Young Calvinists, Sound Teaching, and the Future of the Southern Baptist Convention by Peter Lumpkins

By all estimations, the book of James stands a grossly neglected section of biblical truth in today’s church. And, while Luther’s infamous dictum concerning the Lord’s inspired half-brother’s “right strawy epistle” finds no public affirmation among them, the young reformed very well may betray their sympathy with the Reformer by neglecting James just as confidently as did he. Why?  It’s only a theory but...  >>>

I have a hunch the young, restless, and reformed within the Southern Baptist Convention so overindulge on the potent wine of Romans 9-11—not to the neglect of Ephesians 1, however---their interpretative eyesight is just too blurry to consider much else in God’s eternal Word, including the practical aspects of inspired biblical theology recorded by James. James chiefly concerns himself with the mundane, the earthy, the daily grind of discipleship, the what-am-I-to-do-till-Jesus-comes kind of life. James, then is about doing. Indeed it’s so about doing—serving our Lord day by day--it threatens those who cannot get beyond reducing Paul to all about knowing—especially knowing the mind of God concerning His divine decretal secrets.

The young reformed are among us. No denying that.  And, they love being young. But they more love being reformed. They delight being called “Reformed.” One may almost hear sounds of pompous giggling muffled underneath when they are referred to as “young Reformed.” Contrarily, they disdain being called “Baptist.” A shy, apologetic tone oozes forth when they are referred to as “young Baptists.” Almost a look of regret actually. Shame may not be too strong to describe them if they are referenced as “young Baptists.”  Perhaps after all, however, an exception is, if “young Baptist” is qualified, and hence thoroughly diluted, by “Reformed” as in, “young Reformed Baptist.”    

And, for these “young Reformed Baptists,” predestination and election is their preferred brew. Limited Atonement and total inability sweep them off their feet. Consequently, they lie belly-down in the ditch of caricatured doctrine, paralyzed to sound teaching, and overall numb to preaching the whole counsel of God to which the young, restless, and reformed should so easily resonant with the young Timothy.  The Apostle instructed him toward a far broader focus than Election. Paul never gave him as the hermeneutical paradigm for church theology his masterpiece we know as Romans.  Instead apostolic demand pushed Timothy elsewhere, to a much broader, more inclusive approach: “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim 4:2).

And what constituted the Word with which Timothy must dispense doctrine? Paul had already explained: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16). No mention of the ordo salutis in Paul’s instruction.  No hint from young Timothy Paul had such a brew in mind in which he must indulge.  Over-spilling from Timothy’s vat flowed the whole counsel of God.  

Southern Baptists are blessed with the resources to operate six seminaries on American soil, training thousands of young servants to preach, teach, and minister all over the world.  We must never take the resources God gives us for granted. 

Of those six seminaries, at least two of them cater to the neo-Calvinism revival which continues to sweep evangelical sub-culture. “Reformed” professors are churning “Reformed” graduates. But like all second-generation movements, the latter inherit a latent tendency to embrace only the superficial of the former. While professors may enjoy theological sophistication for the views they embrace, young converts sport no such privilege.  Usually, more interested in “just preaching,” they accept the answers but do not embrace the questions.  Consequently, biblical theology dilutes to the lowest common denominator, something easily grasped, something which has the form of sophistication but denying the power thereof.

And, what could be more easily grasped than the “Reformed” view?  The TULIP? The historic five points of Calvinism? I submit nothing in pop theological discourse is more easily comprehended, more easily argued, more easily understood than the traditional five points of Calvinism. It’s easy to memorize, easy to get proof-texts, and easy to argue.  It’s logically “tight” and therefore can overcome unwary objectors fairly simply. Indeed give a Calvinist his or her home-court advantage—i.e., allow them their assumptions—and he or she will win the “debate” every time. Is there any wonder why the internet is dominated by “Reformed” apologists? It takes no real skill to argue the five points of Calvinism. Anyone with the half-brain of a gnat can win 51% of the exchanges with unwary objectors. Here is a sure-fire way to become a successful “Reformed” apologist: a) memorize the five points; b) memorize a few proof-texts to match the five points; c) learn a few logic “fallacies”; d) start blogging!

On the other hand, get your young reformed away from the five points and quickly notice the staggering as he or she wobbles along trying to understand the whole counsel of God.  Romans 9-11 used to be the hardest, most difficult passage in all the Word of God to understand.  Not so for today's young reformed.  They know it inside out.  Of every possible nuance the Apostle makes they clearly see the divine Mind. They know God’s decrees inside and out.  They rehearse (whether or not they understand) the advantages and disadvantages between sublalapsarianism and supralapsarianism. But lead them away from Romans’ matters of the eternal heavenlies to James’ matters of the disciple’s daily grind, and their drunken hermeneutical stupor manifests itself immediately.

One sad example is all my aching soul can imagine for now (more examples are easy to locate).

First, some background…

The inspired writer records: “My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation” (James 3:1). “Masters” is the Greek word didaskalos, used over 50 times in the New Testament, the majority of which refers to Jesus Himself in the gospels.  Here as there it means “teacher.” Teaching was a particular gift within the church from its inception (Acts 13:1; 1 Cor 12:28-29; Eph 4:11; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11).  No less today the church of Jesus Christ must have teachers, sound teachers teaching sound doctrine, sound doctrine from the whole counsel of God. 

On to the sad example…

I recently logged on to a popular SBC website* and responded to the following statement:

Young “Reformed”: “You can’t say that people are dead in their sin and yet choose God…”

While there were other things in the comment I logged I was particularly concerned with one element.  I wrote:

Peter: “It depends on what you actually mean by “dead in sin” and if what you mean is what the Bible means when it speaks of human depravity.”

The young “Reformed” offered his retort. Note carefully every word:

Young “Reformed”: ”Dead in sin can only mean one thing. That people are dead (lifeless) in their sin. I have never seen a dead person make a decision, have you?

I responded again,

Peter: “Dead in sin can only mean one thing.” Well, now that’s the question, isn’t it? So your assuming only *one* possible answer exists solves the issue?”

And then the saddest commentary on the unsophisticated theological state of the young “Reformed” came as a reply:

Young “Reformed”: “I’m not assuming anything. Dead can only mean one thing. Here is a link for you: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dead”

In this young “Reformed” mind—who graduated from the same school as did I**--the English dictionary settled the question of biblical truth.  He showed absolutely no indication that the Bible teaches a multi-dimensional view of death; i.e., physical death, spiritual death, and eternal death. For him, dead is dead is dead. And why?  Because the English dictionary says so. Whatever his “Reformed” professors churned out for him, the blushing reality is, only the surface slush got skimmed.

Know also the fundamentally flawed hermeneutic obviously at work cannot be the fault of the student alone.  Our professors bear at least some of the tragic responsibility. That’s why we have our own seminaries—to assure us sound teaching on the whole counsel of God for our churches.

My Southern Baptist friends we are in trouble.

Deep trouble.

I plead with the “Reformed” professors who cater to the young “Reformed” to address this theological hazard, potentially dissolving the Southern Baptist Convention. Our biblical theology drives us. It’s well said, “so goes the pulpit, so goes the church.” Hence, if we are left in the hands of such uninformed theological naiveté,  we most assuredly forfeit our future as a convention.  In fact, the church’s future is no more positive when its young teachers are passing off as genuine truth the unmitigated nonsense I encounter from many young “Reformed” represented by the example above.

If we do not deal with it now, our future children will deal with it then. Unfortunately, a lost world will reap from it an eternity in hell.  

With that, I am…

Peter

*I’m quite sure most anyone is able to “track down” the exchange if he or she desires. It is my intention to spare some embarrassment if possible, however

**though the school at the time I graduated was not the liberal arts college it now is

Comments

[W B McCarty]

Peter, it must be that fatigue or carelessness caused me to think I'd hit Post when I actually hadn't. Be that as it may, when I tried to reconstruct my lost comment I had opportunity for further reflection and came to think better of posting it. Perhaps my error was providential. :-)

I mentioned no denominational affiliation but you may have correctly supposed that I am a member of an SBC church. Our conversation has helped me understand the views of some fellow Southern Baptists who apparently object quite strongly to some of the views I hold dear. Honestly, being somewhat new to the SBC, I came to the conversation more than somewhat ignorant of the extent of some of our differences and so had expected more agreement than I found.

I'm not at all reluctant to engage in dialog or even disputation. And you may have noticed me elsewhere vigorously engaged in such enterprises. But I tend to think that it would be more seemly for me to participate less publicly in what I consider an intra-mural discussion among fellow Southern Baptists. And, I don't want the heat of argument in combination with the social distance and relative anonymity of the Internet to tempt me into expressing myself in a way that falls short of what I think would please our Lord.

Thanks for your time and trouble in responding patiently to my comments. I wish you blessings and peace in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

[peter lumpkins]

Dr. Galyon,

Thanks for your response. And you are welcome here any time, brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Dr. James Galyon]

Should've stated that it would be incorrect to say I implied "there's no point to glean from Dr. Allen's exegetical contribution."

