alternatives.  The syllogism works only if there are just two possible alternatives.  So, for example, the following argument might be proposed: “Either a Yankees fan or a Red Sox fan.”  (Hence, if Yankee fan, then not Red Sox fan; or if Red Sox fan, then not Yankee fan). These teams are fierce rivals, of course, and to be a fan of one almost guarantees not being a fan of the other (a Yankees fan will not be a Red Sox fan, and a Red Sox fan will not be a Yankees fan) – but these are not the only alternatives.  I happen to be a Rangers fan, so I could not properly be said to be either a Yankees or a Red Sox fan.  At times I might cheer for either the Yankees or the Red Sox, but I would do so not because I am their fan, but because either of them winning or losing might afford some advantage to the Rangers (such as home field advantage in the playoffs).  So the argument that you must be either a Yankees fan or a Red Sox fan commits the fallacy of false alternatives.

Likewise, it is simply mistaken to insist that Calvinism and Arminianism are the only possible options in soteriology.  The “Calminian” majoritarian Baptist perspective (which affirms the paradox of both strong divine sovereignty and meaningful libertarian human freedom) is among those possibilities.  Like the Rangers fan in relation to the Yankees or Red Sox, a Baptist might side with the Arminians at points and with the Calvinists at points, but we are not identified completely with either.  To put it differently, a person might disagree with aspects of Calvinism and yet not be an Arminian, and might disagree with some aspects of Arminianism and yet not be a Calvinist.

Although there were early Particular (Calvinistic) Baptists and General (Arminianistic) Baptists, the consensus among many Baptists in America is that the tension or paradox in Scripture between human freedom and divine sovereignty should simply be affirmed by faith, rather than attempting to impose a theological structure on it.  This “both/and” approach was voiced by Baptist pioneer John Leland, who described Baptist beliefs as he knew them in the churches in 1791:

“I conclude that the eternal purposes of God and the freedom of the human will are both truths, and it is a matter of fact that has been most blessed of God and most profitable to man is the doctrine of sovereign grace in the salvation of souls, mixed with a little of what is called Arminianism.”

[John Leland, “A letter of Valediction on leaving Virginia, 1791,” in The Writings of the Late Elder John Leland; ed. Louise F. Green (New York: 1845) p. 172 quoted in Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (New Haven and London:  Yale University Press, 1992), p. 322; cited in “Congruent Election:  Understanding Salvation from an ‘Eternal Now’ Perspective,” by Richard Land, in Whosoever Will:  A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five Point Calvinism, ed. Steve Lemke and David Allen (Nashville:  Broadman and Holman, 46].

And thus we as Baptists can rightfully say, “Neither Calvinists Nor Arminians, But Baptists”!

One of the somewhat frustrating aspects of the reactions to our book Whosoever Will, at least to those of us associated with the book, is that our reviewers have tended to label us as being either of two “either/or” extremes: Arminians or Calvinists. One book from an Arminian perspective described the perspective in Whosoever Will as ”moderate Calvinist.” [J. Matthew Pinson, “Introduction,” Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, by Leroy Forlines (Nashville: Randall House, 2011), 4].  However, another Arminian labeled the contributors to Whosoever Will as “anti-Calvinist,” and that “all the authors are Arminian in the classical sense,” while at the same time questioning why the authors were at “so much distance from Arminianism” and objecting to their criticism of Arminianism. [Roger Olson, review of Whosoever Will, on the Baptist Theology website at http://www.baptisttheology.org/WhosoeverWill.cfm.  See also Olson‘s additional review, “A Good, New, Non-Arminian, Arminian Book,” available on the Roger Olson website at http://rogereolson.com/2010/09/02/a-good-new-non-arminian-arminian-book].

On the other hand, in an issue of the Founders Journal dedicated to critiquing Whosoever Will from a Calvinist perspective, one article sought to answer the “Arminian objections” presented in the book [Matthew Barrett, “Is Irresistible Grace Unbiblical?‘ A Response to Steve Lemke‘s Arminian Objections,” Founders Journal 82, rep. ed. (Fall 2010), 4]; while another opined that the authors should “accept the judgment that they defend a classically Arminian, or openness, position.” [Tom Nettles, review of Whosoever Will, in Founders Journal 82, reprint issue (Fall 2010), 44]. Likewise, in an otherwise balanced review of Whosoever Will in the online journal Themelios, Gary Shultz expressed the opinion that the contributors reduced to “simply Arminianism” (though he qualified that statement later by admitting that the contributors were not Arminian on at least one point).

