Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers

Commentary on Romans 8:28-39 By Leighton Flowers   28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.    The Greek verb οἶδα (oida), translated as “we know,” is a perfect active indicative form of the verb, meaning “to observe and therefore perceive.”[1] The perfect tense indicates past completed action with continuous results. Paul is literally saying, “we have observed and therefore we know.” This is not intuitive knowledge, but that which comes from observation of the past. Paul is saying that we know from observation of God’s past dealings with those who love Him that He has a mysterious way of working things out for the greatest good. By observing the stories of the saints that have gone before us, those called to accomplish His redemptive purposes, we can rest in knowledge of this truth. God can take whatever evil may come our way and redeem it for good. We can know this because He has been doing it for generations. So, Paul is not merely saying that his readers should intuitively know how God works things out for those who love him. He is saying we know what is true of God by observing what He has done in the past for those who loved Him. We have a great cloud of witnesses that have gone before us (Heb. 12:1), giving evidence of God’s trustworthiness toward all who enter into a covenant with Him. A simple survey of the verses leading up to this point reveals that Paul is reflecting on the problem of the evil and suffering in our world since the beginning:   “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now” (Rom. 8:20-22, emphasis added).   Notable New Testament scholar, N.T. Wright, comments on Romans 8:28-30, saying in part:   “[This passage] is a sharp, close-up, compressed telling of the story of Israel, as the chosen people, whose identity and destiny is then brought into sharp focus on Jesus.  Jesus, in a sense, is the one ‘chosen one.’ But, then that identity is shared with all of those who are ‘in Christ.’ And he [Paul] isn’t talking primarily there about salvation. He is talking primarily about the way God is healing the whole creation. There is a danger here. What has happened in so many theological circles over the years is that people have come to the text assuming that it is really saying how we are to get to heaven, and what is the mechanism and how does that work. And if you do that, interestingly, many exegetes will more or less skip over Romans 8:18-27, which is about the renewing of creation…”[2]     In verse 28 the focus shifts to providing comfort for those in suffering by reminding them to observe God’s dealings with others who loved God throughout history. Notice that this truth is not applicable to everyone. It is specifically an observation of those who “love God,” or as Wright noted, “those who are in Christ.” The point is not that God causes everything for a good purpose, but that God redeems the evil for a good purpose in the lives of those who love Him. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to use this passage to support the concept of divine meticulous determinism of all things. Again, God does not cause the evil for His purposes, but instead He redeems the evil for a good purpose. As John MacArthur explains:   “But God's role with regard to evil is never as its author. He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things-including all the fruits of all the evil of all time-work together for a greater good.”[3]     The focus of the Apostle’s observation is on the saints of old, those from the elect nation of Israel who were called to fulfill God’s plan to redeem His creation from its groans and sufferings. This does not mean that the truth being revealed is not applicable to those of other nations. Rather, it means that what is proven to be true of God by observing His dealings with those called out from Israel throughout history must also be true of anyone who comes to follow and love the God of Israel. Consider this example. A new Pastor is called to a church. The staff members are nervous about his leadership style and how they might be treated, but a reference who knows the Pastor might reflect on his past relationships in order to ease their fears.  The Pastor’s reference might say something like, “I have observed this Pastor’s dealings with the staff members he knew before, and he has always worked to lovingly support anyone who gets behind the vision and direction of the church.” By reflecting on this Pastor’s history, the new staff can know what to expect in their future dealings with him.  So too, Paul is giving a divine reference of sorts by reflecting on the trustworthiness of God in His dealings with the saints of old so as to ensure his readers of what they may expect of Him.   29 For those whom He foreknew,   Paul does not shift his focus from the saints of old as he continues through this passage.  No, he remains on this point so as to prove its truthfulness. By reflecting on God’s faithfulness to His chosen nation, those beloved who were “known before,” Paul is providing a reference to ease the fears of those who are just now coming to faith. This point continues to be the Apostle’s focus for the next three chapters. Much debate centers on the meaning of the word προγινώσκω (proginōskō), but many of the most popular authors fail to recognize all the available options for consideration. For example, Dr. John Piper, a notable Calvinistic Pastor, lists only two options for interpreting this verse:   “Option #1: God foresaw our self-determined faith. We remain the decisive cause of our salvation. God responds to our decision to believe.   Option #2: God chose us — not on the basis of foreseen faith, but on the basis of nothing in us. He called us, and the call itself creates the faith for which it calls.”[4]     Piper seems to overlook the most basic meaning of this term, which is “to know before” or to have known in the past. The same Greek word is used in 2 Peter 3:17, which states,   “You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men…”     And in Acts 26:4-5 the same word is used:   “So then, all Jews know my manner of life from my youth up, which from the beginning was spent among my own nation and at Jerusalem; since they have known about me for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion.”     Clearly, this word can be understood simply as “to know someone or something in the past,” as in those “known previously” (i.e. the saints of old).  So, if Paul means to use the word proginōskō in this sense, then he is simply saying, “Because we have seen how God worked all things to the good for those whom He knew before, we know that He will do the same for those who love and are called by Him now.” Calvinists contend that the word “foreknew” is equivalent to “foreloved.” That use of the word generally fits this application given that the Israelites of the past who loved God would have certainly been loved by God before (i.e. “foreloved”). Of course the Calvinistic application is different in that they insist this passage is about God setting His love upon certain individuals before the foundation of the world. Calvinists will go to great lengths to show that God did not merely “foresee” (by “looking down the corridors of time”) the behavior and choices of the elect, but that He knew them intimately and set His effectual love on them before the foundation of the world.[5] This argument may serve to address the classical Arminian approach (Piper’s first option), but it fails to address the approach being advocated here. “Foreloved” is a viable and even likely meaning of the term proginōskō, yet it does not tell us who may be the intended target of that divine love.  Is it a group of people out of the mass of humanity preselected to be effectually saved in the mind of the Apostle? Or, is it simply those of the past who God has known and faithfully cared for throughout the generations?   He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son,               Who is being “predestined” and to what ends are they being predestined according to this passage? Remember the point of the Apostle leading up to this verse. He began speaking about the futility and suffering that has come into this world due to the fall of humanity into sin (vs. 20-22). And in verse 28 he provides comfort by reminding his readers of the trustworthiness of God for those who have loved him throughout the generations. Paul is reminding his readers that God will redeem the suffering and evil for a good purpose in their lives just as He has done in the lives of those known and loved throughout the previous generations. It is these who God previously knew, Israelites who loved God in the past, who were predestined to be conformed into the image of Christ so as to make the way for His coming. God planned to accomplish salvation for those who were previously known and loved (i.e Abraham, Moses, David), by conforming them into the image of the very One coming to purchase their redemption. This is the ultimate example of God causing “all things to work together for good” to those saints of old who loved and were called by God.  