[Dr. James Galyon]

Peter,

You are correct, the main thrust of the comments has been the issue of ability. You are incorrect, however, in that I did not imply that "there's no point to glean from Dr. Allen's exegetical contribution." I didn't come on your blog to argue about total inability. Simply injecting a point regarding something brought up in the comments made about faith being a divine gift and about salvation "by faith." Thanks for letting me comment.

[peter lumpkins]

Dr. Galyon,

I'm having a difficult time seeing the point of your last log (perhaps even your first one as well). Dr. Allen specifically signed on to this thread to demonstrate Eph 2:1--particularly the Pauline phrase, "dead in trespasses and sins"--lends no exegetical support to the unique nuance Baptist Calvinists routinely assign--namely, "dead" is equivalent to total inability. As a spill-over, he addressed vss. 8-9, showing a further routine claim by Baptist Calvinists that faith, as a unique gift only to the elect, is no more exegetically sound than the former.

Nonetheless, he brings the point back in play:

"The point is that there is nothing in the text of Ephesians 2 that supports the “total inability” position or the “regeneration before faith” position."

Hence, this has been the thrust of the thread--at least Dr. Allen's thrust.

Yet, Dr. Galyon, you appear to be implying there's no point to glean from Dr. Allen's exegetical contribution. At least that's the impression I get from your last entry. There you write "as a 'Calvinist'" an entire description of salvation faith concerning which I know of no non-Calvinist who could not excitedly place the amen on, and that down to a word which you wrote! Indeed the analogy you make can only receive little disagreement before non-Calvinists happily attach their signature.

Now I for one am glad your 'Calvinism' and my non-Calvinism are evidently agreeable on so much, as your comment appears to imply. Nevertheless, a large number of Baptist Calvinists--I would say the majority, actually, the Calvinist interpreters we're addressing here--not only insist on defining "total depravity" in terms of "total inability," but also insist one must be born again prior to faith and repentance which are exclusive gifts given to the elect and the elect only. And, Eph 2 remains a locus classicus by which they argue their case.

Therefore, Dr. Allen's exegetical point remains a stirring challenge to the position of those Baptist Calvinists I've just described.

Have a great morning.
With that, I am...
Peter

[Dr. James Galyon]

Dr. Allen wrote (from baptisttheology.org), "Salvation by faith does not stand in contradiction to salvation by grace. The Calvinist seems to be saying: 'if by faith (not given directly by God), then by works and not by grace.'"

As a 'Calvinist' I believe people are saved by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ Jesus alone. One is justified the moment one believes/trusts Jesus Christ as Savior. A person is saved (justified), not on account of his/her faith, but on account of the Person and work of Jesus Christ. In other words, one is not made right with God because of what he/she did (believed). One is made right with God because of what Jesus did (lived/died/rose from the dead, etc.). Faith (trust/belief) *receives* the work of Christ for oneself.

To use the analogy of the beggar - the beggar doesn't work, the beggar begs. When he puts out his hand (faith), even the strength to do so is a gift/grace. The beggar isn't given anything because he has worked for it. The beggar receives money or bread due solely to the mercy and kindness of his benefactor.

[A.M. Mallett]

Dr Allen wrote:
For many in Calvinism, it seems salvation is to faith rather than by faith. This is not what the Scripture says. If regeneration precedes salvation (conversion, justification, etc. in a Calvinist ordo salutis) then salvation is no longer “by faith.” Faith then becomes an evidence of salvation rather than a condition for salvation, as the Scripture seems to clearly teach.

This is very much Picirilli's argument as well that the Calvinist narrow focus of salvation through faith attends to justification at the expense of the whole of salvation including regeneration. If salvation is through faith, then all of salvation must follow the same means whether regeneration, justification or sanctification. Like yourself, he has also expressed this as a salvation to faith rather than by faith. It is in my opinion an excellent synopsis of the Calvinist presentation of faith and specifically unscriptural.

[David Allen]

Dr. Galyon’s comment and quote is exactly right, and that is exactly my point. The “this” *does not* refer to faith, but to the whole concept of salvation. Yet this still does not help the argument that Eph. 2:1 means “total inability” or the argument that regeneration precedes faith. The grammar, along with the metaphorical use of language, simply will not support that much theological weight.

On another note, even Arminius agreed that faith is likewise a gift of God in a very real sense (See Arminius, Works, vol. 2, p. 400). As Roger Olson rightly pointed out (Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, 143), for Arminius, “the human ability to cooperate with God’s grace is itself a gift of God.” As I have said elsewhere:

Salvation by faith does not stand in contradiction to salvation by grace. The Calvinist seems to be saying: “if by faith (not given directly by God), then by works and not by grace.” The Scriptures teach: “by faith, not by works, but by grace.” Romans 4:16: “It is of faith that it might be according to grace.” Faith is the condition for receiving salvation, not the ground for it. The atonement of Christ on the cross is the ground for salvation. Therefore the exercise of faith on the part of the sinner does not logically entail either 1) faith is a work, or 2) faith is meritorious. (Calvinism: a Review – www.baptisttheology.org)

The point is that there is nothing in the text of Ephesians 2 that supports the “total inability” position or the “regeneration before faith” position.   

David L. Allen

[Dr. James Galyon]

In regard to Dr. Allen's thoughtful comments regarding Eph. 2:8-9...

The word translated 'this' (touto) is a neuter pronoun, and refers neither specifically to the term 'faith' or the term 'grace' (which are both feminine nouns). Rather, the neuter is referencing the entire subject being discussed in the phrase -- that people are saved entirely by God's grace through faith. While individuals are required to believe in order to be saved, it is all of grace. Salvation is a gift, including the faith which receives it.

Harold W. Hoehner puts it this way in the 'Bible Knowledge Commentary' (ed. Walvoord & Zuck): "Much debate has centered around the demonstrative pronoun 'this' (touto). Though some think it refers back to 'grace' and others to 'faith,' neither of these suggestions is really valid because the demonstrative pronoun is neuter whereas 'grace' and 'faith' are feminine. Also, to refer back to either of these words specifically seems to be redundant. Rather the neuter touto, as is common, refers to the preceding phrase or clause. (In Ep 1:15-note and Ep 3:1-note touto, 'this,' refers back to the preceding section.) Thus it refers back to the concept of salvation (Eph 2:4, 5, 6, 7, 8a), whose basis is grace and means is faith. This salvation does not have its source in man (it is 'not from yourselves'), but rather, its source is God’s grace for 'it is the gift of God.'"

[peter lumpkins]

BTW, W.B. make sure to copy the comment; and if you have trouble again, c/p the comment in an email and I'll post for you...
With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

W.B.,

Not sure on this end why your comment didn't take. I looked in the spam bucket which sometimes is a little "quirky" and gobbles up a comment which should not be there. However, no comment there. Sorry you lost it.

With that, I am...
Peter

[W B McCarty]

Peter, I had posted a reply thanking your for your comment and elaborating on some areas of agreement and disagreement. However, this morning I don't find it on the blog. I won't have time to re-post until this evening, at the earliest.

Blessings,

[peter]

 

W.B.,

While I may have suggested "total depravity" should be distinguished from "total inability," W.K, what I actually continue to claim is that “dead” in Eph 2:1 carries no such implication as the Calvinist insists. And, I challenged you to exegetically demonstrate from the text “total inability” concluding “Unless you can offer some substantial exegetical reasons to overturn Drs. Lemke and Allen’s exegesis, I’m not sure what else there is to discuss.” But instead of offering any biblical analysis, you rather come back pressing philosophical distinction: “how do you define them so as to make a substantive distinction between the two? Isn't extensive inability the direct consequence of extensive depravity? Isn't this a distinction that really makes no difference?”

Personally, I’d rather talk about Paul’s words.Yet if you insist, here goes. 

First of all, you asked, “Isn't extensive inability the direct consequence of extensive depravity?” First, to position these two terms into a cause-effect relationship seems odd to me.  By what basis do you do so?  Could you please explain the causal relationship?  Moreover, could you please show some indication from Scripture the causal connection you are making.

Additionally, W.K., it’s odd you’d frame “extensive depravity” in a cause-effect relationship with “extensive inability.” That means A is not B--one is not the other—since the cause must be other than its consequent. However, you just affirmed, did you not, that the difference between the two is a “distinction that really makes no difference”? And, earlier you explicitly stated, “I do understand the terms synonymously.” But if extensive inability is the direct consequence of extensive depravity, but the two are nonetheless synonymous, you appear to be suggesting an explicit contradiction, W.K.

Even so, it still is not clear what you mean by “extensive inability,” W.K.  It’s easy enough to know the normal usage of “extensive” which basically means “all-inclusive” or “widespread.” But you may be using it in another way.  Assuming you are not, while “extensive depravity” could be similar to what we normally mean by the term, “total depravity,” nothing follows whatsoever concerning “extensive inability.” The terms are quite different and hence nothing apparent necessarily follows.