That is quite a range – from moderate Calvinist to anti-Calvinist, from critics of Armianism to rank openness of God Arminians!  The critics refused to accept our mediating position designation as “Calminians” or “majoritarian Baptists,” but wanted to force us into either an Arminian or Calvinist mold.  This is not new. In fact, years ago I was once asked (seriously!) in an interview situation whether I was a hyper-Calvinist or an Arminian!  Such limited options are the product of the logical fallacy of false alternatives, which does not recognize mediating positions between two extremes.  Avoiding the fallacy of false alternatives can help bring clarity to theological discussions.

Total Depravity or Total Inability

Bernd Brandes was a person with a passion for pain.

This bizarre mania caused him to respond to an internet ad placed by another German man by the name of Armin Meiwes.  This spine-chilling internet ad declared that Meiwes was seeking “a young, well built man who wants to be eaten.”

Brandes responded and became the menu of Meiwes. This modern day cannibal was later sentenced to serve eight years and six months in prison. How would you like being the sleepy-eyed cell mate of Meiwes?

This story reveals the ever-present wickedness of mankind, that we are not deprived but depraved sinners. Forever and a day each of us will always fall short of the glory of God due to this sin nature.

Under the statement on Man, the following sentences taken from the Baptist Faith and Message, 2000 enlighten us on our depravity:

By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. 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.

Throughout God’s Word, we see man’s devious and depraved nature has an explicit bias toward evil resulting in our certainty to sin; therefore, it cannot be escaped since our human nature has been corrupted by sin.

The Apostle Paul writes about our sin nature in Romans 7:18-19 (NASB).

For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.

Inquiring theological minds may ask whether this depravity is partial, total, or radical?  Most Southern Baptists will say that our depravity is “total,” but it does not mean total inability or radical depravity, which means the sinner is so spiritually bankrupt that he can do nothing in responding to God.

In seeking to help us avoid extreme Calvinism’s view of total inability, Dr. Norman Geisler says,

Extreme Calvinists believe that a totally depraved person is spiritually dead.  By “spiritual death” they mean the elimination of all human ability to understand or respond to God, not just a separation from God.  Further, the effects of sin are intensive (destroying the ability to receive salvation), not just extensive (corrupting the ability to receive salvation).  While many extreme Calvinists would deny the implications, the following chart illustrates the differences:

Moderate Calvinist View	Extreme Calvinist View
Corruption of Good	Destruction of Good
Effects of Sin Are Extensive	Effects of Sin Are Intensive
Born With Propensity to Sin	Born With Necessity to Sin
Human Will Is Diminished	Human Will Is Destroyed

Norman Geisler, Chosen But Free, 2d ed. (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001), 57-58.

While many Non-Calvinists would join with a Moderate Calvinist like Dr. Geisler in teaching “total depravity,” they would not misinterpret this doctrine by teaching total inability or extreme depravity.

James Montgomery Boice and Philip Ryken advocate the extreme Calvinist view as they write:

In this sad and pervasively sinful state we have no inclination to seek God, and therefore cannot seek him or even respond to the gospel when it is presented to us.  In our unregenerate state, we do not have free will so far as “believing on” or “receiving” Jesus Christ as Savior is concerned.  In fact, such is our slavery to sin that we cannot understand our need of Christ until God first gives us spiritual understanding.  Even faith must come as a gift, because prior to the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit our depravity renders us impotent to cooperate with God’s saving grace.

James Montgomery Boice and Phillip G. Ryken, The Doctrines of Grace (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002), 30).

Most Southern Baptist pastors and lay teachers reject the teaching of Total Inability. In most pulpits as in most classrooms it is taught and preached that man is totally depraved, but that God, in His sovereign will, endowed each of us with the moral ability to hear the gospel and freely respond in faith, or reject the love and grace of God.

