Read the Beforeitsnews.com story here. Advertise at Before It's News here.
Profile image
By http://sbctoday.com/ (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views
Now:
Last hour:
Last 24 hours:
Total:

The Sinfulness of Man

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.


Adam Harwood, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Theology/McFarland Chair of Theology
Director of the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry
Editor, Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

Southern Baptists affirm that Adam’s single act of disobedience in the Garden was an egregious rebellion against a holy God. His judgment against sin is visible throughout the Old Testament atonement motif, culminates at the Cross of Christ, and will be fully realized at the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. Questions concerning Article 2 of the Traditional Statement (TS) are justified because one’s doctrine of sin informs one’s doctrine of salvation. Jesus came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10). Jesus came to die in order to offer Himself as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). Any rejection of our lost and sinful condition is a rejection of His stated mission. The TS affirms both man’s lost condition and God’s gracious provision of salvation by grace through faith in Christ (Eph 2:8–9) as the only way by which people may be saved from their hopeless and helpless condition.

Of the ten articles, the strongest objections to the TS have centered on Article 2, entitled “The Sinfulness of Man.” Specifically, the article denies both incapacitated will and inherited guilt. Rather than address the points on which there is agreement, this chapter will focus on those points of disagreement. Because Article 8 in the TS addresses free will, this chapter will deal briefly with incapacitated will and at length with inherited guilt.

Does Article 2 Affirm That People Can Resist God’s Saving Grace?
Yes. After providing two qualifications, Article 2 affirms that people can resist God’s saving grace. First, Article 2 affirms that “no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort.” Second, it denies “that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.” With those qualifications stated explicitly, Article 2 declares, “We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will.” Chapter 8 deals with free will in greater detail. In summary, Article 2 denies the Calvinistic view that sinners are unable to repent and confess faith in Christ until they are first regenerated by God. Instead, the TS affirms that people who are saved by grace alone are called and enabled to exert their will by placing their faith or trust in Christ alone.

The Bible describes the sinful and lost condition of humanity (John 3:36; Rom 3:9–20). The Bible also declares that God loves the world (John 3:16), Christ died for the sins of the world (John 1:29; 1 John 2:2), and all people in every place are called to repent (Mark 6:12; Acts 2:38; 17:30). Will God hold people accountable for failing to do what they are unable to do? If God calls all people to repent and there are open invitations for people to respond in faith to Christ, then it follows that people are able to repent and place faith in Christ.[1]

The denial of an incapacitated will in Article 2 is a denial of Calvinism’s doctrine of irresistible grace, also known as monergism. Roger Olson rejects irresistible grace but explains the view is biblically and logically necessary if one accepts total depravity, unconditional election, and limited atonement. Olson writes,

As for logic, the argument is that because people are totally depraved and dead in trespasses and sins, unless God elects him or her, the person will never respond to the internal calling of the Holy Spirit. So, the Holy Spirit has to change the person inwardly in an effectual manner, which is regeneration. Then the born again person desires to come to Christ, in which case he or she is given repentance and faith (conversion) and justification (forgiveness and imputation of Christ’s righteousness). This process is called “monergistic grace” or just “monergism.”[2]

Steve Lemke denies the doctrine of irresistible grace, or monergism. While rejecting any idea that any person “can achieve salvation apart from God,” he identifies the theological debate as “whether humans have any role at all in accepting or receiving their own salvation.” Calvinists explain that God does not violate a lost person’s will but changes their will through regeneration so they are drawn to Christ. Compatabilism is the Calvinist view that a lost person’s will is irresistibly changed through regeneration so they now desire Christ. Lemke explains that compatibilism is not a solution because there is no opportunity for a person to choose otherwise.

Lemke presents a robust argument from Scripture that God’s saving grace is resistible. Jesus lamented over Jerusalem; He wanted to gather them to Himself but they “were not willing” (Matt 23:37 HCSB). The rich young ruler appears unwilling to follow Jesus’ instructions about inheriting eternal life (Luke 18:18–23). Other examples of resistible grace in the parables of Jesus include the two sons (Matt 21:28–32), the vineyard (Matt 21:33–44), and the soils (Matt 13:1–23).

Lemke also notes the “all-inclusive invitations” in Scripture. He writes, “The key issue, then, is whether salvation is genuinely open to all persons or merely just to a few who receive irresistible grace.” He notes God’s desire for the salvation of all people (Matt 18:14; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:2) and traces all-inclusive invitations throughout the Bible (Joel 2:32; Matt 7:24; 10:32–33; 11:6; 11:28; 12:50; Luke 9:23–24; John 1:7; 3:15–16; 4:13–14; 6:40; 6:51; 7:17; 7:37; 8:51; 11:26; 12:46; Acts 2:21; 10:43; Rom 9:33; 10:11; 1 John 2:23; 4:15; 5:1; Rev 3:20; 22:17).[3]

Richard Swinburne, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford, writes:

“My assessment of the Christian theological tradition is that all Christian theologians of the first four centuries believed in human free will in the libertarian sense, as did all subsequent Eastern Orthodox theologians, and most Western Catholic traditions from Duns Scotus (in the fourteenth century) onwards.”[4]

Likewise, the TS resists monergism and affirms libertarian free will.