So far as “total depravity” itself is concerned, there is wide agreement for the term to describe moral corruption upon the whole human race indicative of Adam’s fall. The “total” (i.e. extensive, if you like) refers to the sinful pollution thoroughly saturated into every sphere of our being. Nothing remains untouched from the staining powers of our sinful malady. The consequences are decided and devastating:  all sinful creatures are completely cut off—separated from God—with fundamentally no self-meritorious possibility to recover apart from grace.

Now, if one desires to describe sinful humanity’s helplessness to meritoriously recover apart from grace as “inability” or even “extensive inability,” no complaints will come from me.   

But, for many Calvinists—and apparently yourself included—this is not what is meant.  Instead, what is desired by stating “inability” is the idea that all spiritual sensitivities are non-existent, are “dead” if you will. But not “dead” in the sense of being separated from God, which we most likely discover as Paul’s meaning in Eph 2:1. Rather “dead” in the sense of annihilation—nothingness—a nuance not found in Scripture. Recall the young man's question to me in the OP: "dead men don't make decisions, do they?" That's the kind of "deadness" inability insists. Indeed the “extensive inability” I observe from advocates is the inability to even receive the gospel coupled with a fuller, more thorough inability to believe the gospel or respond to the gospel apart from being born again. Hence, for them, regeneration precedes faith.

However, for some, the inability is so “extensive” that not even being born again is sufficient for a person to believe.  Hence, God must give the born again person the gift of faith which is exclusively given only to the elect. This remains the type of “inability,” W.K., that is strangely foreign to Scripture, and is nowhere to be found explicitly or implicitly in Eph 2. (I’m quite sure you may like to bring in other passages at this time, worthy ones to discuss, but I’d like to stick with “dead” in Eph 2:1).

And while you quote rightly the BF&M, your conclusions are mixed. First, you conclude after quoting the BF&M “the grace of God is necessary to restore man to fellowship with God” as if some of us have denied such by rejecting “total inability.” This is entirely not the case.  Second, you quote the BF&M as if it agrees with your usage of “total inability.”  To the contrary, W.K. not one word in the quoted passage lends itself to what Calvinists embrace concerning “extensive inability.”  You are reading into the document, I assure.   Look again at the words: 

“man [Adam] transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.”

According to the confession, all that is affirmed is we inherit a sinful nature which is inclined toward sin. Further, no person reaches a point of being under condemnation until they are capable of moral action. The latter statement recognizes the distinction between sinful nature and sinful guilt. Hence, we have argued that while infants, for example, inherit sinful nature, and consequently will inevitably sin “as soon as they are capable of moral action,” they do not inherit sinful guilt.  But neither the terminology of total or extensive depravity nor total or extensive inability are in any of the BF&M documents. Indeed some Calvinists are vocally disappointed with the statement of sin, decrying it as semi-pelagianism at best. 

As for why there is conflict about total inability, W.K., if what I have said thus far has not assisted you understanding the huge difference between the two views, I defer to someone else. The same for your historical analysis of the Reformation and semi-pelagianism, the assertions are just too muddled to untangle.  Perhaps I’ll post something soon on a specific point concerning it.  

Sorry, for the long comment. And, thanks for the beneficial exchange, my brother.

With that, I am…

Peter

[Don Johnson]

W.B.

Acts 5:31 says of God "give repentance to Israel."

Acts 11:18 says of God "to the Gentiles granted repentance."

Note the texts don't say "some" of Israel or Gentiles. I believe they mean exactly as they are written, which would mean ALL. Which by the way is why Paul said in Acts 17:30 "but now commanded ALL men everywhere to repent."

God commands ALL men to repent because He has granted to ALL men (Jew and Gentile) the ability to repent.

Now I will say no one will repent in and of himself. This is the reason the Holy Spirit is sent into the world (John 16:8-11). It is the work of the Spirit to bring conviction. Though the Spirit brings conviction it does mean all will repent. Men do not repent for various reasons. Some of which are: pride (Matt. 23:12), trusting in riches (Mark 10:24), intellect, power or position (1 Cor. 1:26), love darkness (John 3:19) or lovers of pleasure (2 Tim. 3:4). However, it is never because of "inability."

[Mary]

WB can you give me a scripture reference which you believe supports your belief that total depravity leads to the total inability to respond, not seek, but respond to God?

[W B McCarty]

Don, thanks. Your post is helpful.

Speaking for myself, I agree with you that the Scriptural metaphor of death does imply separation and does _not_ imply a total lack of ability. Clearly, we can see that spiritually dead people accomplish a great deal every day. Thus, the claim that death entails general inability is overly broad.

Nevertheless, I think that spiritual death does entail inability, albeit a specific inability. That inability is our common inherited inability (or unwillingness, as some prefer to state it) to bow the knee to Christ without the prior aid of divine grace, whether that's the Calvinist's grace of effectual calling or the Arminian's prevenient grace.

That much, I think, is necessary to avoid the heresy of Pelagianism. And, all that, I think, is affirmed in the SBC 2000 statement.

Do you see it differently?

[Mary]

Don, my husband and I were talking out these exact points you've just made. When a Calvinist says "dead men are incapable of anything" they are actually treating physical death like an atheist. As Christians we know that when a man leaves the husk of his body he still has ability to respond - he's either wailing in torment or praising God. If dead were really dictionary dead then hell would be no torment.

[Don Johnson]

W.B.

Peter was correct in an earlier post with Isa. 59:2 showing sin separates, it does not create "inability." Notice in the verse it is God that will hear. It does not say man "cannot" hear.

James 2:26 further confirms the principle meaning of "dead" is separation. We don't see a dead person in a casket, we see a dead body. The reason is simply because the person has been separated from his body.

Now to prove "dead" does not mean "inability" consider the rich man in Luke 16. After the rich died and was buried the Bible states that he could see, hear, feel, taste, talk and even have a concern for his spiritually lost brothers. Keep in mind the rich man was spiritually dead himself when he was alive physically. He remained spiritually dead after he died physically.

Can you explain why the rich man had ability after he died? Was he made alive? Was he now given the ability to believe?

I trust this helps.

[W B McCarty]

Peter, you continue to claim that "total depravity" should be distinguished from "total inability." Fine. But, I ask again, how do you define them so as to make a substantive distinction between the two? Isn't extensive inability the direct consequence of extensive depravity? Isn't this a distinction that really makes no difference?

As to the SBC statements, the 2000 statement includes the following:

"Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God."

That the grace of God is necessary to restore man to fellowship with God seems to me to deny the error of Pelagianism and affirm total depravity/inability, at least as I understand these terms. That's why I raised the issue of a supposed distinction between them. Given my definitions, total depravity/inability should not be a matter of SBC controversy. So, I'm very curious to understand how you distinguish them.

On relatively minor note, I didn't intend in my little parenthetical excursus to cite Orange as definitive. My point was that the Reformers followed Orange in their denunciation of Semi-Pelagianism. Even the Reformers' opinions are, of course, not definitive. But, the Reformers' stated reason justifying their breach with Rome was Rome's corruption of the Gospel. If one consciously affirms Semi-Pelagianism, what grounds remain for charging Rome with teaching a false Gospel? I'm not aware of any within the SBC that openly style themselves as Semi-Pelagian. But Semi-Pelagianism presents any number of troubling and difficult implications for any who affirm it.

[peter]

W.B.

I’m aware  Boettner equates “total depravity” with “total inability.” Other Reformed theologians follow—Sproul, Piper, among them Of course, my point is, Southern Baptists are not “reformed” in that sense, and therefore, there is going to be significant difference.

And, while you are correct concerning the magisterial Reformers following Augustinianism on its view of “total depravity” not all the Reformers agreed. Further, I think to cite the Council of Orange as definitive of what constitutes heresy is a mistake. While Baptists place honor where honor is due—including paying careful attention to the history of collective thinking concerning Scripture as expressed in ancient confessions, Christian communities, etc.--the Baptist movement shows no place for confessionalism to supercede the Word of God itself. Indeed Baptists were condemned as heretics by the Reformed!  Nor would we especially give weight to latter councils after Constantine officially wed church and state.  If we take Rome’s view at Orange, should we also take Rome’s view at Wittenberg?

Further, W.B., I think you are over-simplifying the role of Orange.  You seem to suggest that Orange affirmed Augustine’s view.  It most certainly did not. The debate raged for an extended period of time—centuries I recall—because the church ‘fathers’ could not accept raw Augustinianism. His polemical views were forged in controversy with Pelagians. They rejected both Augustine’s skewed depravity of sinful man and Pelagius’ skewed innocence of sinful man. As an ultimate result, semi- Augustinianism or a form of it was birthed.  

You may understand a “denial of total depravity to necessarily entail the heresy of Pelagianism.” if you wish, W.K. But I think it is both historically wrong and theologically skewed.  And, returning to the issue is crucial:  what does Paul mean by “dead.”  Unless you can offer some substantial exegetical reasons to overturn Drs. Lemke and Allen’s exegesis, I’m not sure what else there is to discuss.