While God brings conviction of sin through the Holy Spirit, He also shows us our need to turn from our sins (repentance) and turn to (believe) the Lord Jesus Christ.  As the Holy Scriptures implore us to repent, turn, receive, believe, trust, and come, we surrender to God in repentance and faith and are born again by the regenerating power of God, thus we are saved by the glorious grace of God!

I predict that Harold Camping, the elderly radio talk show host now predicting Judgment Day on May 21, 2011, and the end of the world October 21, 2011, will adjust his predictions to future dates after doing further calculations on May 22, 2011.

I believe my prediction will most certainly take place because “no one knows the day or the hour,” according to Jesus. Since Camping is working from the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 and the account of Noah’s great flood, I assume he can and will come up with calculations to support new dates for the world’s demise.

William Miller, a sometimes Baptist preacher, predicted the end of the world no later than March 21, 1844. He adjusted his prediction after the fateful day passed without incident, lighting on numerous dates in 1844.

Edgar C. Whisenant predicted that the Rapture of the church would occur September 13, 1988. As an American pastor, I received his free booklet, “88 Reasons,” which I keep as a more recent example of misguided apocalyptic fervor. Whisenant was insightful enough to realize that his date had passed without incident, so he then predicted September 15, 1988; then October 3, 1988; and then again selected a day in 1989, 1990, 1991, etc. By then no one was listening.

So why are we listening to the pompous and presumptuous Camping? He thinks all churches were abandoned by God and conquered by Satan on May 21, 1988, his own un-churched and unaffiliated status apparently providing him protection.

This is Camping’s second go-around for predicting the end of the world. His book “1994?” postulated the end of days in 1994 with a tad more humility. He thought at that time he could be wrong, but apparently all uncertainty has passed.

I first encountered Camping’s date on a huge billboard in Accra, Ghana. Similar signs in downtown New Orleans encourage us to “save the date.” Seminary students here are discussing the prediction, and various Christian ministries have gotten on board with Camping just as Trinity Broadcasting Company partnered with Whisenant in 1988.

Expectation of the return of Jesus Christ and the end of the age is an historic part of orthodox Christian theology. It should keep Christians future-oriented and eager to see God’s unfolding plan. It gives hope beyond human strength and wisdom. And it provides confines for human history that exalt the role of God in the world and set all human effort in the context of God’s sovereign rule.

Setting dates for the end of the world is a truly bad idea. While it may remind us of God’s ultimate authority, it also disappoints and disillusions those who assume the prediction to be true. I have personally witnessed the flagging enthusiasm of those who thought they knew when the end would come.

The prophets generally profit from their prediction in various ways but often recover nicely despite the inevitable disappointment. The average person who is caught up in the excitement of the final day leaves the whole ordeal with a bad taste in his mouth.

Judgment Day is coming because justice is an eternal quality of our eternal God. May 21, 2011, is a great day to hope in God’s sovereign rule and continue your faithful routines. If the end of the world should catch you in the classroom or at work instead of on the mountain, you will be found faithful.

Dr. David Crosby

Malcolm B. Yarnell III, Managing Editor of the Southwestern Journal of Theology and Director of the Center for Theological Research at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, TX, contributes these thoughts on Authentic Christianity, and offers two articles addressing this subject from the Journal available at no charge to the readers of SBC Today –
“When Hope Screams: Learning How to Suffer as Sons from the Book of Hebrews” by Ched Spellman, and
“Seeing Jesus Clearly: A Sermon from Mark 8:22-23,” by Josh Smith.

The desire of believers to display real faith through appropriate action is rooted in the witness of Scripture and exemplified in Christian history. Jesus Christ asked this haunting question of those who wished to identify themselves as His disciples: “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” The Lord proceeded to illustrate the difference between two types of disciples with an architectural metaphor. One disciple comes to Christ, hears His words, “and acts on them.” This one is praised as having penetrated to “the rock” and built his house upon Him. This one is an authentic disciple, manifesting his beliefs in action. The second type, however, hears the Lord’s words, “and has not acted accordingly.” The second disciple is not founded upon the rock, so that when judgment comes, “the ruin of that house was great.”  The second disciple is a hypocrite, a person whose actions do not match his claims. These are the two disparate options present to those who hear Christ: authentic discipleship or hypocrisy.

