A Call to Alacrity, not Perplexity

In my two previous posts I have been discussing an article by Professor Dan Doriani titled What is The 'Abomination of Desolation'? The article appears at The Gospel Coalition website. This post seeks to answer the question posed in the title of Professor Doriani's article.

It could be pointed out that by considering what the Abomination of Desolation is, Professor Doriani is also seeking to establish when it is. In other words, did it happen in 70 AD, or is it yet a future event? Understanding what it is assists in understanding that it has not yet occurred.

Some keys to answering this question of when are in Matthew 24: 15 itself. The verse begins with the clause "Therefore when you see the Abomination of Desolation..." (NASB). Not "if you see..." The text presumes that the reader who happens to be located in the vicinity of the event will see it. With the assistance of current technology (and, hypothetically, of future technology), it is easy to consider how those in the region could view a video feed of the event. On the other hand, in the first century it would not seem plausible that everyone in the district could personally observe, from their houses and fields,  an occurrence taking place inside the Temple. Also, the definite article and reference to the book of Daniel both clarify that a technical prophetic term is being implemented to refer to a specific earth-shaking event--this is not just an abomination, but The Abomination. When it happens, it will dwarf other lesser abominations.

Then there is the urgent instruction  to flee from the area because the Abomination of Desolation signals the approach of superlative tribulation never seen before and never to be seen again (verses 16-21). But when Roman armies invaded the Temple in 70 AD it was at the conclusion of a long siege, not the beginning. This siege followed a military campaign throughout the region and a long duration of turmoil within the city. It signaled the culmination, not the onset of the Roman conquest. The time to flee would have arrived well before the Temple destruction. And as bad a time as it was, it was not the worst in history. Those taking flight from the invasion would have long since taken leave if able as the war and famine in the area had already been going on for a considerable duration. Thus pagan soldiers entering the Temple in the first century would have been too late a cue to try and escape. The urgency required by the directive in the text--not going back into the house, even to grab a coat, does not fit the first century invasion which would have allowed for enough warning prior, as armies gathered, for local residents to gather some provisions.

In addition there is the warning sign itself. It would be difficult to argue that the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 AD could not have been anticipated as the Roman armies gathered to invade after conquering the surrounding area. But in the warning of Matthew 24: 15-22 it is anticipated that people will have no warning except the Abomination of Desolation episode itself. Thus people may be outside without their luggage but are instructed not to delay by going back to their houses. And verse 20 isolates the time frame of the window of escape to a single day--hence the exhortation to pray it not be a Sabbath, when travel would be more difficult.

Verse 29 describes apocalyptic cosmic phenomena that were not witnessed in the first century, followed by the Second Coming of Jesus in verses 30 and 31. That itself should prove that verses 15-31 have not yet happened.

The question of whether the invasion by Titus of Rome in the first century was the Abomination of Desolation is a matter of some debate. But when the real Abomination of Desolation occurs, there will be no debate. Believers will know it when they see it.

Perspicuity vs Perplexity

In my previous post I discussed an article written by Dan Doriani at The Gospel Coalition website. In that post, I objected to the fact the Gospel Coalition editors did not clarify the point that Professor Doriani's article, titled What is the 'Abomination of Desolation'?, expressed a partial-preterist take on Matthew 24 which not all, nor even most, evangelicals agree with.

In this post I want to examine some points of Professor Doriani's approach in the article itself. Professor Doriani makes a number of generalizations about the passage without doing much exegesis. Considering the length of the article, this is not unusual for a short treatment of this type. But if the aim is to clear up perplexity, that would seem to require unpacking the verses.

The essay asserts that "Evangelical scholars...generally agree that (Matthew) 24: 3-35 mostly refers to events leading up to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70." Except they don't...beginning with the Abomination of Desolation itself. The majority evangelical viewpoint isn't going to go away simply by being ignored. The urgency described in verses 17-20 is not the type of urgency that matched AD 70. People not only  had time to go back into their houses to retrieve supplies, but were also able to anticipate the approaching siege by the Romans. Verses 17-20 describe a frantic urgency in which minutes are critical and isolate the event to a single day, hence the instruction in verse 20 to pray that it does not fall on a Sabbath, when travel would be more difficult.

Verse 21 depicts a superlative tribulation unmatched before or since. This did not occur in AD 70. Verse 22 warns of a threat to all human existence. Verses 23-26 warn of deception on a massive scale, and finally, verses 29-31 describe cataclysmic signs and wonders witnessed by the entire planet culminating in the Second Coming. Didn't happen in AD 70.