Finally, the distinction I would draw would focus on what Paul means in Eph 2:1 and what is not to be found in the text at all—nor even implied by the text. In addition, I suggest you take a long at the three confessional statements of Southern Baptists (1925, 1963, 2000) which all are virtually identical in stating what Southern Baptists have expressed concerning the nature of sinful depravity (www.sbc.net).

[peter]

Mlynn,

Thanks for your contribution. I do agree it's not just the "young" reformed who embrace the view to which I attribute them. Also, you are correct that Calvinists mistakenly place "faith" in the category of "works" and that in the face of the Apostle's explicit denial!

I know Dr. Lemke appreciates your encouragement.

With that, I am...
Peter

[W B McCarty]

Peter: "[Y]ou are mistaken in assuming 'total depravity' is to be equated with 'total inability.'"

Well, I do understand the terms synonymously. I find others who concur. Loraine Boettner, a Calvinist apologist, actually uses the term "total inability" in his definition of "total depravity":

"This doctrine of Total Inability, which declares that men are dead in sin, does not mean that all men are equally bad, nor that any man is as bad as he could be, nor that any one is entirely destitute of virtue, nor that human nature is evil in itself, nor that man‘s spirit is inactive, and much less does it mean that the body Is dead. What it does mean is that since the fail man rests under the curse of sin, that he is actuated by wrong principles, and that he is wholly unable to love God or to do anything meriting salvation. His corruption is extensive but not necessarily intensive ("Total Depravity," accessed August 31, 2010, http://www.the-highway.com/depravity_Boettner.html).

Historically, the doctrine of total depravity was based on Augustine's concept of original sin, which he employed in his refutation of the heresy of Pelagianism. Article III of the Arminian Articles of Remonstrace affirmed the doctrine of total depravity as did, for instance, John Wesley (see Roger Olson, _Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities_, 148-150). (After Augustine, Semi-Pelagianism was also condemned as heresy by the Council of Orange ("Semipelagianism," Catholic Encyclopedia, accessed August 31, 2010, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13703a.htm). Nonetheless, by the time of the Reformation Catholic doctrine had devolved such that the Reformers considered it essentially Semi-Pelagian and therefore heretical.)

Based on definition and history, I would understand a denial of total depravity to necessarily entail the heresy of Pelagianism. Given Boettner's definition, I would similarly understand a denial of total inability to entail Pelagianism. (That some Arminians consider prevenient grace to be applied at birth, thereby counteracting total depravity, is an issue I would put aside for the present, since they at least affirm the principle of total depravity even if they do not acknowledge its current effect.)

Returning to the original, core issue, I do see a number of Internet sources that, like Boettner and myself, use the terms "total depravity" and "total inability" interchangeably. But, certainly, you're privileged to define the terms as you choose.

How would you define "total inability" in distinction from "total depravity?"

[Mlynn]

I have really enjoyed reading all these posts. Some REALLY good points have been made.

From a more simplistic viewpoint, I would like to make a few comments. Peter -- first of all, it is not only "young" reformers who believe that an unsaved person is so totally dead that they cannot hear God's call. All reformers (Baptists and others) I have ever met believe the same thing.

My observation over time is that they HAVE to redefine total depravity to mean total inability in order to make it fit into their doctrine. Just as they have to redefine "all". If the "T" falls, the rest of the TULIP falls. This is also why they get the order of salvation all mixed up by saying God has to regenerate someone FIRST so that they can believe. They have to do that in order to make everything fit into their doctrine or theology.

Here is something else. Calvinists will come back at us and say that believing on the Lord Jesus Christ is a WORK. They try to make it look like we have a "works based" Gospel.

I am still convinced that John 1:9 gives us a little glimpse at how Jesus makes it possible for us to hear God's call through the Gospel: Jesus lights EVERY man who comes into the world. HE is the One who makes it possible.

And, of course, in Romans 1 we see more examples and how man is truly without excuse.

[peter]

WB,

While I do not speak for Drs Allen or Lemke, I will offer a couple of reflections which may assist after all. 

First, you are correct that both classical Calvinists and classical Arminians (or, “Reformed” Arminians) both affirm the “total depravity of man.” And, so far as I know, Baptists generally and Southern Baptists particularly have never denied “total depravity” albeit it could have been communicated with other terms (e.g. human depravity, etc). The particular issue here concerns a) precisely what Paul meant by “dead” in Eph 2:1; and b) whether what Paul means equates to the Calvinist’s claims of “total inability.” So far as I am concerned, the evidence is far from conclusive for the Calvinist’s claim; yet even more significantly, the exegetical evidence is perfectly consistent with historic Southern Baptist theology.

Second, W.B., you appear to assume that one must either take the Calvinist’s point of view or the Arminian’s with no other option available but heresy. You query: “Are there parties to this discussion within the SBC that reject total depravity?... If there are within the SBC those who reject total depravity, how do they distance themselves from heretical Pelagianism, as I would hope they do?” First of all, you are mistaken in assuming “total depravity” is to be equated with “total inability.” In fact, to do so is only begging the question. Hence, it follows that one may reject “total inability” without also rejecting “total depravity.” If this is correct, there is no reason to “distance themselves from heretical Pelagianism.”  In addition, “semi-pelagianism”--or perhaps a better term is, semi-Augustianism—so far as I know is not heresy. Even so, Baptists have focused on a more biblically nuanced expression of “total depravity” apart from the unscriptural categories “total inability” involves.

Third, you may be correct about some Bible-believing Arminians but not others concerning prevenient grace. If I am not mistaken, there is no “standard” understanding of when prevenient grace becomes operative.  For some, it is at birth but, for others, the prevenient grace accompanies the preaching of the gospel. I’m sure Drs Lemke and Allen could shed more light than I about that. In the end, however, there is an incredible difference: for Calvinists the inability is lifted only on the elect; for Arminians, the inability is lifted universally. Hence, your assertion which makes Calvinists and Arminians “equal” on inability fails to consider the permanency/non-permanency of “total inability” as it is teased out in application.

Know, WB, while your questions are good ones pertaining to how it all works out, the underlying issue is exactly what Paul means by “dead.” And, concerning that issue, there is a great divide between the schools of thought.

With that, I am…

Peter

[W B McCarty]

Dr. Allen: "It is correct to point out, as you [Peter] and Dr. Lemke have done, that there are other biblical figures of speech used to connote depravity which do not indicate or imply total inability."

Perhaps I am missing the point here. I had thought that Calvinists and Arminians (at least those of what Dr. Roger Olson calls the "classical Arminian" variety) both affirm the total depravity of man. Are there parties to this discussion within the SBC that reject total depravity? (I grant that Calvinists may argue that the Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace amounts to a mooting of total depravity. But, I'm curious whether any within the SBC reject total depravity outright.)

If there are within the SBC those who reject total depravity, how do they distance themselves from heretical Pelagianism, as I would hope they do? If there are not, please remind me: exactly what is at issue in the current discussion of the meaning of "dead," for it seems to me that there is actually agreement among the parties despite their efforts to mutually distance themselves. That is, doesn't even the Arminian affirm that, prior to the application of prevenient grace, the sinner is inherently unable to respond to God? In that theological sense as a Calvinist might put it, "dead" means dead.

Thanks for any clarification!

[peter lumpkins]

Dr. Allen,

May I say your exegetical contribution is excellent.

Unfortunately, some have the mistaken impression those of us who are not committed to the doctrines of grace--according to the Calvinistic template, mind you--are somehow wed to human free will, philosophical speculation, work-oriented salvation, and mostly tradition rather than scholarly engagement with the inspired text of Scripture. Both you and Dr. Lemke have nailed that coffin shut with your contributions here.

Thank you, brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Dr. James Galyon]

Ron,

Excuse me for jumping in, but I need to respond to your comment concerning ..."What has happened to the reformed churches? Let's talk about Europe ... empty shells and liberal."

Let's not forget that there are also liberal Baptists in Europe and the U.S. who are pushing for the recognition of homosexual marriage and homosexual ordination. This is a fact. Why have some Baptist churches drifted into liberalism?

Blessings!

[David Allen]

Peter,

There is no question that “dead” in Eph 2:1 is being used metaphorically. In Scripture, “death” is often used metaphorically to express alienation from God and “life” is used to express union with God via salvation. This death is “on account of” or “with respect to” our sins (notice the nouns are in the dative and there is no preposition in the Greek text). Most Calvinist exegetes suggest that this passage either 1) overtly teaches human inability (usually moral inability) in the sense of “one cannot because one will not,” affirming the Edwardsian distinction between natural and moral inability of sinners to respond to the gospel; or 2) implies human inability to respond to the gospel (John Eadie, Ephesians, 121, argued that “dead” implies inability.)

