Introduction: What follows is a continuation of my discussion with our friend “Jack”, a man who holds to libertarian freedom and denies that people possess a sin nature from conception.

*******************************************************

Jack,

You said,

“Psalm 51:5 doesn’t state that David was born with a sin nature within him but rather that he was conceived in sin.”

And so (1) you blatantly contradict all major orthodox Protestant commentators on this verse. You may not care about contradicting the Regula Fide of the Church of Jesus Christ, but doing so should give any man cause for pause. Were not talking about mere details of eschatology, but core doctrines of the faith once for all handed down to the saints, some of which you seem to reject. Also, (2) your statement above doesn’t help anyway since you only state what the verse itself states and what you *don’t* believe about the verse. We want to know what you think it means. State positively what it means not just what it says. If you continue to remain aloof as to your interpretation of it then you are being disingenuous and refuse to meaningfully deal with it. You also have yet to deal with Psalm 58:3.

I am familiar with the different understandings of Original Sin, but since you deny them all, why make an appeal to them?

You went on to say,

“You need to focus on the scriptures that teach how God is honored when men live holy, how He boasted over Job who didn’t sin through his trials and get away from the horrible teaching of “total depravity” which teaches that you are a slave to sin until the day you go to the grave.”

This is a straw man misrepresentation of what Calvinists believe. We believe that the *unregenerate* sinner is totally unable to come to Christ *before* conversion lest Christ set him free from the bondage of his own cherished sin. Once regenerated and set free by God’s regenerating grace, the redeemed saint willingly comes to Christ, adores Him forever, and desires to deny himself, take up his cross, and follow after Jesus. The redeemed saint is *not* a slave to sin, but a slave of Christ. Is he completely sin-free? NO! That will not happen till he is in glory; but as a redeemed saint, he now has the ability, the desire, and the freedom to please God and the freedom to sin. If you say a redeemed saint cannot sin, then you contradict Scripture again:

NAU 1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

If you believe that the redeemed sinner is able in this earthly life to become completely sin free then according to the apostle John you are self-deceived and the truth is not in you.

You said further,

“Read Romans 6 “…you are no longer under law but grace, therefore sin shall not have dominion over you”. If anyone sins daily, he is under the dominion of sin and is not walking in grace.”

If a person is habitually practicing sin and no chastisement or repentance is present, that person is self-deceived, lost, and does not know God.

NAU 1 John 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;

NAU 1 John 2:4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;

NAU 1 John 3:7-10 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; 8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

Introduction: What follows is an interaction that I had with an SBF combox commenter named “Jack” under Part I of my series titled “The Logical Implications of the Synergistic View of God’s Knowledge.” Jack denies compatibalistic freedom in favor of libertarian version and also denies that people are conceived in the womb and born with a sin nature.

******************************************************

Hi Jack,

You said, “Dustin, the concept of a sin nature is not taught in the bible.”

This is patently false. The Bible explicitly states in Psalm 51:5 and 58:3 that we were conceived in the womb as sinners, came forth from the womb behaving like wicked sinners, and later in Ephesians 2:3 Paul explicitly says that as a result of being constituted as sinners, we are *by nature* children of wrath before conversion. We’ll look at Psalm 51:5 first.

NAU Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

In the above verse, David declares that he, as a conceptus in his mother’s womb, was reckoned a sinner. If you want to deny that this verse means such, you’re left with the absurd notion that (1) this verse is teaching that the sexual intimacy between David’s father and mother which brought about his conception was a sinful act, an interpretation that would contradict the clear Scriptural teaching that says that making love to your wife is a good and godly thing, especially when it results in children [Psalm 127:3; Song of Songs; Hebrews 13:4], and (2) all major commentators I’ve ever read agree with my basic interpretation of Psalm 51:5. So, in order to say that David wasn’t reckoned a sinner, you’re left with an interpretation of this passage that would force you to contradict the rest of Scripture and also you are opposing all orthodox, historic Protestant interpretations of said passage. Of course, such doesn’t necessarily make my interpretation right, but it surely should give you cause for pause. If you want to hold your position in order to avoid what the majority of commentators have held, then fine. I’ll stick with the traditional interpretation as it gels better with the totality of Scripture and maintains internal consistency with the rest of God’s word.

NAU Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth.