Professor Doriani concludes, "This prophecy makes sense only with reference to the fall of Jerusalem", but never engages the key defeaters of this statement, among them verses 16-31. He therefore takes a fairly clear passage and makes it perplexing by seeking to shoehorn it into a preconceived partial-preterist construct.

A Perplexing Perspective

An article written by Dan Doriani at The Gospel Coalition website presents a partial-preterist interpretation of Matthew 24. This is nothing novel; the partial-preterist conviction has been around for a good while, and there are certainly quite a few orthodox believers who hold it. The fact that Professor Doriani has expressed this persuasion is not the complaint of this post.

This protest is that the article is presented as the explanation of a passage described as "perplexing", part of a series described a one which "analyzes perplexing passages of the Bible", of which the subject article is billed as "the first installment in a new series..." Now, in Professor Doriani's mind it may be the explanation, and he is entitled to hold that opinion. If he wants to write partial-preterist articles until the rapture, that's his prerogative. But neither the article nor the series introduction contain any disclaimer from the website editors stipulating that professor Doriani's eschatological position is just one of a number of orthodox views.

After all, if the purpose is to coalesce in support of the gospel, it would seem third-tier issues could be allowed some interpretive latitude. One might expect that an organization which calls itself The Gospel Coalition--as opposed to, say, "The Partial-Preterist Eschatological Viewpoint Coalition"--would recognize that there are a variety of acceptable eschatological opinions among evangelicals, but would put its focus on uniting for the gospel. If one of their members wants to write about their opinion from the selection on the prophetic interpretation grid, perhaps the piece could include some clarifying comments, like:

Here is a difficult passage of Scripture. Well, it's actually not that difficult if you take the passage in its futuristic plain meaning sense. But there are some folks who think most of the events in this prophecy have already happened, which makes the passage difficult for them since the words in Matthew 24:16-31 do not describe accomplished phenomena. Most evangelicals do not agree with this esteemed chap's handling of this so-called "perplexing" passage; nevertheless, his minority viewpoint does have its followers, and as many of these eschatological points concern matters of nonessential doctrine, we present herewith his case for the readers' appraisal.

One might expect some sort of clarification, assuming The Gospel Coalition agrees that Partial Preterism is a) nonessential, and b) widely disputed.

Hymned Out

The exclusion of the popular hymn "In Christ Alone" from publication in the new hymnal being assembled by the Presbyterian Church (USA) is explained  here by some of the Presbyterian entities involved and elaborated on  here by the co-chair of the Presbyterian Committee on Congregational Song, Mary Louise Bringle. It appears the committee had originally decided to include the Gospel hymn, written by Keith Getty and Stuart Townend, but then excluded it because the authors would not agree to a change in the wording on one of the lines.

The committee wanted the words, "Til on that cross when Jesus died/The wrath of God was satisfied" changed to "Til on that cross as Jesus died/The love of God was magnified." In her discussion of the rationale for excluding the hymn, Bringle makes it clear that committee members did not accept the original words in this line of the song because they disagreed with the "view" of those words. As she describes the deliberation about whether or not to include the hymn unedited, the argument was between those who disagreed with the original words of the line they wanted to revise, but who still thought the hymn should be included--even if unrevised--and those who disagreed with the original words and were willing to make the issue of changing them a deal-breaker. Apparently the deal-breaker faction won by a 9-6 vote.

The irony is the cross demonstrates God's love precisely because it is through the cross that Christ satisfies God's wrath. In insisting on the revised words the committee unwittingly advocated for a truth based on the very words they wanted to replace.

Vital

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.

                                                              --1 Corinthians 15: 17 (NASB)
                         
In his famous discourse on the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15: 12-58, the apostle Paul debunks any platitudes about the value of faith being merely intrinsic without regard to its object. Faith, to have value, must be in the truth. The literal resurrection of Jesus Christ from the grave is a central truth so vital to Christianity that the believer's faith would be worthless if the Lord's resurrection had not taken place. If Christ was not raised, the believers would not be raised, in which case "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die (v. 32b)." Without the resurrection, there is no point in doing church, in preaching, in evangelism.

But the good news is that Christ is risen...literally, physically, bodily from the grave. His resurrection is so certain that the apostle Peter, in Acts 2: 24 asserts that there was no other possible outcome, because death did not have the power to hold Jesus in its clutches.

