Young Truett-McConnell scholar drops a bombshell on Southern Baptist academia

When Karl Barth's classic commentary on Paul's Epistle to the Romans was first published in 1919, a biblical monograph which effectively delivered Old Liberalism its first mortal blow, one German reviewer described Barth's neo-orthodox innovation revealed in his Romans exposition as falling "like a bombshell on the playground of the theologians"   >>>

And, while one cannot place Adam Harwood's modest theological reflection at SBC Today on such a profoundly global ecclesial scale as was Barth, the Assistant Professor of Christian Studies at Truett-McConnell College just dropped a theological bombshell on the playground of Southern Baptist academia nonetheless. Or, for that matter, on the entire Southern Baptist Convention.

In his recent piece entitled, "The ETS, the AP, and the BF&M",¹ the young scholar not only challenges the exegetical conclusions on original sin presented at the ETS by Southern Baptist Theological Seminary professor, Dr. Thomas Schreiner, but also raised the question as to whether the classic Reformed view of original sin inherited from Adam as imputed sinful guilt² is consistent with the Baptist Faith and Message's confessional language on original sin,³ language Harwood insists explicitly states that while fallen human beings universally inherit a corrupt sinful nature and environment inclined toward sin and thus "become transgressors and are under condemnation" only after they become "capable of moral action,"⁴  the Baptist Faith and Message affirms absolutely nothing about the classic Reformed imputed sinful guilt doctrine indicative both of Schreiner and apparently the AP's theological perspective (check out Harwood's helpful chart comparing and contrasting the BFM2000 with the AP).

Harwood cautiously but respectfully concludes:

I am not asking two seminaries (Southern and Southeastern) to abandon the Abstract of Principles, an historical Baptist document. But are there differences in the documents (see above)? If all six SBC seminaries train pastors and leaders for all 40,000+ SBC congregations, then should the professors teach according to the statement of faith that has been affirmed by our convention of churches (the BFM 2000) or according to a statement which has not been affirmed by our convention of churches (the Abstract of Principles)?... The covenantal view of inherited guilt/condemnation is a point at which I see a contradiction between the two statements... . 

Tom Schreiner’s ETS presentation causes me to wonder if some seminary professors at Southern and Southeastern Seminaries are in an impossible situation when they address our inheritance from Adam. If they affirm inherited guilt, then their view is consistent with the Abstract of Principles but inconsistent with the BFM 2000. If they affirm a view of inherited sinful nature, then the reverse is true and they have taught a view which is inconsistent with the AP but consistent with the BFM. (italics original)

Dr. Harwood raises an important question for Southern Baptists and cites what reasonably could be one of the most fertile breeding grounds indicating the loss of our Southern Baptist identity today. While every church affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention remains autonomous concerning the confession she embraces, an ecclesial autonomy few Baptists among us would dare contest, for us to continue embracing varying theological visions at the cooperate infrastructural level--and if Harwood is correct, contradictory theological visions at the cooperate infrastructural level-- can only spawn an eventual denominational meltdown.

Dr. Harwood should be commended not only for his courteous and respectful challenge to Professor Schreiner and the AP's apparent affirmation on original sin as imputed Adamic guilt rather than inherited sinful nature --all the while humbly and cautiously drawing only tenative conclusions until scholarly engagement might shed new light on his present thoughts--but Harwood should be commended as well for his undeniable courage as a young scholar to openly speak his own mind about SBC issues in the public square. After all, should he ever sense called to training and equipping pastors, missionaries, and church planters at the graduate level, even raising this provocative question surely decreases his potential academic career among our presently available seminaries by a discouraging one-third.

Please read and consider Harwood's entire piece⁵  

 

¹standing for The Evangelical Theological Society, The Abstract of Principles, The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 respectively

²Schreiner's view based on his exegetical conclusions gleaned particularly from Romans 5:12-19 and apparently consistent with and indicated by Southern seminary's The Abstract of Principles (AP). The AP is employed by two of our six seminaries as a foundational theological document to which every faculty member must personally pledge to teach "in accordance with and not contrary to" its tenets--Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

³please note that no edition of the BF&M mentions "original sin" per se but only describes what the post-Edenic human progeny universally inherits from Adam and Eve's colossal rebellion. The theological short-hand for this fallen human sinful state is original sin

⁴presumably indicative of what many call the "age of accountability"

⁵Dr. Harwood is no stranger to this debate. He not only wrote his PhD dissertation on this subject, but he also authored a book explaining in detail his understanding of the biblical doctrine of original sin--The Spiritual Condition of Infants: A Biblical-Historical Survey and Systematic Proposal

Comments

[William Marshall]

Dr. Harwood,
Thanks again for taking the time. We probably disagree on the 'personally ratifying' idea. My take, which is more the federal headship idea, is that we are all 'in Adam' because we are all his descendants. Thus, we are all condemned in Adam because of his trespass (inherited condemnation, at least). Likewise, a person receives the benefits of Christ's righteous act when they are 'in Christ' through faith in Him (which would deny Universalism as well because all do not believe). I assume my views are more in line with Schreiner's and others, but thanks for offering your understanding, that helps me better understand where you (and others) are coming from on this issue.

wm

[Adam Harwood]

William,

Thanks for your reply. Don't go yet. You give the impression that our views are worlds apart. I'm not convinced. May I ask you to clarify your position?

First, you write: "We probably disagree on the 'personally ratifying' idea." Do you mean that it is not necessary that we personally ratify (receive for ourselves) the work of Adam, the work of Christ, or both?