Paul is saying that God “worked together” the redemption of their souls and He will do the same for whoever loves Him. As N.T. Wright puts it:   “Here is the note of hope which has been sounded by implication so often since it was introduced in 5:2: hope for the renewal of all creation, in a great act of liberation for which the exodus from Egypt was simply an early type. As a result, all that Israel hoped for, all that it based its hope on, is true of those who are in Christ.”[6]       so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;                Consider the fact that he is speaking about what Christ “would be,” which proves that Paul still has the saints of old in focus here. Why would Paul speak of future generations being conformed to the image of Christ so that He “would be the firstborn of many brethren” if He was already the firstborn prior to this discourse?             For instance, a modern day preacher would not teach that we are being conformed to Christ’s image “so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren,” because we know Him to already be the firstborn of many brethren.  Our being conformed today has nothing to do with the future coming of Christ’s birth, whereas the saints of old were part of His very lineage. It is through the life of men like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and many other saints of old that Christ is brought into this world “so that He would be the firstborn of many brethren.” Clearly, Paul is reflecting on God’s redemptive purpose being accomplished through those who loved God in former generations. That redemptive purpose included the bringing of the Messiah into this world through Israel (Rom 9:4-5), or more specifically those Israelites set apart for that noble purpose (Rom. 9:21). This was God’s “predestined” plan of redemption, which was brought to pass through those “who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose” (vs. 28). As Pastor and author Tim Warner describes:   “Paul was not referring to some prior knowledge in the mind of God before creation. Nor was He speaking about predetermining their fate. He was referring to those whom God knew personally and intimately, men like Abraham and David. The term “foreknew” does not mean to have knowledge of someone before they were conceived. The verb “proegnw” is the word for “know” (in an intimate sense) with the preposition “pro” (before) prefixed to it. It refers to having an intimate relationship with someone in the past…Literally, we could render Rom. 8:29 as follows: “For those God formerly knew intimately, He previously determined them to be conformed to the image of His Son.” The individual saints of old, with whom God had a personal relationship, were predestined by Him to be conformed to the image of Christ. That is, God predetermined to bring their salvation to completion by the sacrifice of Christ on their behalf.” [7]     30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.               Notice the Apostle’s use of the past tense in this verse. If Paul is intending to speak about the future salvation of every elect individual why would he use all these past tense verbs?  Paul, when writing these words, had not yet been glorified, and his readers certainly had not been glorified yet, so why use the past tense of the word “glorified?” There is no reason to assume he has in mind the future glorification of all believers. Once again, Paul is clearly referencing former generations of those who have loved God, those called to fulfill His redemptive purpose, those He knew and loved in the past generations, those predestined by God to be made in the very image of the One to come, “the firstborn of many brethren” (something already completed in the past through the working of God in former generations). These are the individuals who He called, justified, and who now, even as Paul is writing these words, are already “glorified” in the presence of God. This truth is more clearly stated in Hebrews 9:15:   “And for this reason He [Jesus] is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, so that those having been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.”   The Greek word “keklhmenoi,” is a perfect passive participle which literally translated means “having been called.” This clearly refers to those in the past with whom God had a personal loving relationship. So too, Paul in Romans 8 is using the past tense verbs to indicate his intentions. Nothing in these passages is meant to introduce a “golden chain” of irresistible salvation for certain preselected individuals throughout all of human history. That meaning has to be eisegetically read into the text.             Due to the use of the past tense verbs, Calvinists are forced to do some textual gymnastics in order to maintain their interpretation of Paul’s intent. For instance, one notable Calvinistic commentary states:   “And all this is viewed as past; because, starting from the past decree of ‘predestination to be conformed to the image of God's Son’ of which the other steps are but the successive unfoldings—all is beheld as one entire, eternally completed salvation.”[8]   Calvinists are forced to interpret Paul’s use of the past tense as meaning “it is as good as done because it is predestined.”  But the text never says this is Paul’s intention. The Calvinistic commentator should take into account Paul’s usage of the same term earlier in the chapter as a future tense hope for believers.  For example, notice Paul’s reference to the future glorification in Romans 8:17:   “…and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.”   He does not speak of glorification as a past-completed action in reference to the believers in his day.  In fact, he seems to qualify their being glorified upon the condition that they persevere through the suffering that is to come.  If it is “as good as done” due to God’s predetermination, then why would Paul make such a qualification and use the future tense of the same verb? Further, Paul goes on to speak of the eager expectation of the glorification that is to come in verses 22-25:   “For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.  And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.  For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?  But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.”   Are we to believe that Paul shifts from speaking of glorification as a future hope for those who persevere, to speaking of it as a past and already completed action even for those who have not yet been glorified?  Or could it simply be that Paul has the saints of old still in full view as he makes his case for the trustworthiness of God throughout all generations? This certainly seems to be the simplest and most basic understanding of the Apostle’s words in this context.             Paul clearly intended to communicate that those who loved God, those who God previously knew in times past, were predestined by God to be conformed into the image of the One to come through them, the “firstborn of many brethren.” Paul is giving a brief history lesson of what God had done in former generations as a reference for God’s trustworthiness for all who come to Him in faith. N.T. Wright explains it this way:   “The creation is not god, but it is designed to be flooded with God: the Spirit will liberate the whole creation. Underneath all this, of course, remains christology: the purpose was that the Messiah “might be the firstborn among many siblings” (8:29). Paul is careful not to say, or imply, that the privileges of Israel are simply “transferred to the church,” even though, for him, the church means Jews-and-Gentiles-together-in-Christ. Rather, the destiny of Israel has devolved, entirely appropriately within the Jewish scheme, upon the Messiah. All that the new family inherit, they inherit in him.”[9]   Those who object to the suggestion that Paul’s use of this passage is limited to the beloved of Israel should consider the following:   “But as for Israel He says, ‘All the day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.’ I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.” (Rom. 10:21-11:2)   Once again Paul uses the term proginōskō in reference to God’s intimate relationship with the faithful Israelites of old.  Paul goes on to make his case:   “Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed Your prophets, they have torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life.”  But what is the divine response to him? “I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” (Rom. 11:2-4)   Elijah and those who refused to bow a knee were among the ones who were previously known by God. To “foreknow” (or even “forelove”) refers to God’s intimate relationship with people who loved Him in the past (like Abraham referenced in Rom. 4:22-5:5). There is nothing in this or any other text that supports the concept of a mystical pre-selection of certain individuals out of the mass of humanity in eternity past. No other passage in scripture supports that meaning of the term “foreknow” in reference to the Israelites who were in covenant with God. It always can simply be interpreted as in reference to those known by God in former times.  