He is risen indeed. And that is why our faith is so valuable.

Indeed.

"And they entered in, and found NOT the body of the Lord Jesus."                   

                                                                                      --Luke 24:3

Geography

Thom Rainer has a blogpost on some recent data he has received concerning church attendance size at SBC churches with 1000 or more in attendance. There are 603 on the list, but Thom points out the numbers are self-reported by churches that chose to respond.

Still, it is an interesting list. The state of Texas is well-represented, as is pretty much all of the Southeast. California churches appear a number of times and there are a small number of locations outside the Texas, California, or the Southeast that also appear on the roster. A church in New Mexico claims the 23rd spot, and a church in Pago Pago, American Samoa shows up at number 34. The rest of the top 50 are from Texas, California, or the Southeast, with a church from Kansas at number 51.

Some have said everything's bigger in Texas and this list does not appear to dispel that notion. The top two places are claimed by Houston-area churches, 4th and 5th place by Dallas/Fort Worth- area churches, with Houston-area fellowships assigned to nine of the top 50 spots and DFW-area assemblies garnering 5 places out of the top 50. Texas churches hold 16 of the top 50 positions.

I knew there were a lot of Baptists in this state, but there are a LOT of Baptists in this state!

Woo-hoo. Really.

This fellow  says "Woo-hoo."

This fellow says "too much goo." Well, in so many words.

And while the right amount of excitement at the right time for the right reason can be fun, I tend to agree with this fellow. After a certain amount of time repetitious hype just sounds like...repetitious hype.

And the truth does not need hype.

Calvinist Plot to Take Over SBC

"Okay. CH, you grab the pulpit and start preaching on election. Cal, you pull all the response cards out of their bulletins. Jonathan, you assign them something to bring to the pot-luck instead of giving them a choice..."

The Prayer of Faith

The Sinner's Prayer is the subject of an article in Christianity Today by J. D. Greear. It is a topic that has attracted lots of attention lately and Greear's approach is thoughtfully balanced. A resolution was passed affirming the "Sinner's Prayer" as an expression of repentance and faith at the SBC convention in June after some back-and-forth in the preceeding days about the issue.

Greear does an admirable job of expressing the concerns of those who expressed concerns while also confirming that there are Biblical ways to guide the use of the Sinner's Prayer, even pointing out that Spurgeon and Whitefield made use of it and Bunyan depicts it in a scene in The Pilgrim's Progress. He correctly indicates that genuine saving faith and repentance can be present without the implementation of the Sinners Prayer and can also be expressed through the Sinner's Prayer.

There are a number of factors to consider, and it is an issue requiring balance. Whatever method of evangelism is used, we know there are those who respond to the gospel and those who reject it. We also know that among those who respond will be those whose faith is genuine and those who merely profess to believe but do not genuinely believe (Matthew 13: 3-30). In some cases those who profess but do not truly believe may even deceive themselves, at least for a time.

So we must be careful to proclaim the gospel with accuracy, and to point out that when Jesus commands, "Follow Me," that is exactly what He means. But even then, there will be tares among the wheat.

I think at least part of the way to resolve the matter is to recognize that an affirmative outward reponse to the gospel message may indicate a true conversion or may simply represent a "sparked interest", as it were. Thus, the believers who are involved with the new convert should continue to proclaim and teach the gospel as they disciple the novice in the faith. This helps the new believer become more mature, and if the apparent convert does not yet have a fully formed true faith,  it may help them, as they continue to learn, to develop one.

Even then, some will turn out not to have been genuine in their faith. But we still, as "...ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us "(2 Cor 5:20 NASB) beg people on behalf of Christ to be reconciled to God.

The Tradition of Being Non-Traditional Continues...

Approximately equal numbers of SBC pastors either consider their congregations as having a predominately Calvinistic/Reformed theology or define their churches as holding to a Wesleyan/Arminian position. This is what a new survey from LifeWay Research indicates. Survey results show about 30% for each category.

This data from the recent poll is interesting in light of the claims made in what has become known as the "Traditional Statement", or "TS", but is more formally known as  "A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God's Plan of Salvation". The Introduction to the non-Calvinist/non-Arminian statement  promotes it as a  "suggested statement of what Southern Baptists believe..." and again repeats, "We believe that it does reflect what most Southern Baptists believe..."