Does Article 2 Deny That People Inherit Adam’s Guilt?
Yes. Article 2 makes two particular claims regarding …


[1]Calvinists distinguish between natural and moral inability. For more on this internal discussion, see works of Jonathan Edwards, Andrew Fuller, A. A. Hodge, and William Shedd.

[2]Roger E. Olson, Against Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 156.

[3] Steve W. Lemke, “A Biblical and Theological Critique of Irresistible Grace,” Whosoever Will: A Biblical- Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism, ed. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 109–62.

[4]Richard Swinburne, Providence and the Problem of Evil (New York: Clarendon, 1998), 35. This claim is explored in Christopher J. Eppling, “A Study of the Patristic Doctrine of Free Will,” Unpublished Th.M. Thesis, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009.
====================================================

SBCToday reprinted with permission this excerpt from the NOBTS Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry.
Click HERE to download the FREE, 2-volume NOBTS journal.
Ed.’s note: SBCToday comments are closed until March 16, as the moderator/editor is traveling.

 


Source: http://sbctoday.com/2014/03/17/the-sinfulness-of-man/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-sinfulness-of-man


Before It’s News® is a community of individuals who report on what’s going on around them, from all around the world.

Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.

"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.

Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!


Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST

Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST

Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST


Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!

HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.

Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.

MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)

Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser!  Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!

Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.

Smart Meter Cover -  Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).

Report abuse

    Comments

    Your Comments
    Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

    Total 3 comments
    • Truthseeker007

      I have to agree with the Gnostics on this part:

      The Gnostics viewed the creator deity as evil because he was bloodthirsty and full of jealousy, wrath and vengeance. The Gnostics rejected this evil deity because this god believed that he alone was deity by declaring, “I am God and there is no other God beside me” and demanded all humanity to worship him.

      This jealous god eventually regretted creating humanity and in his wrath he drowned the whole world in a flood. Afterward, he became a tribal deity and exercised world rule aimed at enslaving man through laws and animal sacrifices. He declared he would reward those who worship him with material gains. But he demanded that people fear him and when they did not, he destroyed multitudes of people for failure to do so.

      http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research23.html

      • Pix

        God = Pharaoh, king, emperor, etc. When Jesus says give unto Caesar, he meant god. Everyones lives were subject to god, eg, what ever despotic dictator ruled over them. Hence the Pharisee history is that originating from Pharaoh, god belief of self-serving dictator. The reward for worshipping such a monster is always financial.

        The Pharisee’s modality, c140 BCE, Christianities 6th to 10th century created bible, and the late-comer Islam. are all based on the thought and belief intolerant political modality created by Egyptian Pharaoh Amenhotep IV. It’s all about political dictatorships.

        Jesus on the other hand gave us the only solution to debt entrapment hierarchy/dictatorships,… anarchy/democracy, of which we have never had in recorded history, mainly because of the organised religions preventing it. Like all political parties, they only want their rule as a dictatorship, and are forever vilifying their competition with political spin.

    • Pix

      “Southern Baptists affirm that Adam’s single act of disobedience in the Garden was an egregious rebellion against a holy God. ”

      There was no single god back then, the Garden of Eden story is a tiny fragment of the Sumerian creation epic. There were only polytheistic beliefs back then. The first mono deity based thought and belief intolerant dictatorship was invented by the Egyptian pharaoh Amenhotep IV, c1’300 BCE.

      “His judgment against sin is visible throughout the Old Testament atonement motif, culminates at the Cross of Christ, and will be fully realized at the return of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

      The OT is based on Pharisees Rabbinical = word of mouth law and debt enslavement. Created c140 BCE as a political modality. Originating from Pharaoh = Pharisees. They later changed their name to Judaism.

      The biblical Jesus was a polytheistic Egyptian Israelite. Israel c1’100 BCE to 70 CE. R.I.P. He was anti Pharisees, anti organised thought and belief intolerant dictatorships. Overturning their loan shark tables, to pray in a closet not in public, to meet in fellowship anywhere, pull up a log or a rock = a church. He preached pagan rebirthing; baptism. He preached pagan eucharist; last supper. Basically everything from the ancient Egyptian polytheistic Osiris, Isis, Horus allegory. He was not a Pharisee/Jew, They killed him for it.

      Jesus was anti Pharisees including anti their political debt enslavement modality,.. why aren’t you?

    MOST RECENT
    Load more ...

    SignUp

    Login

    Newsletter

    Email this story
    Email this story

    If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

    If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.