So, to return to our analogy above, the Pastor had former staff members whom he intimately knew and loved. The new staff would be comforted to know of the Pastor’s prior dealings with those formerly known and loved. Likewise, those being “grafted into” covenant with the God of Israel for the first time (i.e. the Gentiles) would be thrilled to learn of God’s faithfulness to those He formerly knew and loved (i.e. men like Abraham and David, etc.).  The rest of this passage falls right in line with this interpretation:   31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33 Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; 34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 35 Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 Just as it is written,   “For Your sake we are being put to death all day long; We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”   37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.   If God was so trustworthy and faithful to those who loved Him in the past then who can stand against those of us who love Him today?  If God did this for the Israelites of old, those who He formerly knew, then we can rest assured this is a God we can trust. He will stand with us. He will work all things together for our good too. And nothing, absolutely nothing, can separate those who love God from “the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”   Suddenly, the objector in Paul’s mind asks a question: “Paul, you have made a good case regarding God’s faithfulness to the Israelites in the past, but what about the Israelites today? Have God’s promises for Israel failed? Why are the Israelites today refusing to accept their own Messiah?”   The Apostle sets out to answer these very questions in chapters 9-11.   [1]Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, #1492 [2] N.T Wright in a question and answer session at Oklahoma Christian University on April 1, 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKwIijhZW-M   [3] http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/A189/is-god-responsible-for-evil [4] John Piper, Sermon: “Foreknown by God” Quoted from: http://www.desiringgod.org/labs/foreknown-by-god   [5] http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/foreknew.html [6] http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Romans_Theology_Paul.pdf   [7]http://www.pfrs.org/commentary/Rom_8_28.pdf   [8] Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary http://biblehub.com/commentaries/jfb/romans/8.htm [9] http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Romans_Theology_Paul.pdf (pg. 20)

Peter is concerned that His Lord doesn't suffer.  He sincerely want to protect the glory of His Lord, but Jesus calls him a stumbling block. Could some people unintentionally be seeking to protect what they feel is the glory of God while actually serving as stumbling blocks to what is truly glorious?  Let's dive in. Join our discussion at www.soteriology101.com

We listen to a clip from the Seminary Dropout Podcast with Shane Blackshear and his guest Austin Fischer, author of Young, Restless and No Longer Reformed. Austin makes a great point about what a true humanistic and man centered theology looks like in light of the God we see best reflected in Christ. We end the podcast by playing the closing remarks in my most recent debate with Dr. James White.  Let's dive in!   To join the discussion please visit us as www.soteriology101.com

We play clips from John Piper and JD Hall where they speak of being tormented by the truth of the gospel, and going through stages of grief when first confronted with the TULIP systematic.  Is this something we all should expect to go through when the good news of the gospel is made perfectly clear? If so, where does the bible say so?We also spend some time unpacking the concept of Total Inability, the power of the gospel, and the doctrine of Prevenient Grace as held to by some classical Arminians. Here is an article on the subject by Dr. Eric Hankins that my help: http://www.baptistcenter.net/Documents/Journals/JBTM%208-1%20Spring11.pdf#page=90 After four hundred years, Calvinism and Arminianism remain at an impasse. The strengths and weaknesses of both systems are well-documented, and their proponents vociferously aver each system’s mutual exclusivity. This paper is based on the observation that these two theological programs have had sufficient time to demonstrate their superiority over the other and have failed to do so. The time has come, therefore, to look beyond them for a paradigm that gives a better account of the biblical and theological data. Indeed, the stalemate itself is related not so much to the unique features of each system but to a set of erroneous presuppositions upon which both are constructed. As the fault lines in these foundational concepts are exposed, it will become clear that the Baptist vision for soteriology, which has always resisted absolute fidelity to either system, has been the correct instinct all along. Baptist theology must be willing to articulate this vision in a compelling and comprehensive manner. The following four presuppositions shared by Calvinism and Arminianism demonstrate the degree to which a new approach to soteriology is needed. One presupposition is primarily biblical, one is primarily philosophical, one is primarily theological, and one is primarily anthropological, although each is intertwined with the others. Having established the need for a new approach to soteriology and the Baptist vision for such an approach, the paper will conclude with a brief description of a way forward. The Biblical Presupposition: Individual Election The idea that God, in eternity past, elected certain individuals to salvation is a fundamental tenet of Calvinism and Arminianism. The interpretation of this biblical concept needs to be revised. Quite simply, when the Bible speaks of election in the context of God’s saving action, it is always referring to corporate election, God’s decision to have a people for Himself. When the Calvinist, Arminian, and Baptist Perspectives on Soteriology JBTM 88 election of individuals is raised in Scripture, it is always election to a purpose or calling within God’s plans for His people as a whole. In the OT, the writers understood election to be God’s choice of Israel, yet they also clearly taught that the benefits of corporate election could only be experienced by the individual Israelite (or the particular generation of Israelites) who responded faithfully to the covenant that had been offered to the whole nation.1 This trajectory within the OT is unassailable. It is reinforced in the intertestamental literature and is the basis for the way election is treated in the NT.2 The Bible, therefore, does not speak of God’s choice of certain individuals and not others for salvation.3 When the Bible does speak of the salvation of individuals, its central concept is “faith,” never “election.” Take away individual election, and the key components of Calvinism and Arminianism disappear.4 God does not elect individuals to salvation on the basis of His hidden councils, nor does He elect them on the basis of His foreknowledge of their future faith. Simply put, God does not “elect” individuals to salvation. He has elected an eschatological people whom He has 1 See, for instance, Deut. 29:14-21. Israel is reaffirming the covenant promised to the patriarchs and to future generations. However, if there is an individual man or woman who boasts, “I have peace with God though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart,” the Lord will “single him out” from the people for destruction (vv. 18-21, NASB). Although the covenant is for the whole community, the individual must respond in faith in order to benefit from those corporate covenant promises. 2 Critics of the corporate view of election will quickly raise Rom. 8:29-30 and 9-11 (among others) in defense of their position, but the pre-temporal election of individuals is not Paul’s purpose there. Rom. 8:29-30 is setting up Paul’s point in chapters 9-11 about two groups: Jews and Gentiles. The end of Romans 8 crescendos with the greatness of salvation in Christ. Verses 29-30 articulate God’s actions toward His people from beginning to end in order to bring about His ultimate “purpose” (28): God knew He was going to have a people; He determined to bring them into existence in Christ; He actualized that people in history through His call; He justified them by faith; He has determined to bring them into resurrection glory. In light of this incredible plan to have this kind of people for Himself, Paul is heartbroken at the beginning of Romans 9 that his Jewish brothers have responded to the gospel with unbelief. The Jews appear to be “out,” and the Gentiles appear to be “in.” But God works in unexpected ways. Jews are “out” now so that the Gentiles can come “in.” But the Gentiles coming “in” will ultimately cause the Jews to come “in” at the proper time. That is why Paul will continue to preach the gospel to Jews as a part of his mission to the whole world, looking forward to the response of a remnant by faith. One thing is certain: Romans 9-11 is not teaching the election of some individuals and the reprobation of others without respect to their genuine response of faith. Ephesians 1:4, 5, and 11 function in Ephesians 2 the same way that Rom. 8:29-30 functions in Romans 9-11. 