Furthermore, the Preamble of the TS asserts, "We propose that what most Southern Baptists believe about salvation can rightly be called 'Traditional' Southern Baptist soteriology." After describing this so-called "Traditional" Southern Baptist soteriology the Preamble then concludes, "Below is what we believe to be the essence of  'A Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God's Plan of Salvation.' "

So the self-described "Traditional" view, advanced as neither Calvinistic nor Arminian (indeed, proponents insist they are "off that grid") is apparently, contrary to its speculative propositions in the Introduction and Preamble, not the majority view either. This conclusion seems logical since 60 percent in the survey classify as either Calvinistic or Arminian.

And the "Traditionalists" insist they are neither. Note the words of one of the TS signers, Dr. Adam Harwood, in a blogpost at SBC Today titled "Roger Olson is Correct; 'Traditional' Southern Baptists are NOT Arminians"-- Harwood writes:

The reason, once again, is that we are not Arminians. We refuse to accept the premise that we must evaluate doctrinal statements through the lens of a borrowed and unnecessary Calvinistic-Arminian philosophical-theological framework.

The point is that the survey results from LifeWay indicate Calvinism, while not a majority view, has substantial  representation among a variety of viewpoints with no particular view being predominant. This would appear to disclose the true Southern Baptist tradition--anything but a monolithic landscape, but rather a combination of Calvinists, Arminians, Calminians, those who come from the perspective of the signers of the TS, those who are undecided, those who don't know, and those who don't want to be labeled. In fact, on one point of doctrine emphatically rejected in the TS, the LifeWay poll shows that roughly 50 percent of SBC pastors hold to some version of the doctrine of Irresistible Grace, the I in the TULIP acronym of Calvinist soteriology.

So it looks like Calvinists are well-represented in the SBC and like no group has the majority. Since no one is in the majority, maybe it is time to get back to a tradition that has been part of SBC history:

Let's cooperate.

What About Handel's Messiah?

And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

--Revelation 19: 16 (NASB)

Kurt Willems is concerned. He's concerned about the words to a popular worship song written by Chris Tomlin. The troubling (to Willems) portion of the song, "Our God is Greater", sung in many churches of various denominations, goes like this:

"Our God is greater, our God is stronger,
 God you are higher, than any other,
Our God is Healer, Awesome and power,
Our God, our God,

And if our God is for us, then who could ever stop us?
And if our God is with us, then what could stand against?"

Willems says he has no problem with the theology of this. Apparently he just doesn't think the theology should be applied to...worship. Because that's what these words are; they are words of worship. And people who sing them (often with their eyes closed and hands raised) are worshipping. They are worshipping our God Who is greater, stronger, and higher than any other, and Who deserves our worhip and praise. It is unclear what Willems sees as the purpose of theology, if not to impact worship as one of its primary designs.

In his post Willems gives a number of lame excuses reasons why he finds the words unsettling. As is often the case when someone doesn't have a real good argument, especially someone trying to combine a postmodern construct with evangelical Christianity, it is difficult to understand his rationale. But apparently he thinks some will equate religion with nationalism or something like that even though there is no hint of that in the song. And like any good postmodernist, he frets that Christians singing their God is greater than any other just doesn't demonstrate enough humility in one's epistemology. But equivocating on one's faith is not humility, it's being double-minded (James1: 6-8).

So I have to disagree with his concerns. Because our God rules the universe. He rules all of creation. He rules all the nations. There is none like Him. Because He is greater, stronger, and higher than any other.

And that is worth singing about.

Trad-i-TIONNN...

SBC Convention time is near, and there is high drama afoot. Last year must have been too quiet because this year the excitement is already building as a group of non-Calvinists have decided to draft a Statement called "A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God's Plan of Salvation." According to those who crafted the piece, "The Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding" is, you guessed it, non-Calvinistic. And they want you to know it. So they wrote a Statement. And many people signed that Statement, and lots of people blogged about that Statement. And lots more people commented on those blogs about that Statement. And so I feel it is fitting to...blog about the Statement.

In the Preamble, those who put forth the Statement tell us why it is so important they put forth this Statement right NOW and also get people to sign it. It is because, they say:

The precipitating issue for this statement is the rise of a movement called “New Calvinism” among Southern Baptists. This movement is committed to advancing in the churches an exclusively Calvinistic understanding of salvation, characterized by an aggressive insistence on the “Doctrines of Grace” (“TULIP”), and to the goal of making Calvinism the central Southern Baptist position on God’s plan of salvation.