Virtually all Calvinists I am aware of and most non-Calvinists take the phrase to describe negatively the situation of unbelievers in the past prior to their conversion. Interestingly, Muddiman (Ephesians, 101), argues the phrase is ambiguous. It could describe either the positive condition of believers now or their negative situation in the past. He pointed out that the participle is in the present tense, though temporal significance may not be present (given what we know about verbal aspect). He goes on to point out most commentators and translators are influenced by the parallel in Col. 2:13- “And you, having been dead in trespasses . . . God has made alive with him.” But when read apart from Col. 2:13, “dead to trespasses” is, according to Muddiman, more naturally understood to be a positive idea, i.e., delivered from sins through union with the crucified Christ. Rom 6:11 would be a close idea (“Consider yourself to be dead to sin but alive to God . . . .”).

If Muddiman is correct, it becomes even more difficult to extract total inability from the text. But even if he is incorrect, it is still a theological inference drawn from Eph 2:1 and not a direct statement or even an implied statement by Paul that dead means “total inability.” It is correct to point out, as you and Dr. Lemke have done, that there are other biblical figures of speech used to connote depravity which do not indicate or imply total inability.

Consider Rom 6:1-11. The phrase “died to sin” occurs three times (vv. 2,10, 11). Twice it refers to the condition of believers (2, 11), but in verse 10 the phrase refers to Jesus. Paul personifies sin as a tyrant, a dictator, who attempts to rule over believers. This phrase is Pauline shorthand for “died to sin’s authority.” The two usual interpretations given to Rom 6:6 specifically and the entire passage generally follow an errant trajectory that leads to the debate between the eradicationists (who argue that our sin nature is eradicated at conversion) and the counteractionists (who argue that our sin nature must be counteracted with the divine nature indwelling believers). In the context of Rom 6, to be “dead to sin” does not have anything to do with one’s sin nature. Both the eradicationists and the counteractionists are wrong.

What has been changed at conversion that causes believers to be “dead to sin” is not their sin nature, but their relationship to sin. Sin no longer has authority over the Christian. Because of what Christ has done on the cross and our union with Him, we are now dead to sin’s authority. But our “deadness” does not preclude our ability to choose to sin as believers, as Rom 6:12-14 makes clear.

Now the point is this: the metaphorical concept of “dead” in Rom 6 simply cannot be understood to mean total inability. To counter that the context of Rom 6 is about the life of the believer while the context of Eph 2:1 is the state of the unbeliever changes nothing. The point still remains: the metaphorical use of “dead” in Scripture simply does not inculcate all the nuances that a literal use of “dead” conveys.

“Dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph 2:1) need not be understood and should not be understood, in my judgment, that the unsaved are so depraved that they have no capacity to understand and/or respond to God. After all, Eph. 2:8-9 does state that their salvation is “through faith.” One might argue, as many Calvinists do, that the faith in Eph 2:8-9 is given by God prior to or concomitant with salvation (Calvinists normally tighten this statement up to limit it to “justification”), but here also this exegetical approach runs into problems. It faces a grammatical problem because “faith” is a feminine noun in Greek and “this” is neuter. This makes it next to impossible that “faith” is the antecedent of “this.”

It also faces a syntactical problem because three compliments follow the “this”: 1) not of God, 2) God’s gift, and 3) not of works. As some have pointed out, to connect faith with the first two in some sense is perhaps possible, but not with the third. Otherwise, one winds up with a tautology since faith and works are already contrasted. Better, as most exegetes take Eph 2:8-9, is to construe “this” with the entire preceding clause. For many in Calvinism, it seems salvation is to faith rather than by faith. This is not what the Scripture says. If regeneration precedes salvation (conversion, justification, etc. in a Calvinist ordo salutis) then salvation is no longer “by faith.” Faith then becomes an evidence of salvation rather than a condition for salvation, as the Scripture seems to clearly teach.

David Allen, SWBTS

[peter lumpkins]

Matt,

I am not worried in the least, Matt. Hence, log or not log. In fact, many may be interested in your exchange with Dr. Lemke's fine contribution above. Or, for that matter, your serious engagement with exchanges between Ryan and me.

Or, if you're really up to snuff, engage Mary with some serious content concerning "dead in sin." I think you'll find her theologically challenging and stylistically feisty--more than many commenters can handle, I assure.

What I simply asked you to do was drop the floundering rationalization of callow excuses about puerile behavior, something you apparently are finally ready to do.

Have a great evening.
With that, I am...
Peter

[Matt Svoboda]

No worries Peter, you dont have to worry about me logging anymore comments here.

[peter lumpkins]

Matt,

This thread has been very good thus far. I anticipate and desire a few more worthy comments logged. What I don't desire is for you to continue injecting juvenile behavior into this thread. No one even mentioned your flawed argumentation as the illustration of this post until you personally injected your identity into it. Now please: don't make more of a bumbler of this situation than you already have.

Now, for the record:

a) after the exchange with me (the exchange I quoted in the OP), you defended to SelahV the "idea" of 'dead' immediately following your comments to me, and your idea was the same as it was to me--a simple dictionary definition of "dead" as being "lifeless." Remember the twice-asked question to me? I do: "'Dead' people don't make decisions, do they?"

b) nothing in the thread of over 200 comments exists ever suggesting anything other than you were serious, and that includes your so-called "clarification" to Mike. Even so, it was *not* a clarification you made to Mike; rather you dumped the dead = lifeless "coffin" language. But I don't see why your dropping such is supposed to "clarify" anything to me or anyone here, Matt. Fundamentally, you're admitting your dictionary meaning was both insufficient and inadequate as an explanation of Eph 2:1. I'm glad you saw your error. But your error assists my side of the aisle, not yours young brother.

There's more...

c) Ryan came on my site and the first thing he does is, affirm "the guy's [that would be you, Matt] argument" as "valid and would call yours [that would be me, Matt] into serious question." So Ryan was defending what? Your "sarcasm"? What a double West Georgia hoot! I'm wondering if Ryan will ever stick his neck out again to defend something you write only a long time later to find out--"I was only being 'sarcastic'"

d) you log on to this post yesterday ( comment #13) and strangely say nothing about "sarcasm"

e) you post a little "rejoinder" to this post disguised as a generic criticism of blogs like my present entry. And you & your buds lob a barb in the thread of that post toward SBC Tomorrow; yet strangely nothing about "sarcasm" is mentioned in the thread

f) now when Mary logs a comment, you finally decide you were using "sarcasm"

Do you really think people are so naive, Matt? Why would you increase embarrassment for an already red-faced situation?

But another kicker is not yet.

Consider:

You explicitly stated you were being "sarcastic." Yet sarcasm fits exactly nothing about your response with a dictionary link. Nothing. Indeed to be "sarcastic" means to be "harsh" and/or to offer "bitter derision." But there's nothing in your comment which comes close to being "sarcastic," Matt. Nothing.

Hence, you unfortunately chose a literary device to describe your embarrassing comment which has absolutely no relation whatsoever to the comment under question

I've learned through life, Matt, that sometimes the best thing to do is just bite one's lip and swallow one's blood (i.e. remain quiet). Your miserable attempt to desperately rationalize your unstudied response makes you look like a junior high student who just got caught throwing wet paper towels on the locker-room ceiling.

Just drop it, Matt. You've been caught. And, more than likely most will forget about it in a relatively short amount of time. But keep rationalizing your immaturity, and I can guarantee you this: you are only going to make yourself out to be a complete dolt.

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. That's really all I want to hear about this. So, if you want to take issue with what I've written, I suggest you blog your thoughts over at your pad.

[Mary]

So you had to make a "clarification" but still you belittle the poor dumb unsophisticated rubes who didn't get your superior wit. Not only are you here now laughing about us poor dumb rubes but you decided that you would further belittle and mock poor unsophisticated rubes for not getting your rapier wit with and an entire blog post on the subject. And you think your unChristlike condescension and behavior is something to laugh about? You make a joke that isn't funny but it's the people who don't get the joke who are somehow at fault. Seriously Matt you're not even amusing in a funny sad way. You're just sad.

[Matt Svoboda]

lol... Right, me linking to dicionary.com was a true, full, unsarcastic attempt at theological discourse. You got me.

Peter, read further down the thread and read my clarification that I made to Mike on the same issue.

[Mary]

Matthew you got caught. And instead of humbling yourself and saying yes Peter your right or even saying Peter sorry I made a bad joke of course Peter your right the Bible should always be our final authority you have instead struck out and now try to belittle those pointing out your bad behavior. Your reactions only confirm exactly the point Peter made in the original post. You are very petty and it's that pettiness and arrogance that bodes ill for the SBC.

[peter lumpkins]

Matt,

I invite anyone to examine the thread and conclude you were just being "sarcastic." Nothing in the exchange lends itself to such an embarrassing attempt to save face, Matt. You defended the very same thing concerning "dead" to SelahV!

Hence, you would do much better to just let it go than to think success for your pitiful attempt at wiggling out of a blushing moment when your skirt got pulled up. Sorry.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Matt Svoboda]

Mary,

I can't help, but to laugh at your comment. In a sarcastic response to Peter I post a link defining the word death and now all of a sudden that response is something to fret about.