3 See William W. Klein, The New Chosen People: A Corporate View of Election (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2001), 257–63 for an extended exegetical analysis of all the relevant biblical data concerning the concept of “corporate election.” Klein argues that there is not a single verse or overarching tendency in the Scriptures in support of the idea that God chooses certain individuals for salvation. 4 Indeed, if “individual election” is what the writers of the NT meant, then Calvinism and Arminianism really are the only options, and Baptists should pick one and move on to other matters. It is significant that we have been unwilling to do so. Eric Hankins JBTM 89 determined to have for Himself. This group will be populated by individuals who have responded in faith to the gracious, free offer of the gospel. The group, “the Elect,” is comprised of individuals who are “saved by faith,” not “saved by election.” This being the case, there is no longer any need for the theological maneuvering required to explain how God elects individuals without respect to their response (which evacuates the biblical concept of “faith” of all its meaning) or how He elects individuals based on foreseen faith (which evacuates the biblical concept of “election” of all its meaning). Asserting that “individual election” should be abandoned is striking, to say the least. It is the foundation on which evangelical soteriology is often constructed.5 It is painful to consider the enormous investment of time and energy that has been spent trying to reconcile how God chooses individuals and, at the same time, how individuals choose God, only to discover that the whole endeavor has been based on a misreading of Scripture. Nevertheless, most Baptists have never felt fully comfortable with either Calvinist or Arminian understandings of election because neither comport well with the whole counsel of God. The reason is clear. The Scriptures lead to the conclusion that Augustine, Calvin, and Arminius were simply wrong in their construction of individual election. Baptists have never been theologically or confessionally committed to these august theologians, and the time has come to move beyond them. The Philosophical Presupposition: The “Problem” of Determinism and Free-Will Like Calvinism and Arminianism, the 2,500-year-old debate concerning the “problem” of determinism and free-will has also reached an impasse. This is because absolute causal determinism is untenable.6 Put simply, the “problem” is not a problem because the paradigm for causation in the Western philosophical tradition is wrong. The whole of reality cannot be explained in terms of uni-directional causation from a single first-principle. The universe does not work that way. Causation is complex, hierarchical, and interdependent. God sits sovereignly and non-contingently atop a hierarchy that owes its existence to the functioning of the levels below it, levels that include the fully operational free-will of humans.7 Opposing God’s sovereign guidance of the universe and the operation of free-will within that universe is a false dichotomy based on reductionistic metaphysical assumptions. God has made a free and sovereign decision to have a universe in which human free-will plays a decisive role. Human agency is one force among many that God has created to accomplish His cosmic purposes. 5 For example, if individual election to salvation were removed from Millard Erickson’s massive systematic theology, there would be essentially nothing left in his chapters on “God’s Plan” and those in the whole section on “Salvation.” See Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998). 6 Kenneth Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 93–99. 7 Nancey Murphy, “Introduction and Overview,” in Downward Causation and the Neurobiology of Free Will, ed. Nancey Murphy, George F. R. Ellis, and Timothy O’Connor (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2009), 2–3. Eric Hankins JBTM 90 Free-will plays a unique role within God’s purposes for the universe because it is the unique power of human beings freely to enter into and maintain covenant relationships, especially a covenant relationship with God. This makes human willing fundamentally moral. Under certain circumstances, God, in His freedom, contravenes free-will, just as He is free to contravene any other force in nature, but this is not His normal modus operandi. Because God is God, He knows all of the free acts of humans from eternity, but this knowledge does not cause these acts nor does it make Him responsible for them. Moreover, the existence of these acts in no way impinges upon either His freedom or His ability to bring about His ultimate purposes. The ability of humans “to do otherwise” does not call God’s sovereignty into question; it actually establishes and ratifies His sovereignty over the particular universe that was His good pleasure to create. Opposing free-will and sovereignty is, from a philosophical perspective, nonsensical.8 Calvinism’s desire to protect God’s divine status from the infringement of human free-will by denying it completely or reducing it to some form of “soft-determinism”9 is unnecessary. God’s corporate elective purposes are accomplished by individual free acts of faith. Arminianism’s need to inject ideas such as God’s election of individuals based on their future free acts is also a move designed to maintain both a strong view of God’s sovereignty and the free choice of individuals. Unfortunately, this move is made at the expense of any regular understanding of biblical election, which is unilateral. God does not choose Israel because He knows she will choose Him in return. He chooses her even though He knows that her history will be one of rebellion and failure. Moreover, Arminianism’s desire to protect the inviolability of free-will to the degree that God cannot keep His promise to seal a believer’s free response fails to take seriously the totality of the biblical concept of faith. Many Baptists have tended to opt for what they think is a “compatibilist” understanding of determinism and free-will in salvation: God chooses individuals unconditionally, and individuals 8 C. S. Lewis, Yours, Jack: Spiritual Directions from C. S. Lewis, ed. Paul Ford (New York: HarperCollins, 2008), 186. The word “nonsensical,” while a bit harsh, is chosen purposefully. I take my cue from Lewis: “All that Calvinist question--Free-Will and Predestination, is to my mind undiscussable, insoluble. . . . When we carry [Freedom and Necessity] up to relations between God and Man, has the distinction perhaps become nonsensical?” 9 “Soft-determinism” is the view that humans are free to do what they desire most, but they are not free to choose what they desire. Since, “the good” is off the table as an object of desire (because of the Fall), “evil” is the only option left, and therefore, humans always “choose” to do evil because they cannot do otherwise. “Soft-libertarianism” (mentioned below) is the view that human freedom, while limited in many aspects by environment and prior choices, is still characterized by the ability, often at crucial moments, to choose between two live options for which the agent is responsible. For a more full discussion, see Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty, 63–79. Eric Hankins JBTM 91 choose God by faith.10Unfortunately, compatibilism demands a deterministic view of both God and free-will with which those same Baptists would be very uncomfortable. What these Baptists really want to say is that a “determinist” view of God is compatible with a “libertarian” view of free-will, but this is philosophically impermissible. Another typical strategy of Baptists, at this point, is to appeal to “mystery” or “paradox:” We don’t know how God chooses individuals, and, at the same time, individuals choose God. But, like other complex doctrines such as the Trinity or the hypostatic union, it is still true. To say, however, that God chooses individuals unconditionally and that He does not choose individuals unconditionally is not to affirm a mystery; it is to assert a logical contradiction. Baptists need to abandon the language of compatibilism and “mystery,” which do not adequately reflect what they believe about God and salvation, and embrace the concept that a robust (soft-) libertarian free-will is the actualization of God’s sovereign direction of His universe. The Theological Presupposition: Federal Theology Both Arminians and Calvinists assume a “Covenant of Works” between Adam and God in the Garden of Eden, even though there is no biblical basis for such.11 The Covenant of Works, they assert, was a deal God made with Adam whereby Adam would be rewarded with eternal life if he could remain morally perfect through a probationary period. Failure would bring about guilt and “spiritual death,” which includes the loss of his capacity for a good will toward God. Adam’s success or failure, in turn, would be credited to his posterity. This “Federal Theology” imputes Adam’s guilt and total depravity to every human.12 In Calvinism, actual guilt and total depravity are the plight of every person. Free-will with respect to salvation is, by definition, impossible, and with it, the possibility of a free response to God’s offer of covenant through the gospel. The only hope for salvation for any individual is the elective activity of God. In 10This often expressed in the old saw that “Whosoever will may come” is written over the entry into heaven, but, once inside, the verse over the door reads, “You did not choose Me, but I have chosen you.” 11William J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2009), 44–6, Reprint. 