In the Gospel of John, Jesus employs an agricultural metaphor to make a similar point, proceeding one step further by demonstrating that the ability to be authentic is itself grace in action. The Father is the “vinedresser,” His Son is the “vine,” and the Son’s disciples are the “branches.” If a disciple would live, he must abide in communion with the vine, for love, the divine gift of life, moves through Him. The vinedresser will prune His branches to help them grow properly and produce good fruit. The production of fruit, or good works, naturally occurs as part of the flow of life from within the vine. If a branch does not abide in the vine and produce the fruit of loving obedience, it will be treated appropriately as refuse for condemnation. Divine love, expressed in the flood of divine grace through Christ, has determined human fruitfulness in good works to be the proper expression of the faithful reception of divine grace. In Christ’s theological system, if we dare describe Jesus’ teaching thus, there is no contradiction between grace and good works, for divine love empowers human obedience.

The authentic Christianity that Jesus taught has often had to reassert itself against deceptive alternatives in the history of the churches. One major theological error that has opposed itself to authentic Christianity is works-righteousness. This error seeks not so much the exhibition of good works as a result of salvation, but the identification of those good works as the basis for justification before God. A second major theological error that has opposed itself to authentic Christianity is antinomianism. This error seeks to preserve the basis of justification in grace, but through the denial that good works are a necessary fruit of the Christian life. Each error originates in a theological shortcoming. Works-righteousness forgets that salvation is by grace through faith apart from good works. Antinomianism forgets that justification must be accompanied by regeneration, the divine transformation of human life that issues forth in good works. If works-righteousness is the besetting error of medieval Christianity with its sacerdotal economy of salvation, antinomianism in its doctrinal and ethical forms is the insidious error lurking at the door of evangelical Christianity.

Outstanding exemplars of authentic Christianity may be found in every period of Christian history, perhaps most poignantly in the lives of many martyrs in the early church, of many so-called “heretics” in the Middle Ages, and of the biblicistic Anabaptists in the Reformation. However, authentic Christianity is not the preserve of the distant past, as seen in the thought and life of the German Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer in the twentieth century or in the rising desire for “radical” Christianity today. Expressions of authentic Christianity in both Scripture and history are considered in our most recent issue of the Southwestern Journal of Theology, but we focus here upon an English reformer.

In his groundbreaking study of Thomas Cranmer, Ashley Null treats the sixteenth-century Archbishop of Canterbury and author of the Book of Common Prayer as a major theologian in his own right, who should not be overshadowed (as is too often the case with elementary histories) by Martin Luther or the continental Reformed. Drawing from the medieval scholastic and liturgical tradition, as well as renaissance humanism and the writings of the continental reformers, Cranmer wrestled with the problem of grace and good works. Cranmer fully embraced the Reformation understanding of justification as the extrinsic righteousness of Jesus Christ that is applied to the believer through the gift of faith apart from works. However, he did not stop with that essential truth. Rather, in “the moment” in which God applies the righteousness of Christ in justification, His Holy Spirit renovates the human being. “Through the gift of saving faith, the ungodly received pardon. However, concomitant with pardon, the justified received a renewed will to love which enabled them to lead a new life pleasing to God.”

In other words, the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone through grace alone in Christ alone may not be sundered, theologically or experientially, from the biblical doctrine of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, which entails a transformed will that ensues in good works. Cranmer holds at bay the pernicious errors of works-righteousness and antinomianism simultaneously through recognizing that salvation is the concurrent work of the one God through His Son and His Spirit in the distinct but contemporaneous acts of justification and regeneration. Justification no longer remains alone as the doctrine upon which the church stands or falls. Rather, “if the profession of our faith of the remission of our own sins enter within us into the deepness of our hearts, then it must needs kindle a warm fire of love in our hearts towards God, and towards all other for the sake of God.” Luther’s necessary claim for justification is balanced by Cranmer’s equally necessary claim for repentance through a life of true discipleship.