Our convention is really in danger because I sarcastically pointed Peter to a dictionary? Really? So because of one sarcastic comment you and Peter act as if I think the dictionary trumps the Bible? This is absolutely hilarious.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hilarious

I am 100% sure Peter has made sarcastic comments on this blog and I dont see people reading his sarcasm as if it were supposed to be a theological argument and then fretting about the future of the convention. This is ridiculous. You all are wasting your time fretting about the convention because you are drawing theological conclusions from a sarcastic comment in which I linked to a dictionary. Pathetic.

[Mary]

I think as disturbing as it is to see a YRR who actually believes that an Internet dictionary proves his theological point it is more distressing to see YRR response to being caught trying to use a dictionary to prove a Biblical point. The response I think exposes the arrogance and pettiness so prevalent among the YRR. It's not a laughing matter and this YRR response proves the point that we have much to worry about in the SBC if this is an example of the "leaders" of the next generation.

[Marvin Merriweather]

Bro. Lumpkins,

The sickening philosophy which equates the TULIP and the gospel grieves me to no end. As long as Founders exists and as long as the intolerant soteriology of Calvinists continues to pervade our convention, I will ceaselessly strive to expose this harmful attitude among people called to unite under the umbrella of Christ. Our unity isn't found in theological interpretations or inexact soteriological processes - it is found in Christ.

MM

[peter lumpkins]

Dr. Lemke,

I very much appreciate your contribution. The depth you add strengthens the value of this thread.

Another aspect not yet mentioned on this thread is the broader number of metaphors employed by the inspired apostolic writers referencing the spiritual condition of rebellious humanity.  That is, spiritual "death" is not the only metaphor which captures the spiritual malady we all face.

For example, the Apostle Paul employs a metaphor in Romans 5 which does not equate to death.  He writes:

For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly… .But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (vv.6-8).

The term translated “without strength” is asthenes and means weak, strength-less, and/or feeble. Consistently, it is used on those who are physically sick (Matt 25:39, 43, 44; Acts 5:15, 16; 1 Cor 11:30, et al). Hence, various translation of the Bible render asthenes in Romans 5 as:

• “helpless” (HCSB)
• “helpless” (GNT)
• “weak” (ESV)
• “helpless and sinful” (CEV)
• “weak” (ASV)
• “weak” (RSV)
• “utterly helpless”(NLT)
• “without strength”(NKJV)
• “helpless”(NASB)

As one can see, the term does not carry the idea of death but helplessness, weakness, and/or sickness. The difficulty the Calvinist interpreter faces at this juncture seems clear: why is spiritual death the preferred metaphor in defining human depravity when spiritual helplessness is also employed by the apostle, a helplessness which does not necessarily imply all that Calvinists claim the metaphor of death implies?

Nor is helplessness or sickness the only alternate metaphor which describes our spiritual condition.  Neither do other metaphors like “lost” and “blind” lend themselves to identical implications the Calvinist claims for “death.”

Do you think this is a fair question?

With that, I am…

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Brother Marvin,

I do agree wholeheartedly in broad cooperation. Indeed Southern Baptists have weathered seemingly larger storms than we face today and survived. Calvinism does not necessarily have to be the contentious issue it presently is.

Since our first convention-wide confession in 1925, Calvinists and Non-Calvinists got along quite well, in fact, up until 1982. It was then when organized Calvinism was birthed in the form of the Founders movement. Their goal was and remains to "reform" the SBC one church at a time to the "doctrines of grace" (i.e. 5 Point Calvinism). Their founding leader and intellectual architect, E. Reisinger, explicitly stated five point Calvinism *is* the gospel, and consequently, churches who are not "reformed" are not New Testament churches. From my side of the boulevard, there is precisely zero cooperation stemming from such a philosophic vision.

Grace.
With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Ron,

I appreciate your encouragement brother. At times, I must admit one wonders the degree of effectiveness occurring. Yet, to date discouragement has never taken root--at least enough to close down the store.

Grace, my friend.

With that, I am...
Peter

[W B McCarty]

Steve: "[W]e should be concerned about WB's wooden and literalistic univocal interpretation of the word ['dead']."

I readily grant that concern is appropriate in the case of any "wooden and literalistic" interpretation, here or elsewhere. But if you read my comment carefully, I think you will find that I did not offer an interpretation of the word "dead," let alone a "wooden and literalistic univocal interpretation." My point was simply that any interpretation offered should take account of any contrast inherent in the text.

Indeed, in pointing out two such relationships (viz., the contrast between "dead" and "alive" and the comparison between "dead" and "alien"), you seem to imply agreement with my point. But, your proposed exegesis based on these relationships seems to me to be flawed. Perhaps I have overlooked something.

You interpret both "dead" and "alive" proleptically. It seems to me that the parallelism inherent in the comparison and contrast would require that "alien" be interpreted proleptically as well. However, doing so does not seem to me to fit the context. So, I suggest that an exegesis not requiring proleptic interpretation of "dead" and "alive" would be both more straightforward and better fit the text.

[Adam]

This is a very interesting conversation! I take the point of spiritual death, like spiritual life, to be that there is a present reality being worked out in a person’s life. In the case of spiritual death, it is worked out in terms of following the ways of the world in disobedience and unbelief. In the case of spiritual life, it is worked out in terms of following Christ. The dead man is the unregenerate man, the unbelieving man. The living man is the regenerate man, the believing man. I take the reformed position to be saying that there is an explanation needed for why a dead man becomes a living man, and that explanation is given in v. 5: God makes the dead man to live by grace through faith. If v. 1 should read "dying" rather than "dead" it seems hardly impressive that God would make a living man to live. A dead man is not living. A dying man is living. So if God makes us alive, then we must be dead, not merely dying. I take Paul's point to be this: the natural state of man is so dire as to require new life, which fits nicely with John 3 and the need for a new birth.

[Steve Lemke]

As we seek to discern the meaning of Ephesians 2, it is helpful (utilizing Calvin's principle of interpreting Scripture in the light of other Scripture) to read the entire chapter. Our hermeneutical radar should go up when the metaphor shifts from spiritual death in the earlier part of the chapter to being "aliens," "strangers," and "foreigners" a few verses following. Aliens, strangers, and foreigners are ALIVE. So, assuming the Holy Spirit and Paul were not schitzophrenic, they deliberately set the metaphors of spiritual death and alienness side by side in the text to complement and counterbalance each other.

So, given this very clear red flag, we should be concerned about WB's wooden and literalistic univocal interpretation of the word. As Ryan's lexicon suggests, a somewhat metaphorical interpretation seems indicated here. Indeed, did not Jesus say of unbelievers, "Unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3, 5)? What threat would it be to a corpse that it would be dead in the future? Obviously, something deeper is at work here.

So what does Paul mean here by by "spiritual death"? Let's look at what it means to be spiritually alive and see if that gives us any insights. We get a clue in Jesus' teaching in John 6:54 that believers ALREADY HAVE eternal life as a present possession. This is what theologians often describe as some form of partial "realized eschatology" or as a "proleptic" of a future full realization of eternal life. Obviously, we do not have eternal life completely -- we have a foretaste of the more complete eternal life fulfilled by glorification in heaven. Ephesians 1 speaks of the Holy Spirit as the down payment of our salvation "until the redemption of the purchased possession" when we receive our full heavenly inheritance. So we have eternal life . . . and yet we don't --fully, at least.

Might the same be true of what Paul was saying about spiritual death? Unbelievers are dying in their trespasses and sins, on an inevitable track for the second death apart from claiming Christ as their Savior. Even if the language might suggest a completed status, we use that language all the time to mean something different. Teenagers jokingly say to someone who has done something against them, "You're dead!" Although by tense it literally means the person is already dead, what is really being said is that the person is JUST AS WELL AS dead. Obviously, Jesus is using "eternal life" in this way in John 6:54 -- eternal life is already at work in a believer's life, a current reality which remains to be even more fully realized in the future. Might not spiritual death have a parallel meaning? Indeed, Ryan's lexicon description of "death" as being "destitute of a life that recognizes and is devoted to God, because it has been given up to trespasses and sins" is looking pretty good.

[Marvin Merriweather]

Matt,

I suspect that Bro. Lumpkins deals with many hyper-Calvinists, and I will go on record with my belief that you're a proud Baptist who affirms reformed theology. However, to your credit, you affirm synergists and Arminians as brothers in Christ.

Whatever Bro. Lumpkins wants to say in general about YRR, I do want to tell you, Matt, that I appreciate the spirit and tenor with which you affirm those with differing theological views (i.e. on 2nd- and 3rd-tier issues).

Matt, if you will become the type of YRR Baptist who unites insteads of divides, God will use you in mighty ways in the SBC. I know you're strongly reformed, but the SBC must have in its future a group of leaders who can maintain cooperative dynamics among the varying theological positions held by our churches. Johnny Hunt was successful because he did precisely that.

Would you agree with my assessment, Bro. Lumpkins?

[Ron Hale]

Peter,
Thank you for your patience, diligence and time these many years in carefully explaining your Biblical position. I appreciate all that you have taught me over the months. Sometimes I just shake my head and say, "Wow!"