12The principle text for Federal Theology is Rom. 5.12-21, but the evidence within this text and its place within the argument of Romans speaks against such an interpretation. The strict parallelism between Adam and “all” demands a strict parallelism between Christ and “all,” necessitating universalism, which is not possible theologically and not the point exegetically. Paul’s focus in the passage is clearly on physical death and eternal life, not the imputation of Adam’s guilt to all people (the same is true for Eph. 2:1-7 and 1 Cor. 15:20-28). Paul’s point: Adam’s sin brought in the condemnation of death for all people. All people demonstrate that they deserve such condemnation by their own sin. Christ, the sinless one, has overthrown that condemnation by receiving it undeservedly into Himself, which is the ultimate act of obedience, and rising again. All who ratify Christ’s obedient life, death, and resurrection with their faith in Him will have eternal life. Eric Hankins JBTM 92 Calvinist soteriology, election is privileged above faith because regeneration must be prior to conversion. In Arminianism, the effects of Federal Theology and the Covenant of Works must be countermanded by further speculative adjustments like “prevenient grace” and election based on “foreseen faith,” a faith which is only possible because prevenient grace overcomes the depravity and guilt of the whole human race due to Adam’s failure. All this strays far beyond the biblical data. Such speculation does not emerge from clear inferences from the Bible, but is actually a priori argumentation designed to buttress Augustine, not Paul. God’s gracious action in Christ is not “Plan B,” a “Covenant of Grace,” executed in response to Adam’s failure at “Plan A,” the “Covenant of Works.” The pre-existent Son has always been the center-point of creation and covenant. Adam was not created and placed in the Garden for the purpose of demonstrating moral perfection through his own efforts.13 This original “works righteousness” was read into the Garden by Pelagius and assumed by Augustine. Adam was not being called to moral perfection; he was being called into worldchanging covenant relationship. The command not to eat of the tree was simply a negative construal of God’s offer for Adam to know Him and be satisfied in Him and His plan alone. It was a specific instantiation of the covenant offered to Adam and Eve in Gen. 1:26-28: In a blessed relationship with God, they were to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, subdue it, and rule over it.14 In the Garden, Adam was being asked to do what Noah, Abraham, Moses, Israel, David, and, ultimately, everyone would be asked to do: trust and accept the gracious covenant offer of God in Christ for the purpose of bringing the created order to its intended conclusion. Adam and Eve were to respond to God in faith. The sensual temptation of the fruit itself came after the temptation to question God’s character and His covenant plan. It was in Adam’s rejection of God’s covenant offer that he failed to be moral. In Christ, God re-offers the covenant through successive renewals, culminating in His final offer of the gospel revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of the Incarnate Son. Adam was asked to believe God and bless the whole world, as were Noah, Abraham, Israel, David, and ultimately Christ, who succeeded where all others failed. His victory is extended to all those who put their faith in Him, just like Abraham, the father of the faithful did.15 Covenant in Christ by faith is not “Plan B;” it is the point of the Bible. 13This is not to say that perfect obedience was not the standard; it was just not the point. True obedience is the expression of covenant faithfulness and utter dependence on God. 14Eugene H. Merrill, Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2006), 17. 15In Gal. 3:8, Paul states quite clearly and without any need for further explanation that “The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham saying, ‘ALL THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.’” This single covenant in Christ is also in view in 1 Cor. 10:4: “. . . and all [Israel] drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.” Eric Hankins JBTM 93 Once again, speculation such as a Covenant of Works, Federal Theology, prevenient grace, etc. are little more than theological “fudge factors” designed to make the Augustinian synthesis work. They do not emerge from the biblical text but are a priori arguments pressed into the service of a fifth century Catholic bishop, not the authors of the Scriptures, and Baptists have never been comfortable with them. These adjustments mitigate the centrality, power, and immediacy of the biblical concept of “covenant” which has, at its heart, God’s desire for a relationship with His people through a real response of faith to the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is the nexus of Baptist soteriology. The Anthropological Presupposition: Total Depravity The Scriptures clearly affirm that all people are sinners. Because of sin, humans are in a disastrous state, unable to alter the trajectory of their rebellion against God, unable to clear their debt of sin against Him, unable to work their way back to Him through their best efforts. This situation is one of their own creating and for which they are ultimately responsible.16 About these realities, there is little debate in evangelical theology. What is at issue is what being a sinner means when it comes to responding to God’s offer of covenant relationship through the power of the gospel. Both Calvinism and Arminianism affirm that the Fall resulted in “total depravity,” the complete incapacitation of humanity’s free response to God’s gracious offer of covenant relationship.17 In Calvinism, the only remedies for this state-of-affairs are the “doctrines of grace” in which the free response of individuals is not decisive. For Arminianism, total depravity, which is purely 16Paul’s point in Rom. 1-3, the locus classicus of human sinfulness, is not that people cannot respond to God, but that they will not, even though the results lead to their utter ruin. 17Ephesians 2:1 and 5 are frequently cited in support of this view, with a focus on the phrase “dead in your trespasses.” “Dead” here is taken to mean “spiritually” dead, utterly unresponsive to spiritual things. This reading, however, does not work exegetically. Paul’s point in 2.1-7 is that Jews and Gentiles alike were in the same sorry situation and in need of the resurrected and ascended Christ. If Paul means that everyone was “spiritually” dead, then he must also mean that everyone was made “spiritually” alive “with Him.” Does this mean that Jesus was, at some point, incapable of a response to God? Is Paul’s point that Jesus is now “spiritually” alive, responsive to God? Are we now “spiritually” raised and seated with Him in heavenly places? What could this possibly mean? Clearly, Paul is speaking eschatologically here: “Before we trusted Christ our destiny was the condemnation of death. Our behavior confirmed that we were deserving of that sentence. But now our destiny is bound up with His destiny so that ‘in ages to come’ the inclusion of sinners like us will put God’s unbelievable grace on display. How did we come to belong to Christ? By faith.” Paul’s point is not that we are incapable of faith without “regeneration.” His point is that Christ has made a way for those deserving of death to have eternal life, no matter what their ethnicity or level of religious effort. Moreover, if Paul thought that Adam’s sin resulted in spiritual death/total depravity for everyone else, how could he write in Rom. 7:9: “I was once alive