Second:
1. When you were in your mother's womb, were you at that moment under condemnation because of Adam's sin? If yes, then please read on.
2. By "under condemnation," do you mean that in the womb you were regarded as one who was at that time guilty and worthy of God's wrath and judgement of eternal separation from Him? If yes, then please read on.
3. You write that "a person receives the benefits of Christ's righteous act when they are 'in Christ' through faith in Him." You seem to affirm that guilty people must receive Christ by faith; if not, they will remain lost in their sin and guilt. If you do affirm this broadly evangelical view of salvation by believing in Christ, then please read on.
4. Suppose that you (still in your mother's womb, still worthy of God's judgment, wrath, and eternity in hell) die. Do guilty infants who are unable to receive Christ by faith in this lifetime (in our scenario it's you) enter heaven? If so, how? If not, then I have no reply.

I look forward to your reply.

In Him,
Adam

[Les Prouty]

Adam,

If I may, until William returns, proffer a reply? Me in CAPS for differentiation.

"First, you write: "We probably disagree on the 'personally ratifying' idea." Do you mean that it is not necessary that we personally ratify (receive for ourselves) the work of Adam [YES], the work of Christ [WE MUST EXERCISE FAITH EXCEPT IN UNUSUAL SITUATIONS, FAITH BEING A GIFT], or both?

Second:
1. When you were in your mother's womb, were you at that moment under condemnation because of Adam's sin? If yes, then please read on. [YES]
2. By "under condemnation," do you mean that in the womb you were regarded as one who was at that time guilty and worthy of God's wrath and judgement of eternal separation from Him? If yes, then please read on. [YES]
3. You write that "a person receives the benefits of Christ's righteous act when they are 'in Christ' through faith in Him." You seem to affirm that guilty people must receive Christ by faith; if not, they will remain lost in their sin and guilt. [YES]. SEE ABOVE] If you do affirm this broadly evangelical view of salvation by believing in Christ, then please read on.
4. Suppose that you (still in your mother's womb, still worthy of God's judgment, wrath, and eternity in hell) die. Do guilty infants who are unable to receive Christ by faith in this lifetime (in our scenario it's you) enter heaven? [YES] If so, how? If not, then I have no reply. [SEE BELOW]

FROM LBC 1689"

"Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word."

SINCE I BELIEVE THAT THE WORD TEACHES MONERGISM, GOD REGENERATING AN INFANT IS NOT A PROBLEM.

[Les Prouty]

Adam,

One more comment. You say above to William:

"Keep in mind that Paul parallels the work of Christ with work of Adam. If condemnation comes prior to personally ratifying the work of Adam, then does justification come prior to personally ratifying the work of Christ by faith?"

Seems to me this views both the "in Adam" and the "in Christ" aspect in human terms only. As I commented over at SBC Focus where Chris Roberts is reviewing your book,

"Natural birth=imputed guilt. Hence the need to be “born again!” Not naturally, but supernaturally. This is the simple but glorious gospel."

Blessings brother,

Les

[William Marshall]

Dr. Harwood,
I agree that our views are not worlds apart. They are different (and understand Romans 5:18 differently along with other passages), but they are not worlds apart, sorry if I implied that. I will try and clarify my position by answering your questions best I can.

First, the idea of us personally ratifying, or receiving for ourselves, the work of Adam seems foreign to the context of Romans 5. We are all 'in Adam' from birth. The idea that seems to run through the text (5:12-21) is that we are all 'in Adam' as humans. It is hard for me to see the idea that we are only 'in Adam' when we actually sin. We would agree that we are 'in Christ' when we repent and believe in the good news. Although Paul is making a comparison between being 'in Christ' and 'in Adam' the issue is not so much how we get in but what happens to those who are in, namely those in Adam are condemned and die, those in Christ are righteous and have new life. That seems to be the comparison to me. Likewise, the issue is what Adam has done for humanity and what Christ has done for humanity. Through Adam's action (trespass) we are sinners and condemned. Through Jesus' action (righteous) we are made righteous and given life.

Second, I understand your logical steps that if we believe that men are born condemned, or guilty, then all babies will be judged and sent to Hell. I can only respond with a couple of thoughts. First, just because an argument follows logically that does not mean it is biblical (for example the doctrines of the Trinity or the incarnation). Second, the bible teaches that men will be judged for their deeds (Revelation 20:12-13). Thus, there is a connection between judgment and deeds (which would apply to children, they will not be judged because they have committed no evil deeds), an idea that we probably agree upon (to some degree). Obviously that does not answer all of the questions about the death of children, but since you wrote a book on this topic, I am sure I have nothing new to say that you have not already thought about!!

Hopefully that helps clarify my position a bit. Thanks again for taking the time,

wm

[Adam Harwood]

Les and William,

Thanks for your gracious interactions and specific replies. The positions you gentlemen described typify a solid and consistent defense of the your interpretations. Although we differ, I do acknowledge that you both described varieties of orthodox Christian views.

I share Les' commitment to neither the WCF/LBC nor to Monergism. Nor do I share his view that an infant in a womb is guilty of another person's sin. As William stated, "the Bible teaches that men will be judged for their deeds." Because I see that truth repeated consistently from Genesis to Revelation, a reading of Romans 5 which imports federal headship is unappealing.

Blessings, brothers. Please keep in touch.

In Him,
Adam

[Les Prouty]

Thanks Adam. We disagree to be sure. But I think we've done so in a gentlemanly manner. Would that more Christian discourse on these matters be done in the way you have conducted yourself.

God bless,

Les

[William Marshall]

Dr. Harwood,
Thanks again for the interaction, it helped me better understand your view. Take care brother,

wm