Little infants are not sin-free and innocent blank slates, but Scripture clearly teaches that when you compare their moral constitution to God, they are at enmity with Him from their mothers’ wombs. This is what theologians have called the “sinful nature”. This affects them physically and spiritually. If such wasn’t the case, then there would be no infant mortality. But babies die; either by the hands of abortionists, some through miscarriages, and others through infanticide or devastating diseases. But regardless, infants die. So, whether they die from homicide, disease, or unexplainable causes, they die because of sin (“for the wages of sin is death” Romans 6:23). No sin = no death. But Adam sinned, and consequently, the death of infants proves that they have sin because sin = death. Such things teach us that the effects of Adam’s sin are pervasive; even to such an extent that a baby in the womb dies because of the sin that they inherited from Adam. Thus, they are conceived and born as sinners, with a disposition and innate desire to sin. As Scripture says, “foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child”, “the wages of sin is death . . .” and “in Adam all die” (Romans 6:23; 1 Corinthians 15:22). If they were innocent, they wouldn’t die (even through the sin of another), but because they are sinners by nature, and such as they are in Adam, they die.

However, God does not punish the innocent because ultimately, when it comes to being compared to His righteous standard, there are *no* innocent people, including infants (Romans 3:10-11). You may appeal to passages like Ezekiel 18:20, “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”

As a non-Calvinist, it appears that you are doing the same thing that the Jews did in Ezekiel’s day. The Jews wrongly re-interpreted both the actions of their ancestors and their own actions in an attempt to vindicate themselves. In Ezekiel’s day they were being punished with captivity, so they argued, “We are not the guilty ones. Our fathers were. This captivity is not fair to us.” But the truth is, the Jews in captivity had not learned the lesson any more than their fathers had. They inherited their father’s guilt, sin and disposition. They were no different and were being rightly punished accordingly. They were being punished for both their fathers’ sin and their own. Again, God does not punish innocent people because there are no innocent people (except Christ of course).

Passages like those of Ezekiel 18:4, 20 do nothing to disprove that people are conceived as sinful in Adam. This is because the same Bible teaches elsewhere that God visits the iniquity of the parents onto their children, which for the sake of argument, even if Original Sin wasn’t true, on such a standard God still wouldn’t be considered fair and just. This is because since God did in fact visit the iniquity of the fathers onto their offspring via actual sins committed by their ancestors through external influences such as idolatry and rebelliousness leading Israel into captivity, then the whole basis for the “God isn’t fair to hold me responsible for what Adam did and have me be born with a sinful nature” argument melts away and the very foundation used to raise any objection against the Biblical doctrine of Original Sin is demolished.

Ephesians 2:3, “Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.”

Jack, this verse refers to what the Ephesians were *by nature* before their conversions not that they did this to themselves by their willful actions. You asserted that we are “cursed because of Adam & Eve” yet you deny that men are sinners by nature. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You seem to want to make a dichotomy between man being cursed in Adam (i.e., being given a blank slate at birth but put into a situation where at some point [i.e., an “age of accountability”] he, as a morally neutral being operating in a cursed creation, will exercise his libertarian freedom to choose evil and only then at that time become a bona-fide sinner). If you believe such, then you (1) contradict Scripture as shown above and (2) you are saying that the Creation is subjected to the bondage of the curse brought about by Adam and Eve per Romans 8:20-23 yet man, as a part of that Created order is actually exempt from said bondage. If such is your view, then I leave the reader to decide who has made a Scriptural case in light of my previous presentation.

In summary, the first man Adam rebelled against God (Genesis 2:16-17; 3:1-19) and his offspring continues to rebel against God to this day by refusing to honor Him and be thankful (Ecclesiastes 7:29; Romans 1:18-32; Psalm 14). As a result of the first sin of Adam, all men are consequently evil and sinful from the womb (Psalm 51:5; 58:3). God made all people sinners in Adam (Romans 5:19), and not one is good, not even one (Psalm 143:2; Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:10-18, 23). The hearts of lost men are sick with sin (Jeremiah 17:9) and God will hold every single person accountable for their actions (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).

Thanks for the response Jack. Although I strongly disagree, I appreciate your interaction.