Cue Aunt Pittypat (I'm not sure if she has signed the Statement yet):

I don't know who these New Calvinists are who want to take over the convention, but if I ever meet one of these legendary (I would say "mythical" but I suppose it is within the realm of possibility that there are a couple or so of them out there) folk I think I'd say something like this: "Dude. You're like, way outnumbered in the SBC, so if you feel the need for Calvinism to be the central position, why not just join the Reformed Baptist denomination where Calvinism is the  central position, and leave the SBC to remain a fascinating mix of Calvinists, Arminians, non-Calvinists (I think they are calling themselves 'Traditionalists' now), and people (probably the majority) who don't know what they are, or don't want to be labeled.?" Then maybe the need for this Statement wouldn't be so urgent. Right now. Right before the Convention.

The Preamble also charges Calvinism with "certain unacceptable conclusions" (Surprise! Non-Calvinists think Calvinism has unacceptable conclusions! Who'da thunk?) and also somewhat patronizingly admonishes Calvinists to be humble and circumspect about the "weaknesses" in their system. The Preamble also appears to indicate these non-Calvinists are designating themselves with the moniker of "Traditionalists". I don't necessarily agree the description is accurate, but previously the designation of "Biblicists" was floated, implying Calvinists weren't Biblicists. So at least they seem to have dropped that idea, and "Traditionalists" may just have to do.

The Statement consists of a series of ten articles, in the format of affirmations and denials. Some of the material Calvinists would agree with, some of it is standard Arminian or non-Calvinistic fare, but there are some parts of the Statement which are problematic.

And those parts are cause for concern.

Bet I Can Guess Where You're Gonna Be

A Baptist Press article refers to a Lifeway Research survey which indicates Mother's Day is the third-ranked Sunday for high attendance at church, trailing only Easter and Christmas. So it looks like even on the day when it's all about Mom, she's still looking out for your best interests by calling in a special favor that hopefully will actually benefit YOU: she's getting you into church. While the apparent correlation between increased church attendance and Mother's Day is an apt representation of the influence moms have on family and culture, the Lifeway poll also includes another eyebrow-raising stat. Of the seven specific days mentioned, Father's Day came in last for high attendance, behind even Fourth of July and Friend Day. Now this doesn't mean that Father's Day is lowest in attendance; it just means that most in the poll didn't rank it highest.

But still. Beaten by Friend Day?

Fed Head

The federal headship of Adam is a typology which finds its counter-effect in the grace of Jesus Christ. Adam's sin was imputed to the entire human race because of his representative role. Christ, as our Substitute,  paid the sin-debt of all of us who have saving faith. Romans 5: 12-21 and 1 Cor 15: 45 point to the parallel roles (albeit with entirely different outcomes) of Adam and Christ. Jesus provides the remedy for the disaster caused by Adam.

Romans 5: 12 asserts that sin entered the world through one man (Adam). He was the representative and the gatekeeper, and once he fell, sin, along with its consequences, came in. Adam's federal role is immediately obvious because, while Adam was not the first human to sin (Eve disobeyed God first), it was Adam's sin by which sin entered the world. And the first consequence is that death entered the world, not through the first sin (Eve's), but through the sin of Adam, the federal head of natural humanity. Verse 12 finishes with the phrase "...because all sinned--"(NASB), not would sin, not eventually started to sin, not sinned on an ongoing basis, although all these facts are true, but sinned--the aorist tense in the Greek is used, meaning that the verb refers to a specific point in time. It points to the time all humans sinned in Adam, when he sinned.

Verse 15 of Romans 5 states that the many (Adam's descendants) died because of Adam's transgression, which is another indication of the imputation of Adam's guilt. Verse 16 says judgment arose from the one transgression. Verse 17 says death reigned by the one transgression. Verse 18 says condemnation to all men was the result of the one transgression. The good news is believers are rescued from this condemnation in Christ. Finally, verse 18 says by the one man's disobedience, the many were made sinners, a clear and emphatic expression of the federal headship of Adam.

Throughout the passage Paul distinguishes between the sin of Adam and the obedience of Christ, having stated in verse 14 that Adam is a "type" of Christ. Since Adam was a sinner and Jesus was perfectly righteous, this typology refers to the imputation of Adam's demerits to his progeny and the imputation of Christ's meritorious righteousness to believers. It also refers to Adam's one sin causing judgment and calamity to all while Christ's atonement removes the many sins and rescues the saints from judgment.