apart from the Law”? Eric Hankins JBTM 94 speculative, is corrected by prevenient grace, which is even more speculative, and makes total depravity ultimately meaningless because God never allows it to have any effect on any person. Nothing in Scripture indicates that humans have been rendered “totally depraved” through Adam’s sin. Genesis 3 gives an extensive account of the consequences of Adam’s sin, but nowhere is there the idea that Adam or his progeny lost the ability to respond to God in faith, a condition which then required some sort of restoration by regeneration or prevenient grace. In fact, just the opposite appears to be the case. The story of God’s relationship with humankind is fraught with frustration, sadness, and wrath on God’s part, not because humans are incapable of a faith response, but because they are capable of it, yet reject God’s offer of covenant relationship anyway. To be sure, they are not capable of responding in faith without God’s special revelation of Himself through Christ and His Spirit’s drawing. Any morally responsible person, however, who encounters the gospel in the power of the Spirit (even though he has a will so damaged by sin that he is incapable of having a relationship with God without the gospel) is able to respond to that “well-meant offer.” Therefore, the time has come once again for Baptists to reject another dichotomy mediated by the Calvinist/Arminian debate: monergism and synergism. Monergism insists that salvation is all of God. Monergists conclude that faith emerging from a decision within the will of the believer is a “work” that makes salvation meritorious, but this idea demands a theologically objectionable determinism. As a technical theological concept, synergism18 still operates off of a framework that views sovereignty and free-will as problematic, often forcing too fine a distinction between “what God does” and “what man does.” Synergism tends to put “faith” in the category of performance, rather than an attitude of surrender. This has led some Arminian theology into over-speculation concerning the nature of the act of faith, psychologizing and sensationalizing the “moment of decision,” so that one’s experience becomes the basis of his assurance. Synergism also tends to demand further acts in order to receive further blessing and opens the door to the possibility that, if a person fails to act faithfully subsequent to the experience of salvation, God will cease to save. 18“Synergism,” to be sure, would be the category to which the soteriological viewpoint of this paper belongs, if we persist in using these categories, because monergism, in the true sense of the term, in untenable. Unfortunately, this word has theological associations that Baptists reject. Synergism is often considered to be the functional equivalent of semi-Pelagianism, which throws the whole discussion back into abstruse arguments about “operative” and “cooperative” grace, “general” and “effectual” calling, facere quod in se est, etc. forcing us to approach soteriology from Augustinian and medieval Roman Catholic categories rather than biblical ones. Monergism and synergism have simply outlived their usefulness. Eric Hankins JBTM 95 Baptists must get off of this grid.19 We have preferred terms like “trust,” “surrender,” and “relationship” to “monergism” or “synergism” when we reflect on God’s offer and our response. These terms secure the affirmation both that individuals can do nothing to save themselves, yet their salvation cannot occur against their wills or without a response of faith that belongs to them alone. The Baptist Vision So, what would a biblically-sound, Christ-centered, grace-filled soteriology look like without appeals to individual election, determinism, Federal Theology, or total depravity? What would it look like if it were free from the presuppositions of Calvinism and Arminianism? It would look exactly like what most Baptists have believed instinctively all along. Baptists have consistently resisted the impulse to embrace completely either Calvinism or Arminianism. We simply posit that we are “neither.”20 The basis for this resistance to the two systems is our aversion to theological speculation beyond the clear sense of Scripture and our willingness to go our own way when Scripture and conscience demand. The way forward is basically backward, a massive simplification, a walking out of the convoluted labyrinth that evangelical soteriology has become in the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism. It is a move not dissimilar to the basic impulse of Luther at the birth of the Reformation, which was to reject the Medieval scholasticism that had turned the gloriously simple gospel of grace into its absolute antithesis. For Luther, the solution was to start over with the Scriptures (and Augustine), no matter what the implications. Baptists need to apply the Reformation principles of sola scriptura and semper reformanda to Luther himself. Augustine’s soteriology and the bulwark constructed subsequently to defend it must be removed. Baptists believe in the clarity and simplicity of the Bible. We search in vain for decrees, a Covenants of Works, the distinction between a “general call” and an “effectual call,” hidden wills, and prevenient grace. We react with consternation to the ideas that God regenerates before He converts, that He hates sinners, that reprobation without respect to a response of faith brings Him the greatest glory, or that the truly converted can lose their salvation. Baptists have felt free to agree with certain emphases within Calvinism and Arminianism, while rejecting those that offend our commitments to the possibility of salvation for all and to the eternal security of that salvation based exclusively on faith in the covenant promises of God. The free offer of an eternal, life-changing covenant with the Father through the Son by the Spirit to all sinners by the free 19See Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty, 101–8. After thoroughly dismantling the determinism of Calvinism, Keathley, a Baptist theologian, still wants to retain the term “monergism,” qualifying it with his assertion that people can still refuse God’s grace. But if one’s refusal matters, then salvation is not monergistic. Any Calvinist worth his salt would agree. Persisting in the use of the term “monergism” and in defending the logically contradictory concept that “what man does matters and what man does doesn’t matter” is unhelpful. 20Malcolm Yarnell, Neither Calvinists Nor Arminians but Baptists, White Paper 36 (Ft. Worth, TX: Center for Theological Research, 2010), 7. Eric Hankins JBTM 96 exercise of personal faith alone has been the simple, non-speculative but inviolable core of Baptist soteriological belief and practice. Baptist soteriology (specifically including the doctrines of the sovereign, elective purposes of God, the sinfulness of all humans, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, and the security of the believer) is not in jeopardy and does not need to be reinforced by Calvinism or Arminianism. It can be successfully taught, maintained, and defended without resorting to either system. It has been typical of Baptists to believe that anyone who reaches the point of moral responsibility has the capacity to respond to the gospel. While all persons are radically sinful and totally unable to save themselves, their ability to “choose otherwise” defines human existence, including the ability to respond to the gospel in faith or reject it in rebellion. God initiates the process; He imbues it with His Spirit’s enabling. When people respond in faith, God acts according to His promises to seal that relationship for eternity, welding the will of the believer to His own, setting the believer free by His sovereign embrace. Our assurance of salvation comes not from a “sense” that we are elect or from our persistence in holy living. Assurance comes from the simple, surrendered faith that God keeps every one of His promises in Christ Jesus. Baptists’ historical insistence on believer’s baptism is a solid indicator of our soteriological instinct. Historically, neither Calvinism nor Arminianism had a correct word for infant baptism because both were burdened with the justification for total depravity, original sin, and individual election. For many Arminians (like those in the Wesleyan tradition), infant baptism functions with reference to original sin and prevenient grace and plays a role in the faith that God “foresees.”21 For many Calvinists, infant baptism has become an extremely odd vehicle by which they deal with the fate of infants, an issue that is illustrative of the fundamental inadequacy of the system. If Calvinism is true, then its own logic demands that at least some infants who die before reaching the point of moral responsibility spend eternity in hell.22 By and large, Calvinists do not want to say this and will go to great lengths to avoid doing so.23 Covenant Theology and infant 21The question remains, however, concerning how God foresees faith in the child that dies in infancy. Now God is making decisions based on possibilities rather than actualities, which is extremely problematic. In Arminian traditions that do not practice infant baptism, the tendency toward belief in baptismal regeneration or subsequent Spirit-baptism over-emphasizes human effort in the understanding of free-will over against God’s sovereignty. 