Continue the "informing" concerning the "reforming" in the SBC. It became clear to me in reading the book: The Quiet Revolution. The third chapter on local church reformation is most helpful in understanding the "players" and the "pawns" that have been at work. Too bad some of the younger guys don't have the wisdom to understand how they are being played.

Blessings!

[W B McCarty]

Peter, I can well understand why you might be wary, pending thorough and careful exegetical analysis, of the possibility of a strong contrast between "dead" and "alive." All the best in your study!

[Darby Livingston]

Happens to the best of us.

[peter lumpkins]

Darby,

Mostly I locate the humor in your comments Darby. And, you know I have a sense of humor. I can and do laugh at myself, often in fact. This is the first time to my recall, I haven't a clue why you think what you wrote is funny. Perhaps it would be given the right context. But on this thread, let's say, you just laid an egg, bro.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Darby Livingston]

Peter, I agreed with your series of posts lamenting "reformed baptists" and portions of your posts concerning neo-Calvinists' understanding of infant salvation. And I agree that if we are going to discuss theological issues, we must be informed and nuanced enough to do more good than harm. That said, I find this post hilarious. I'll illustrate why with a typical Calvinist/non-Calvinist conversation:

Calv: "Ephesians 1 contains a pretty tight argument."
Non: "What about John 3:16?"
Calv: "He chose us in him before the foundation of the world."
Non: "What about John 3:16?"
Calv: "And then there's Jesus' argument in John 6."
Non: "What about John 3:16?"
Calv: "And in Revelation, the names are written in the Lamb's book of life before the foundation of the world."
Non: "What about John 3:16?"
Calv: "That's not to mention Romans 8-11."
Non: "What about John 3:16?"
Calv: "There's more than John 3:16 in the Bible."
Non: "Yeah, but that's the only one a conference was named after."

[peter lumpkins]

Ryan,

I appreciate your comment and temperament.  When I honestly logged on to the site I mentioned it is exchange like this I long to have.  Unfortunately, it does not always lay the golden egg. 

I see also we can read the same passage and come to striking agreement in so much of the textual matters—albeit not fully agree with one another at the end of the day.  For us, the deal breaker remains, “The issues I see are that the the state of spiritual "death" still implies the same connotation in the Greek NO MATTER the type of death being discussed- most specifically the last part of the definition I cited above- "destitute of force or power, inactive, inoperative” (emphasis yours).

The one point I would mention here is, even fully granting your premise, Ryan, the text still does not command the interpretive force you insist it has.  In other words, let’s suppose you are correct that “death” in Eph 2:1 fully connotes a “destitute of force or power, inactive, inoperative.” Any Bible-believing Arminian would have no reservation whatsoever in agreeing with your assertion (note again, I’m only conceding for argument’s sake for I actually think you are mistaken). Why? Simply because the Arminain—and most all Bible believing non-Calvinists for that matter—does not believe a lost sinner can come to Christ apart from the active, enabling power of the Spirit of God working through the means of the gospel proclaimed. Hence, the question is not necessarily enablement. Instead, the question is irresistibility or equating salvifically regeneration with the necessary enablement to believe. If I am correct, you do not stop with what you think the lexical data connotes. Rather, you go further and suggest spiritual death connotes a “destitute of force or power” as “inactive, inoperative” to such a degree, that being enabled to believe is not sufficient; instead, is connoted an irresistible, infallible power must be exerted.  All of this, of course, is nowhere in the text Paul describes. But it is in the Calvinist’s mind when he or she reads and interprets this passage.          

Third, you conclude “Now the phrase "made us alive together" there in the Greek is "Suzoopoieo" which is an action BEING DONE to an object …why is the action of being made alive together not include 2 involved in the activity?” Correct. However, realize, Ryan, you did not cite the entire scope Paul imagines.  He not only said God "made us alive together" with Christ (v.6) as you rightly quote, the Apostle further says, “And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus” (vv.6-7; all bold mine). Hence, Paul is clearly referencing the full scope of redemption, not just a single allusion to a sinner’s ability—or inability rather-- to come to Christ.  Indeed he never mentions once anything whatsoever concerning the noetic effects of the fall, except in a) the lifestyle rebels have chosen b) the breach in fellowship—separation/alienation—from God..  He is speaking about being saved in Jesus Christ—being brought “nigh by the blood of Christ.  How is the rescue operation completed? By grace through faith (vv.8-10).

Incidentally, if Paul is speaking about the entire thrust of salvation when he is speaking about being “made alive” in Christ as I contend he is, and therefore, being made alive in Christ is the direct opposite of the former state of being dead in trespasses and sins outside Christ, then it seems to follow, Eph 2 is a definitive rebuttal for those who insist regeneration precedes faith.  To the contrary, faith is the instrumental cause of being saved (v.8). And, if salvation in Christ is the same as made alive in Christ—not to mention the opposite of being dead in trespasses and sins—then faith is the instrumental cause of being made alive in Christ. Whatever is the instrumental cause is always prior to its effect.  Therefore faith precedes being saved, faith precedes being made alive.

The truth be told, Ryan, I am no natural enemy of Calvinism.  I regularly email Calvinist friends. Yet there is a darker side to SB Calvinism which cannot remain unscathed.  When I started blogging in 2006, I was almost the only non-Calvinist in the arena. I am not stretching it whatsoever. It is not because I am so “brave” etc.  I’m probably more coward than the proverbial “man’s man” we like to speak about these days. But it was routine—and I challenge any one who’s interested to go back to the comment threads that are available and look—for non-Calvinists to be slammed as embracing man-made religion, ultimately humanistic forms of faith; having a faith-in-self to be saved. And, not a single non-Calvinst mega-church pastor survived unscathed by the cutting ax of Calvinists, pastors including Johnny Hunt, Jack Graham, Jerry Vines, Steve Gaines, Adrian Rogers, Paige Patterson, etc etc.  All this was a strategic vision concocted by the largest network of Calvinists among Southern Baptists. And, this is the point, Ryan: the vision has never been corrected…abrogated…or changed. It remains. Until the vision of “Reformed” Southern Baptists to reform the SBC one church at a time to the tune of the “doctrines of grace” is publicly abrogated, those of us who decided to meet them on their turf—the internet—will most likely never be completely discouraged. 

Grace, my brother. I do think we understand better one another. And, know I would love to serve our Lord with you, Ryan.

With that, I am…

Peter   

[peter lumpkins]

Matt,

Thanks. Mostly what I know about the YRR I learned from a) my personal dealings with them b) their personal descriptions concerning themselves (e.g. Hansen's book). Hence, my anecdotal musing is at worst no more anecdotal than your own view, Matt. Further, I do not think my view anecdotal alone. Colin Hansen's book shed some revealing light on the issue for me.

Now as for me being about "power" I'd rather not make this thread into a personal discussion concerning me.

Finally, as I gave to Ryan, I give to you, Matt: "if you do not see what I see taking place in the SBC, I can only say, I hope you are right... In the meantime, I shall continue exercising my very proud Baptist heritage and calling the play as I sincerely see it. Fair enough?"

With that, I am...
Peter

[Ryan Abernathy]

Peter-
First, thanks for clarifying your position on "death." I will admit I was very curious. Although I often do not agree with your conclusions, you are never a man who speaks unresearched. I was honestly curious about what other way you were seeing death.

I do not disagree with your 3 categories of "death" as listed above. All three exist and are mentioned in Scripture and in the writings of Paul. I also agree with you that the context of the passage is referring to spiritual death and not physical death and that the descriptions in the preceding and following verses are descriptions of that state. The issues I see are that the the state of spiritual "death" still implies the same connotation in the Greek NO MATTER the type of death being discussed- most specifically the last part of the definition I cited above- "destitute of force or power, inactive, inoperative."

the passage we are discussing, in addition to the descriptions of the state of spiritual death that you cite, include the following words related to the salvific enterprise that God is engaged in "But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ" (Eph 2:4-5) Now the phrase "made us alive together" there in the Greek is "Suzoopoieo" which is an action BEING DONE to an object (in this case the we who were dead in transgressions) Now my questions would be, why is the action of being made alive together not include 2 involved in the activity? Simple. One of them is dead. The dead whether spiritual or physical cannot ACT on its own behalf. It can only be acted upon.

Peter, I know I am not going to convince you to be Reformed in one post or one discussion. I just wanted to demonstrate the logic that I and others see in the passage. We are not all dumb lambs led by the higher ups. We study and learn and grow together.

I know some of my ilk are loud and angry and harsh. They are the reason it took me so long to even give Reformed theology a fair hearing. They may not be able to work with anyone who is not just like them, but a lot of us are not that way. Truth is, I can work and partner with anyone who can be in agreement with me on what Jesus Christ accomplished through His sinless life, substitutionary death, and glorious resurrection. I hope you can as well.

Grace always...

[Matt Svoboda]

Peter,

"Contrarily, they disdain being called “Baptist.” A shy, apologetic tone oozes forth when they are referred to as “young Baptists.” Almost a look of regret actually. Shame may not be too strong to describe them if they are referenced as “young Baptists.”"