Adam's sin brought death, but for believers, Christ's work on the cross brings eternal life.

It's Human Nature -- Part II

The Bible expresses the total depravity, or total spiritual helplessness of the natural human condition in a number of ways.  Ephesians 2: 1 and Colossians 2: 13 describe our pre-conversion state as spiritually "dead". Dead is pretty helpless. Romans 8 makes a number of statements about the unredeemed, or those who live "according to the flesh": verse 6 echoes Eph 2:1 and Col 2:13: "For to be carnally minded is death;" and verse 7 points out that the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God. Not ambivalent, not curious, not seeking, not hostile to God some of the time, but hostile to God period. It also points out that this hostile mind 1)does not, and 2) cannot subject itself to God's law.

 So all bases in the depravity spectrum are covered: the unbeliever does not serve God, does not want to serve God, and cannot serve God. In case you're still wondering, verse 8 adds that those in the flesh cannot please God. It's a matter of both volition and capacity. Earlier, in Romans 3: 9-18 a very complete description of the unregenerate sinner's condition is provided. The conclusion in verse 18 says, "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Not insufficient or intermittent fear of God. No fear of God. Because to fear God would please God and they cannot (Rom 8: 6) please God.

The good news is that God, in His mercy and grace, gives life and salvation through faith (Ephesians 2: 5-9) to those who believe. Those who don't believe remain in a helpless spiritual state.

Totally.

It's Human Nature -- Part I

An undertanding of the nature of humanity requires an understanding of what happened as a result of Adam's sin. There are a number of views on this. Some understand correctly that Adam's first offense resulted in the total depravity of the human race, a doctrinal term alternately understood as the total inability or total helplessness, spiritually, of unredeemed humans. Another way to view it is that the unregenerate are spritually dead (Ephesians 2: 1). They are unable to respond to the gospel message and to receive God's grace and forgiveness unless God's grace acts upon them to enable their response.

At the other extreme is the view that Adam's sin had no effect in the essential nature of his progeny. Those who hold this view believe each human is born without a sin nature and is capable of perfect obedience to God, but that while it is hypothetically possible for someone to live a sinless life, no one does because of the bad example set by Adam and other human ancestors, and because of the environment of sin established by the population. Adherents of this view believe that even after a person has fallen into sin they are capable of repentance without God's assistance and are able, in their own fortititude, to begin to obey God's commands and set themselves right. A variation of this view holds that a few people, though not many, have actually lived a perfectly sinless life.

A third general category sort of splits the difference. They believe humans have a sin nature, but the idea of total depravity bothers them, as does the idea that mortals cannot respond to the gospel message unless God first does a gracious work in their heart to facilitate the response. These view Adam's descendants as damaged goods, but not spiritually helpless. They hold that humankind retains a spark of goodness sufficient at some level to allow one to understand spiritual truth and respond to God. In this view humans are, like the hero in Princess Bride, "mostly dead", but not "all dead" (spiritually).

Interestingly, the adherents of the second and third viewpoints have a similar logic concerning why they hold that individuals have the ability to repent and believe without irresistible or prevenient grace. Since people are commanded to repent and believe, the rationale is that therefore folks must have the ability to do so. Those who see mortals as a "scratch and dent" model rather than totally depraved understand the Bible says we are all sinners, but still want to leave enough wiggle room to insist it is entirely up to a person, apart from God's work in their heart, to respond to God's call to repentance and faith.

But they put themselves in a tough spot, logically, with their logic. Because once they admit that Adam's sin has impaired the moral nature of his descendants, even before those descendants are born, then they have already accepted a consequence of Adam's sin that was out of the control of those born later (except One), which caused them to be at a disadvantage in spiritual ability. Whether humans are severely hampered or completely helpless, either way a negative result has been assigned to them because of what Adam did before they were born. So objecting to the total depravity of Federal Headship or of Natural Headship with a  doctrinal anthropology of Partial Depravity in an  attempt to make salvation dependent on the will of man
doesn't seem any more defensible than accepting the imputation of Adam's guilt, yet they have a problem with the imputation of Adam's guilt.

But those who accept the doctrine of Total Depravity can explain that salvation is dependent on a holy and gracious God, not on sinful man.