“Authentic Christianity” is the latest issue of Southwestern Journal of Theology and it is dedicated to a biblical, historical, and systematic presentation of such expressions of authentic Christianity. Five young theologians were commissioned to write relevant essays, and each expresses a profound desire to live for Christ genuinely. Their superb contributions include a theological interpretation of suffering in Hebrews, a historico-systematic presentation of radical voices from the Anabaptists to Bonhoeffer to today, an evangelical-free church critique of emerging church hermeneutics, a call to entertainment-soaked Christians to recover a biblical approach to recreation, and a dynamic sermon on seeing Jesus clearly from the Gospel of Mark. Two of the essays have been made available for free to the readers of SBC Today. “When Hope Screams: Learning How to Suffer as Sons from the Book of Hebrews” by Ched Spellman, and “Seeing Jesus Clearly: A Sermon from Mark 8:22-23,” by Josh Smith, as well as ordering information for the entire journal may be accessed at http://www.baptisttheology.org/journal.cfm.

Malcolm B. Yarnell III

But, what I really want you to see in this post is some of the reasons that the CR had to be, and where the SBC would be today if it had not happened.  The ABP is a good place to look when trying to see what the SBC would’ve been.  Look at this article:    http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5411/53/   and this one:   http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5410/9/      So, clearly going against the teaching of the Bible does not seem to matter  to these people.  They could care less that the Bible clearly teaches that only men should be Pastors/Elders in a church.  This just shows their total disregard for what the Bible teaches.  They’d rather fit in with society.  And, this is where the SBC was going before the CR.

Also, I’ve always thought that winning souls and worshipping Jesus was at the heart of Christian ministry?  I always thought that fulfilling the Great Commission was at the heart of what a Christian should be about?  I’ve always thought that people knowing God and loving Him would answer the problem of man.  Is that not what the Bible teaches?  But, according to the ABP, the heart of Christian ministry should be something else.  Now, please, dont come in here telling me that I dont believe in helping the sick and the poor.  Of course, Christian compassion should lead us to help people in need, and we’re commanded to do that in the Bible.  But, is this the “heart” of Christian ministry?  Is this the core of what we should be about?  Look at this article:   http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5410/9/    Also, notice that it’s a woman that’s “preaching” it!  lol.  And again, this is where the SBC was going before the CR. 

Also, the ABP has shown how the liberal/moderate crowd of  the former SBC’ers disregard the clear teachings of the Scripture concerning homosexuality.  Look at this: http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3469&Itemid=9   and this one:  http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5001/9/  And then, look at this one:   http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5281/53/  This is where the SBC would be today had not the CR taken place.  This is the way we were going before the CR. 

Folks, we need to thank the Lord that the leaders of the CR had the courage and the faith to lead our SBC back to the Bible.  We need to thank God most of all for doing this great work in the SBC.  God has blessed us in the SBC in great ways.  God is using the SBC in tremendous ways to carry out His work on this Earth.  And, we need to realize that being a people of the BOOK is the reason that God uses us and blesses us so greatly.  The fact that we preach the Gospel and teach His Word is why He continues to choose to bless us and use us.  And, if we ever drift away from a true faith….based on the Bible….then we’ll go the way of the other denominations and churches that left the faith.  You dont have to look far to see how dead and dying these churches and denominations are.

Relevant?  Fitting in with their culture?  This is how silly and crazy some Churches can get as they seek to identify with their culture, and supposedly do things to reach people.  Notice that the name of the Church is the Wine Barrel Church. Maybe that should tell us all someting.   This would really be funny, if it were not so sad.  Thanks to Robin Foster for sharing such a wonderful video with all of us.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPzDfq1Lf_g&w=480&h=385]

Another Pastor told me, one time, that a certain fella went crazy on the Bible. He said that the man started studying his Bible, too much, and it caused him to lose his mind!

I’d like to know what your thoughts are on these two statements. And, is a “big crowd” what’s the measure of success in a church?  Is Bible preaching, or expository preaching, or text driven preaching not the way to go, if you really want to be a successful Pastor?

Maybe we should have the Holy Ghost Hokie Pokie at our Churches, in order to get the crowd coming?!!?  Peter Lumpkins had this video at his blog, and it reminded me of what some Pastors and Churches do in their attempt to be “relevant” and gain a big crowd.  I mean, if a big crowd is our measure of success, and we’re willing to just preach shallow, fluffy, psychological, self help messages to gain the crowd, then shouldn’t we look to things like the Hokie Pokie, or Christian Country line dancing, maybe, depending on your culture, to “reach” people; to get the crowds?  Take a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTPowYQ-jVU

I’d really like to hear your thoughts on this.