The above statements are simply untrue. Not one YRR person that I know, and I know plenty, express any type of disdain, shame, etc. at being called a Baptist. You and many others keep throwing that out, but there is not a tiny bit of truth to it. You blast the YRR, but you clearly have some false beliefs about them. I am a proud Baptist and I don't know one YRR within the SBC that isn't proud to be a Baptist. There is no disdain.

What makes you and others think there is, is beyond me... It appears to me, that is simply a way for you to undermine the movement. You dont want them to "be in control" (because everything is about control with you guys) and so you question how "baptist" they really are.

[Ryan Abernathy]

Ron,
I would be curious to see sources on your "fact." I assume you are somehow making a convoluted connection between reformed theology and Anglicans and Episcopalians? Could you please provide some resources for your connection between liberal theology, homosexual pastors, and Reformed theology. That would be great.

further, I agree with you that the churches in Europe are empty...the cathedrals that is. Maybe you should check out thee links on the house church/church planting movement in Europe...

http://www.dawneurope.net/index.php?id=5

http://blog.theupstreamcollective.org/

finally, I am glad you are a BAPTIST. I am a Christian who grew up in the BAPTIST church. I am proud of the Christ I was introduced to in that church. That is what I am thankful to boast in. That was what attracted me to Reformed theology 6 years ago. It was all about Him and what He had done and not about me.

Hope you are having a good day Ron.

[peter lumpkins]

Marvin,

Thanks Marvin. I very much agree the proof-texting method is beginning to have its unhealthy results upon us.

Grace.
With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Jim,

Thanks brother. It's been way too long. Hope you are well.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Ron Hale]

Debbie,
The article backs up my claim, it says that reformed churches are dying in Europe and the U.S. ... as in the last 500 years.

Praise God for a revival in China!

What about the liberalism?

Blessings, Ron

[peter lumpkins]

Ryan,

Thanks for your contribution. First, you conclude from your lexical inquiry-- which for purposes of argument I grant—that “none of those translations lend themselves to an ability to act- which, in my mind, would make the guy's argument valid and would call yours into serious question.” May I commend you for at least consulting some appropriate authorities to offer a more studied decision about the matter, Ryan…the absence of which was a major lament in the OP.

I would disagree with your conclusion, however. Contrary, to your assertion, none of the lexical meanings lend themselves to forbidding ability to act on the part of the “dead.” Why?Because no such view of death is offered in biblical revelation.  The closest to such a prohibition would be the physiological extinction of tissue (i.e., physical death).  But even then, the Bible is clear the dead live on in the afterlife.

It seems you mistakenly assume “death” to be just as mono-dimensional in nature as did our young reformed brother. Yet Scripture teaches no such view of death. Instead, it is multi-dimensional; that is, there is physical death, spiritual death, and eternal death, the common thread of which, throughout the Bible as best I can tell, is fundamentally separation.  Hence, physical death is temporal separation of body from mind (soul, heart, spirit, etc). Spiritual death is temporal separation of unholy sinners from a holy God. Eternal death is permanent separation of incorrigible unholy sinners from a holy God and His holy community. And not one of the above biblical dimensions concerning “death” demands we interpret Eph 2:1 as the sinner’s latent inability to believe the gospel. While such could be taught elsewhere, it is not taught here.

If I am correct, when referring to spiritual death—which is separation of unholy sinners from a holy God, resulting in an irreparable alienation from God on the sinner’s part--the focus on ability vs inability and even sinfulness vs holiness is wrong-headed. Rather the focus is on an irreparable breach of connection with God due to our fallenness. Hence, spiritual deadness is about being cut off the life God desires to give. Isaiah said it well, “your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you…” (embolden added, 59:2).

Second, you inquired “What else in your mind could it i.e, [dead in trespasses and sins] mean?”  My above should actually address this. However, just as a follow-up, the Apostle Paul leaves no doubt precisely what he means in verse 1 beginning in verse 2.  Those who were “dead”—that is, spiritually dead—are those who,

• walked according to the course of this world
• according to the prince of [darkness]
• children of disobedience
• [possess] our conversation [manner of life]…[according to]…the lusts of our flesh
• fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind
• by nature the children of wrath

In addition, the Apostle goes on in verse 12 describing further the state of spiritual death as being,

• without Christ
• aliens from the commonwealth of Israel
• strangers from the covenants of promise
• having no hope
• without God in the world

Hence, from the Apostle himself we have explicit indications toward what he means by being “dead in trespasses and sins.” None of the indicators the Apostle records remotely point to ability vs inability. Rather, being dead in sins means a man or woman is definitively not in fellowship with God, and consequently walks in darkness, fully and irreparably (on their meritorious part) separated from Him. Hence, to be made alive is to be brought into right relationship to Him, walking with Him—in the light rather than the dark: “But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ” (embolden mine, v.13).

Finally, Ryan, if you do not see what I see taking place in the SBC, I can only say, I hope you are right.  And, to frame the concerns I raise as either fear-mongering (gloom and doom) or unfair generalization is a view I am perfectly willing to allow you the freedom.  In the meantime, I shall continue exercising my very proud Baptist heritage and calling the play as I sincerely see it. Fair enough?

With that, I am…

Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

Ron: This article would disagree with you. And I quote:

"The churches that follow Calvin are the third largest Christian grouping in the world. In China they hope to become the religion of the elite"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/may/27/china-calvin-christianity

[Ron Hale]

Ryan,
Excuse me for jumping in, but I need to respond to your comment concerning ..."Truth is, 30+ years of church growth movement have led us to where we are."

Calvinism is celebrating 500 years -- what has happened to the reformed churches? Let's talk about Europe ... empty shells and liberal. The reformed churches in the U.S. have been loosing members for years to more conservative congregations.

Who is ordaining homosexual priests and bishops? Who is ordaining "open" homosexuals to lead their churches and denominations? Many of the reformed groups are. This is a fact.

Why have reformed churches drifted into liberalism?

The next big kick in the SBC is to start allowing members who have been sprinkled. Does that bother me? Yes. I'm a BAPTIST.

Blessings!

[Marvin Merriweather]

Bro. Lumpkins,

I, too, have grown weary of the same stale arguments of the term "dead." Calvinists proof-text Eph. 2:1 much like Arminians proof-text John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2. It is great that the SBC is deeply interested in theology, but the leaders of our convention are pushing agendas and power-mongering instead of teaching those up-and-comers how to be relational, patient, and faithful in the little things.

I'm all for theology, but theological agendas won't cure a spiritual deficiency.

[peter lumpkins]

W.B.

Thanks for your contribution. While I possess a certain wariness as do you, I'm far from certain our mutual wariness is founded upon identical concerns. Frankly, I do not think anything follows from either "dead" or "alive," including the "strongest possible contrast" until one discovers what the Bible means by both terms. In the scenario you've described, it seems to me you are fundamentally begging the question.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Ryan Abernathy]

Peter-
I am assuming the passage the guy was referring to was Ephesians 2:1. The Greek word there is "nekros" It has 2 possible meanings according to my lexicon- a LITERAL meaning- physically dead, without life, one who has breathed his last and has passed into heave or hell, OR a METAPHORICAL meaning EITHER spiritually dead- destitute of a life that recognizes and is devoted to God, because it has been given up to trespasses and sins OR inactive as respects doing right OR destitute of force or power, inactive, inoperative.

Now none of those translations lend themselves to an ability to act- which, in my mind, would make the guy's argument valid and would call yours into serious question. I am honestly curious about your statement “Dead in sin can only mean one thing.” Well, now that’s the question, isn’t it? So your assuming only *one* possible answer exists solves the issue?” What else in your mind could it mean?

I admit the young guy you were "debating" with could use some seasoning. I think all of us have argued some dumb stuff when we were young- and our churches and conventions survived.

My second and very real question is, "What are you so afraid will happen if more people embrace Reformed theology?" I agree with you that there needs to be more than a surface level of theology taught, but that's a church-wide problem no matter what your theology. Truthfully, i rarely meet someone who is Reformed who is not a studier and a thinker and a digger. There are obviously some (your example would probably be one of theose guys) but to lump all reformed guys who are "second generation" into that boat is unfair.

Overall, I think we need to avoid these generalizations and the doom and gloom that often creeps into posts where there are concerns raised about the burgeoning neo-Reformed "movement." Truth is, 30+ years of "church growth" moevement have led us to where we are. Why not celebrate a move toward a more learned and theologically concerned perspective rather tha being suspicious of its motives and results.

[Jim Champion]

Good word Peter - why not ask SBC Voices to post this as a counter point to thier post - they have done something similar from time to time

Jim Champion

[W B McCarty]

Whatever "dead" means, this seems to follow: If "dead" means something less or other than dead, "alive" means something less or other than alive. I think it's obvious that these terms were intended to provide the strongest possible contrast. I'd be very wary of any exegeting any meaning that narrows the contrast.