22Adam Harwood, The Spiritual Condition of Infants: A Biblical-Historical Survey and Systematic Proposal (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2011), 23. 23R. Albert Mohler, Jr. and Daniel L. Akin, “The Salvation of the ‘Little Ones:’ Do Infants Who Die Go to Heaven?” [article on-line]; June 16, 2009 AlbertMohler.com; available from http://www.albertmohler. com/2009/07/16/the-salvation-of-the-little-ones-do-infants-who-die-go-to-heaven/; accessed 12 March 2011. Mohler and Akin’s argument is that all infants who die are elect. It is an astounding display of a priori reasoning that runs like this: Since Calvinism is true and since we don’t want to say that some infants go to hell, all infants who die must be elect (even though there is no biblical basis for such a claim). Eric Hankins JBTM 97 baptism have been the preferred method for assuring (at least Christian) parents that they can believe in original guilt and total depravity and still know that their children who die in infancy will be with them in heaven. While Baptist Calvinists and Arminians do not allow for infant baptism, the fact that their systems allow for and even advocate it is telling. Prevenient grace and Covenant Theology have never played a role in Baptist theology. This frees us to deal biblically with the issue of infant baptism: it is simply a popular vestige of Roman Catholic sacramentalism that the Magisterial Reformers did not have either the courage or theological acuity to address. Privileging election necessarily diminishes the significance of the individual response of faith for salvation, thus creating room for infant baptism and its theological justification. But with faith as the proper center of Baptist soteriology, infant baptism has never made any sense. Our distinctive understanding of the ordinance of baptism celebrates the centrality of the individual’s actual response of faith to the free offer of the gospel. Finally, Baptists’ historic passion for evangelism and missions is underdetermined by Calvinism and Arminianism. For Calvinism, if the decision about who is saved and who is not has already been made by God, then the actual sharing of the gospel with the lost does not matter. The vast majority of Calvinists strenuously object to this charge, employing a variety of tactics to obviate what is, unfortunately, the only logical conclusion of their system. Saying that God elects the “means” of salvation as well as the individuals who are saved demands a determinism that is theologically unacceptable and philosophically unsustainable. Insisting that evangelism is still necessary because it “glorifies God” and demonstrates obedience to the Scriptures is simply a variation of that same determinism. The historical struggles of Calvinism with doctrinal and attitudinal opposition to missions and the “promiscuous preaching of the gospel” is evidence of the weakness of their system. Insisting on a “well-meant offer” while at the same time insisting that not all are able to respond is not the affirmation of a “mystery;” it is stubborn fidelity to a logical contradiction. For Arminianism, if election is based on foreseen faith, then it must be assumed that every person will receive enough of the gospel to trust or reject Christ. We know that billions still have not heard the gospel. This privileges the effort of the faith-capacity of people over the power of the gospel alone to save. If all people have the ability to figure out some form of faith in Christ, why worry overmuch about evangelism? It is this sort of weakness that lends itself to the frequent liberal trend in Arminianism. Baptist anthropology affirms that, because of personal sinfulness, no one is capable of coming to faith in Christ without the proclamation of the gospel in the power of the Spirit. While there are certainly unique instances of individuals receiving the gospel through dreams and non-human proclamation, this is not God’s normal manner of working and those instances of salvation still require both a proclamation of Jesus as Lord and a response of faith. Baptists believe that the proclamation of the gospel is necessary for a faith response to Christ. Those who do not hear will not be saved. Everyone who does hear has the opportunity to respond to Christ in faith or persist in unbelief. This is the only proper biblical motivation for the urgent proclamation of the gospel. Baptists have excelled in evangelism and missions because we believe it really matters. Eric Hankins JBTM 98 It is safe to say that Federal Theology, Eternal Decrees, Covenants of Works, Grace, and Redemption, and prevenient grace have played essentially no major role in the expansion of the Baptist witness, especially among Southern Baptists, from the late nineteenth through the late twentieth centuries. This is not because ordinary Baptists are unintelligent or simplistic in their beliefs; it is because ordinary Baptists have played a significant role in the direction of denominational identity, and they have been serious about what the Bible plainly does and does not say. In the older Baptist confessions and in the writings of older Baptist heroes like Spurgeon, Fuller, and Carey, echoes of the doctrinal speculation above can be heard, but they sit uncomfortably with the strong affirmations of the opportunity of everyone to respond in faith to the preaching of the gospel and the inability of any believer to fall away. In the Baptist Faith and Message, such problematic speculation disappears completely. 24 Baptists have known that these things were unnecessary for the articulation of God’s unstoppable plan to redeem the whole world through the bold proclamation of salvation in Christ alone by faith alone. From the beginning, the work of Christ in creation and redemption for the purpose of covenant relationship with humankind has always been the center of the biblical narrative. There is no need for an alternate metanarrative of secret decrees and hidden covenants to sort out the history of redemption. The plot of God’s purpose for humankind can be found right on the surface of the text from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22, all summed up succinctly in John 3:16.25 Without committing to either Calvinism or Arminianism, Baptists have evangelized millions, planted thousands of churches, and reached literally around the globe the with life-changing, world-changing message of salvation by grace through faith. When either system has come to the forefront in debate or dispute, the outcome has rarely been positive for kingdom work through us. Baptists have been well-served by a simpler, less-speculative, less metaphysical approach to soteriology. As we move into a new millennium, a more constructive, positive statement of our soteriology based on this heritage of simplicity and faith-focus will sharpen us as to what is essential to the message and motivation of the gospel for all who stand in desperate need of it. A Baptist Soteriology So, what would a soteriology based on the Baptist vision look like? The four presuppositions discussed above, indeed, provide a sound framework upon which the Baptist vision could be set. Around the core biblical principle of faith, the philosophical principle of God’s purpose for human free-will, the theological principle of “covenant in Christ alone,” and the anthropological principle of the sinfulness and salvability of every person could be arranged. It is interesting that, in actual practice, these key concepts are identical with the emphases in the most widely 24Malcolm Yarnell, “The TULIP of Calvinism in Light of History and the Baptist Faith and Message,” SBC Life, April 2006. 25Jerry Vines, “Sermon on John 3:16,” in Whosoever Will, ed. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 13–15. Eric Hankins JBTM 99 used personal evangelism tools in Baptist life. F.A.I.T.H. Evangelism, Continuing Witness Training, Evangelism Explosion, The Four Spiritual Laws, and Share Jesus without Fear all highlight (1) faith in Christ, unpacking such faith as (2) the absolute necessity of a personal, individual response of repentance and trust, (3) an entry into God’s holy and loving, eternal purposes in the person and work of Christ alone, and (4) available for anyone who will admit his radical sinfulness and inability to save himself.26 In none of these gospel presentations is there even a hint of the issues of election, determinism, Federal Theology, or total depravity. In such gospel witness, the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi is a helpful reminder that our actual evangelistic practices are crucial indicators of what we truly believe about soteriology. The Biblical Presupposition: Individual Faith The central biblical presupposition for a Baptist soteriology is, therefore, “faith” (Eph. 2.8- 9). “Election” is a term that belongs properly in the Doctrine of God. Faith captures the fundamentally relational nature of NT soteriology. “Justification by faith,” which lies at the center of Protestant soteriological identity, speaks of the initiating and sustaining activity of God in bringing an individual into right relationship with Himself and the necessity of the individual’s response for God’s justifying work to be actualized in his life. While the totality of justification has numerous aspects (past, present, future, spiritual, physical, individual, moral, social, ecclesiological, cosmic, etc.), it does not happen without personal faith. Faith has a variety of nuances as well, but, ultimately, it is an act of the will that belongs to the believer. It is not a “gift” God gives to some and not others. When we call people to salvation, we emphasize the biblical concept of faith, not election. The Philosophical Presupposition: The Freedom of God and the Free-Will of People The manner in which biblical faith functions in creation is this: God sovereignly and freely made a universe in which the free-will of humans plays a decisive role in His ultimate purposes for that universe (Rom. 10:9-10). Without free-will, there is no mechanism for the defeat of sin and evil, no mechanism for covenant relationship, no mechanism for a world-changing, world-completing partnership between God and His people. For Baptists, faith has never been something that occurs without our willing. We deny that people’s eternal destinies have been fixed without respect to a free-response of repentance and faith. We preach that the decision of each individual is both possible and necessary for salvation. 26The scriptural basis for each soteriological presupposition discussed below is drawn from the scripture references most common to these gospel presentations. Eric Hankins JBTM 100 The Theological Presupposition: Covenant in Christ In a Baptist soteriology, Christ is the central object of belief. He is believed as the mediator of covenant relationship, the full expression of the kingdom of God, eternal life, God’s ultimate purpose for everyone and for the cosmos (John 3:16). We have no interest in a series of extrabiblical covenants created to bolster a soteriology that does not take seriously the necessity of personal faith as an expression of free-will. In our preaching, we do not burden people with the calculus of covenants of works, grace, and redemption. We do not invite people to believe in Calvinism or Arminianism. We offer Christ alone, the only hope of Adam, Noah, Abraham, the Patriarchs, Moses, David, Israel, and the whole of humankind. His perfect life, substitutionary death, and victorious resurrection comprise the object of confession and belief that is sufficient to save (John 14:6, Rom. 10.9-10). The Anthropological Presupposition: The Sinfulness and Salvability of Everyone Finally, the anthropological presupposition is that no one can save himself, but anyone can be saved (Rom. 3:23). No person ever takes the first step toward God. Humankind’s history is broken; its destiny is death; it’s context darkness; its reality is rebellion. This sinfulness has put us out of fellowship with God and under the verdict of eternal separation (Rom. 6.23). Through the person and work of Christ, which is proclaimed through the gospel, God reaches out His hand of “first love,” providing a ground of salvation to which any one can respond in faith. If people do not hear and respond to this gospel, they will not be saved. So, we preach the gospel broadly, regularly, and passionately. We offer an invitation every time we preach because we believe every unbeliever, no matter how sinful and broken, can respond, and no matter how moral and selfrighteous, must respond (Rev. 3:20). These four pillars are the super-structure of the soteriology that has driven Baptist preaching, evangelism, and missions. It is the basis for life in Christ and the way of discipleship. Into this matrix, the totality of biblical soteriological language can be fed, but no other single concept can be allowed to dominate doctrinal development to such a degree that one or more of these emphases are abandoned or effectively neutralized. From these fixed-points of Baptist soteriology, such issues as the effects of the Fall, the order of salvation in its various dimensions, and other important implications can be discussed in full. In this construction, election is an important but tangential and transitional concept, connecting the borders of soteriology, ecclesiology, eschatology, and theology proper. Faith, however, must stand at the center of Baptist soteriology, so that we might proclaim to all with firm conviction: “Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31).

The Bible Thumping Wingnut podcast takes on the biblical teaching of human responsibility (otherwise known as "Free Will") and we respond to each of their arguments point by point. Let's dive in...   For more on this discussion please visit www.soteriology101.com

Join us at www.soteriology101.com for more discussion on this subject. Today we discuss why it is impossible for a consistent Calvinist to be assured of salvation given the logical claims of his systematic.  More is explained on the blog. Join us!

Do I still want to discuss the topic of Romans 9? Am I still willing to debate my views? How do most Calvinists understand our perspective and why do they still believe I didn't engage the context of Romans 9? Why do men like James White or JD Hall not want to engage further than once or twice with someone like me?  Let's discuss...   For further discussion please visit www.soteriology101.com

Today we will play clips from both NT Wright and John Piper in order to better understand why Calvinists so often accuse our interpretation as being confusing, ironically an accusation often leveled at Calvinism. Let's dive in! To join the conversation go to www.soteriology101.com

Many ask what notable scholars generally support my interpretation of the text. I have a list on my Statement of Faith page of non-Calvinistic scholars, but they vary in how they approach certain aspects of the text (as do all the soteriological camps). Today we take a look at the work of NT Wright and Herschel Hobbs, two well respected theologians. Let's dive in! To join our discussion go to www.soteriology101.com For more on Dr. Hobbs, see: http://www.sbts.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2010/07/sbjt_071_spr03_dockery.pdf   NT Wright's work has been praised by many scholars of varying views, including James D.G. Dunn, Gordon Fee, Richard B. Hays and Rowan Williams, former Archbishop of Canterbury. Critics of his work are also found across the broad range of theological camps. Some Reformed theologians such as John Piper have sought to question Wright's theology, particularly over whether or not he denies the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone. Although Piper considers Wright's presentation confusing, he does not dismiss Wright's view as false. In response, Wright has stated he wishes Piper would "exegete Paul differently" and that his book "isn't always a critique of what I'm actually saying." Wright also expressed how he has warmed to Piper and considers him a "good, beloved brother in Christ, doing a good job, building people up in the faith, teaching them how to live."[15] In 2009, Wright has since addressed the issue in his book Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2009). He has sought to clarify his position further in an interview with InterVarsity Press.[15] Many conservative evangelicals have also questioned whether Wright denies penal substitution, but Wright has stated that he denies only its caricature but affirms this doctrine, especially within the overall framework of the Christus Victor model of atonement.[16] Despite criticism of some of his work by Reformed theologians, other Reformed leaders have embraced his contribution in other areas, such as Tim Keller who praised Wright's work on the resurrection.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._T._Wright)    

Today we discuss: What is Amyraldism, Four-Point Calvinism? Answer: Amyraldism is an off-shoot of Calvinistic theology (sometimes called “4-point Calvinism” or “moderate Calvinism”). It is named after its creator, Moses Amyraut, a 16th-century French theologian, who was influential in the development of the doctrine of “hypothetical redemption” or “hypothetical universalism.” This doctrine, in essence, softens the Calvinistic doctrine oflimited atonement.Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/Amyraldism.html#ixzz3bp3ScdFh Today we hear from a respected, well spoken, 4 point Calvinist as he confronts the doctrine of Limited Atonement. Tommy Nelson, of Denton Bible church, explains why he reject the L of TULIP. Let's dive in!