In his interview with SBC Today, Johnny Hunt (now president of the Southern Baptist Convention) spoke about the need for an emphasis on personal evangelism within the Convention. Hunt is concerned that Southern Baptists do not take opportunities to speak of the gospel with non-Christians. As an example of how we can be more faithful to take such opportunities, Hunt talked about seeing a couple of young men at a funeral; being previously aquainted with the youths, Hunt knew that they were not Christians. Not having much time to speak to them (due to preaching and counseling others at a funeral), Hunt simply told the young men, “God loves you and Jesus died for you, and I want to talk to you later.” In the interview, Hunt mentioned his sharing the statement, “God loves you and Jesus died for you,” as an example of evangelism. Based on what he said in the interview, Hunt certainly recognizes that this phrase is not the extent of the gospel that must be proclaimed, but he does believe this to be an accurate summary of the gospel.

My questions for readers today- and these are honest questions, which I hope lead to a good discussion- are these: 1. “Is the statement, ‘God loves you and Jesus died for you,’ an accurate summary of the gospel?” 2. Given a very brief amount of time to explain the gospel, should we tell non-Christians, ‘God loves you and Jesus died for you’?

I want us to think about these questions particularly in light of John 3:16, where Jesus seems to make a similar statement to a man that was (in that moment) apparently not yet a Christian.

The purpose of this post is not to invite criticism of Johnny Hunt (in fact, if comments tend too far in that direction I may delete them), but to think of how we should practice evangelism. Think about these questions in terms of your own life; at the end of a conversation on the phone with a non-Christian family member, would you be willing to say, “God loves you and Jesus died for you and I want to talk to you about this later”? Why or why not? How is your response shaped by the biblical text, particularly by John 3:16 as understood in context?

On June 3, I sent Dr. Allen, dean of the School of Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, links to my articles on this site critiquing his arguments against Limited atonement [the last one can be found HERE].

Along with these links, I sent the following message:

As I believe that Limited atonement (better termed Particular redemption) is a doctrine taught in Scripture, it would be my hope to persuade you to abandon such arguments as those you offered in the lecture mentioned above. Barring this eventuality, I hope that the articles linked above will at least advance the conversation so that in your presentation at the John 3:16 Conference, the clear historical errors of your presentation last February will be corrected and the Reformed response to your exegesis and theology will be taken into account.

By His grace and for His glory,
-Andrew Lindsey

Re-reading this message, I think that I could have been more respectful and courteous, positive traits that I think were lost in my attempt to be brief.

As a dean of a major institution, I did not expect that Dr. Allen would actually respond to such an email, or, if he did, I expected his response to be (somewhat understandably) dismissive.

Instead, Dr. Allen emailed the following, just two days later:

Andrew,

Thanks for your email and concern. Rest assured I will do everything I can to be biblically, historically and theologically accurate in my presentation at the John 3:16 conference. While I appreciate your taking the time to listen and respond in the articles below, I must say that I don’t think it is my historiography that is in question. At any rate, I do hope you can attend the conference, and I would be delighted to meet you there and perhaps set aside some time to chat.

Blessings!

David L. Allen

Dean, School of Theology

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

I think that, on the whole, the above response was very gracious. I do hope, however, that Dr. Allen will reconsider the historical aspect of what I wrote, as I believe my response to his presentation was well-documented.

Yesterday, I found an old post from A Puritan’s Perspective- a blog published by a student at Boyce College- offering biblical proof for the doctrine of Limited atonement. The article offers some good insights, and I commend reading of this article [found HERE] to anyone who may currently be thinking through this issue.

During the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting last week in Indianapolis, one messenger to the Convention, impacted by the sight of destruction across Indiana caused by flooding that many of us had seen while traveling to the Convention- and by the knowledge that President Bush had declared almost three dozen counties federal disaster areas due to flooding- offered a motion that an offering be taken up at the Convention annual meeting in order to help flood victims. As no mechanism was in place at the meeting to collect, account for, and distribute such funds, messengers were instead asked to donate disaster relief through the State Convention of Baptists in Indiana, and led in giving through the State Convention by SBC President Frank Page. Donations to help with disaster relief in Indiana can be sent to the following address [found on THIS WEBPAGE]:

Indiana Disaster Relief
State Convention of Baptists in Indiana
900 N High School Road
Indianapolis, IN. 46214 (more…)

This past Tuesday Dr. Ben Witherington III of Asbury Theological Seminary wrote the following at the end of a blogpost titled “The Freedom of God and the Free Will of Human Beings“: “What God requires of us, he enables us to do, so that in small measure we may reflect the virtuous and free character of our God.” (more…)

The following resolution was written by John Mann and submitted to the Resolutions Committee, but only the title was given in Wednesday’s bulletin, followed by the word “declined,” so messengers never got to see or vote upon this resolution. [This is the text from SBC Today]:

WHEREAS the Great Commission instructs Christians to make disciples by teaching the commands of Christ; and

WHEREAS Scripture teaches that as the saints are equipped, they will, “no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine,” (Ephesians 4:12, 14); and

WHEREAS Scripture commands us to, “instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines,” (1st Timothy 1:3); and

WHEREAS Baptist are historically a people that have been unified around common doctrinal distinctives and convictions; and

WHEREAS the Introduction of the Baptist Faith and Message states, “Baptist are a people of deep beliefs and cherished doctrines,” and

WHEREAS being a witness demands a clear understanding of Whom we witness about, and who we witness to; and

WHEREAS we have observed a compromise of doctrinal distinctives in recent days in various other denominations by sacrificing clear, scriptural principles upon the altar of cultural acceptance for the purpose of a unified ecumenism, which has neither been unifying nor healthy; now, therefore be it

RESOLVED, that we, the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana on June 10-11, 2008 affirm that our mission of reaching the world for Christ must be defined and determined by our doctrine of Christ; and be it further

RESOLVED, that our understanding of Christ must inform our witness to Christ; and be it further

RESOLVED, that we repudiate any attempt to teach about God that which is contradictory to clear Scriptural revelation; and be it further

RESOLVED, that, although there are various doctrines open to differing interpretations, there are certain doctrines that cannot be compromised for the purpose of establishing a New Testament church and a unified Convention; and be it finally

RESOLVED, that we encourage all pastors, church members, and churches, to pursue proper doctrinal understanding through teaching and preaching for the purpose of continuing to educate believers in an attempt to edify and equip Southern Baptists to engage the world in conversation about Christ in an evangelistic effort. (more…)

The complete text of Resolution No. 6 (amendment in boldface), from Baptist Press:

WHEREAS, The ideal of a regenerate church membership has long been and remains a cherished Baptist principle, with Article VI of the Baptist Faith and Message describing the church as a “local congregation of baptized believers”; and

WHEREAS, A New Testament church is composed only of those who have been born again by the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Word, becoming disciples of Jesus Christ, the local church’s only Lord, by grace through faith (John 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9), which church practices believers’ only baptism by immersion (Matthew 28:16-20), and the Lord’s supper (Matthew 26:26-30); and

WHEREAS, Local associations, state conventions, and the Southern Baptist Convention compile statistics reported by the churches to make decisions for the future; and

WHEREAS, the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention annual Church Profiles indicate that there are 16,266,920 members in Southern Baptist churches; and

WHEREAS, Those same profiles indicate that only 6,148,868 of those members attend a primary worship service of their church in a typical week; and

WHEREAS, The Scriptures admonish us to exercise church discipline as we seek to restore any professed brother or sister in Christ who has strayed from the truth and is in sin (Matthew 18:15-35; Galatians 6:1); and now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana, June 10-11, 2008, urge churches to maintain a regenerate membership by acknowledging the necessity of spiritual regeneration and Christ’s lordship for all members; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we humbly urge our churches to maintain accurate membership rolls for the purpose of fostering ministry and accountability among all members of the congregation; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to repent of the failure among us to live up to our professed commitment to regenerate church membership and any failure to obey Jesus Christ in the practice of lovingly correcting wayward church members (Matthew 18:15-18); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we humbly encourage denominational servants to support and encourage churches that seek to recover and implement our Savior’s teachings on church discipline, even if such efforts result in the reduction in the number of members that are reported in those churches, and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we humbly urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention and their pastors to implement a plan to minister to, counsel, and restore wayward church members based upon the commands and principles given in Scripture (Matthew 18:15-35; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15; Galatians 6:1; James 5:19-20). (more…)

Just before lunch yesterday, Al Gilbert delivered the 2008 Southern Baptist Convention Message. The biblical text focused upon in this message was 1 Corinthians 4:1-2. The message began with Gilbert telling of how when doctors had told him that he had cancer, and possibly only 5 years to live, but a short while later more tests had revealed the growth to be non-cancerous. Gilbert told of the time between these tests, when he thought he might have a short time to live, and he had done a “death-check”- evaluating the state of his soul before God. He then said of the SBC that the “denominational doctors” have told us that we’re sick and possibly dying, but we should not write the obituary yet. We do, however (Gilbert asserted), need to perform a “death-check” to evaluate the state of the Convention before God. (more…)