Not a "No Comment" Guy

The third installment of Eric Hankins' four-part series (see my previous post below) is up at the SBC Today website. The comment box has been very active on that post and to Hankins' credit, he has been willing to engage extensively with commenters. He unequivocally rejects the doctrine that Adam's guilt was imputed to unredeemed humanity, but on the issue of the effect of Adam's sin on the nature of humanity, he is a little fuzzy. I have posed the following question to him in the post comments:

Just to clarify, do you believe Adam’s kids had in their essential nature (ontologically, not just because of his example or their environment) less capacity to obey God than Adam had, and that this was a consequence of his original disobedience?

He has taken a considerable amount of time responding to other comments, so at some point he may have to move on in terms of the comment thread on that particular post, but hopefully he will have time to answer on that thread or in the comments of the fourth installment of the series.

Roadblocks in the Detour

A series by Eric Hankins which appears in the SBC Today blog purports to resolve the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate by proposing what Hankins insists is a kind of "third way" approach which eschews both sides of the disputation. Hankins claims his alternate route conforms more with Baptist tradition. The series is to consist of four installations and thus far two of the four have appeared in the blog. But in perhaps an apt display of the concept of foreknowledge the reader can see where Hankins is going since the posts are excerpted  from his paper in the Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry entitled "Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism: Toward a Baptist Soteriology". And it looks like what is yet ahead in this series runs far afield of traditional Baptist thought.

Hankins begins by indicating he will challenge four presuppositions, as he terms them, of the Calvinism/Arminianism discussion. He is more accurately challenging four doctrines, and this is not entirely the same thing as four presuppositions. One may argue that all presuppositions are doctrines but not all doctrines are presuppositions.  In the case of the first two tenets he seeks to score, he simply takes the Arminian side but for perhaps different reasons than many other Arminians do. On the last two principles he unabashedly jumps the shark, adopting a position that not only most Calvinists, Arminians, and Baptists (whether Calvinistic, Arminian, or undecided) would likely disagree with, but probably also most evangelicals as well.

Hankins is certainly not the first to try the "none of the above" tactic in deliberating this or other doctrinal issues, or to claim to be assembling their own entree apart from the choices provided on the menu. Others, like Chuck Smith and Norman Geisler tried it previously, taking neither side at the outset of their polemic, then revealing an Arminian position, with perhaps a wrinkle here and there, as their refutation unfolded. Hankins' solution does not match theirs (indeed, theirs probably finds more orthodoxy than his, certainly on the last 2 points of his paper) but in the end he is still defending, with some interesting dramatic twists, the Arminian doctrines of volitional liberty (free will) and synergism. He borrows a couple of Pelagian notions that would not please Calvin or Arminius in denying the imputation of Adam's sin to all unredeemed humanity, and in denying the doctrine of Total Depravity or Total Inability stemming from the fall of Adam. He disputes the idea that Adam was designed to live in sinless moral perfection in the Garden of Eden or that Adam's fall was the inception of the general human need for grace and redemption. He thus maps out a semi-Pelagian course that would make many Arminians uncomfortable. But his general position still falls within their camp, if on the fringe of the Pelagian border.

A full understanding of the gospel requires an understanding of the sinner's helplessness and inability to respond to it apart from God's grace. On this Calvinists and Arminians agree. An understanding of the Fall, Original Sin, and the imputation of Adam's guilt to his progeny are also part of historic evangelical tradition and Baptist thought. Hankins' attempt to jettison these doctrines is indeed problematic.

Hard Proof

The Gospel accounts of events in the Garden of Gethsemane underscore the fact that what took place on the cross was a substitutionary sacrifice which was payment in full of the penalty for our sins. Those who attempt to argue that the cross was something different are refuted throughout the pages of Scripture, and in a particularly dramatic way by the narrative which describes the agony in the garden just prior to the arrest of Jesus. What happens there shatters any erroneous notion that would aim to deny substitutionary atonement.

If Jesus was only a martyr or an example in His crucifixion and nothing more, then the Garden of Gethsemane makes no sense. No amount of physical pain and torture that humanity could dole out to Him would cause Him to pray that "this cup pass from Me." Even though His human body would feel the pain as any human would feel it, this is not what caused Him to be "deeply grieved, to the point of death." This is not what made His sweat become like drops of blood. That dismay and distress has only one satisfactory explanation. And it is that on the cross, Jesus Christ suffered the Father's full and just wrath for the sins of those He came to save. He paid our sin-debt in full.

Jesus was fully aware of what the cross meant. The Garden of Gethsemane proves it.