The Future of Southern Baptists Hangs by a Thread

I first noticed William Lane Craig refashion divine eternity and then adopt a heterodox Christology. Now Craig argues Genesis 1-11 is “mytho-history, not to be taken literally,” denies Genesis 3 records the first sin, and says cherubim are “fantasy.” He admits the genealogies give the early text an historical aura, but dismisses them as “artificial symmetry.”

While there are certain denominations which allow for non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1-11, the Southern Baptist Convention has historically taken a strong stand against treating the Bible as “myth,” especially in the sense of “fantasy.” Craig explicitly affirms “myth” in the weaker sense of explanatory narrative, but he nonetheless also treats the Genesis accounts as “myth” in the stronger sense of historically unreal.

The major 20th-Century controversies within the SBC often began with major debate regarding the interpretation of Genesis. This was behind the 1925 adoption of the Baptist Faith and Message, the 1963 revision of the same, and concern over the 1969 Broadman Commentary on Genesis. The Baptist Faith and Message presumes literal interpretation of Genesis, as seen for instance in our beliefs about the serpent’s involvement in the Fall of Adam. Article III on Man states, “Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God.” Cf. Gen 3; Rev 20:2.

It is difficult to see how any Southern Baptist church or institution could assent to treating Genesis 1-11 as “myth,” “artificial,” and “fantasy” without compromising our confession in Article I (1925, 1963, 2000) that “The Holy Bible [has] truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter.” Last week, a former Southern Baptist denied the Bible is the Word of God. This week, a major apologist affiliated with a Southern Baptist church and a Southern Baptist state college affirmed the Bible contains myth and fantasy.

The future of Southern Baptists hangs by a thread, and the two blades which may cut it are our treatments of the Word of God and the Image of God.

(Note: The Executive Committee response to the directive of the Southern Baptist Convention regarding investigation of the treatment of sexual abuse victims has dominated the news cycle. I do not intend to detract from the critical importance of that problem. However, as a theologian with a long view in biblical, systematic, and historical studies, I am convinced we must address both the crises facing us.)

Let Us Tremble in Light of Such Heavy Responsibility

Christians believe in human dignity. But we face significant challenges at this very time to human dignity in both the realms of the Church and the State.

We as Christians are compelled to contend against both abortionists without and abusers within. Article XV of our Baptist Faith and Message reminds those of us who are Southern Baptists to provide for and contend for both the abused and the infant: 

“We should work to provide for ... the abused ... 

We should ... contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception...”

Ezekiel 34:7-10 applied to “shepherds” in ancient Israel who held the various offices of kingship and priesthood. Consider how the words of the Prophet apply to the State and to the Church today.

Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: As I live, declares the Lord God, surely because my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild beasts, since there was no shepherd, and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep, therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: Thus says the Lord God, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them.

Therefore, against the abortionist Democrats in the modern American Senate, we must remind them that God holds them accountable as “shepherds.” Also, therefore, against those ministers who would either abuse or neglect to properly protect the abused in the Church, we must remind them, too, that God holds them accountable as “shepherds.”

I mourn for the aborted and the abused, for the little ones who belong to Christ. As an American voter, God will hold me accountable for what shepherds I empower in the State. As a Christian church member, God will hold me accountable for what shepherds I empower in the Church.

As a Christian pastor, I tremble before the thought of the accounting I must give before God’s throne. May He find me a shepherd who did well faithfully. And may He also on that judgment day deem all of us as Christians today to have been faithful in both the realms of the Church and the State in providing for the abused and contending for the babies. Let us tremble in light of such heavy responsibility. 

Trinity and Authority (Part Five of Five)

A Way Forward?

Having surveyed the debate and noted the limitation of analogies between Trinity and anthropology, we now propose a way of approaching the eternal relations that may bring ERA theologians and their detractors closer together. This involves four proposals, two each for the two primary parties. Individual proposals may already be redundant to certain theologians on either side—if so, please accept these as fait accompli.

First Proposal

First, we ask the ERA complementarian theologians to grant other theologians freedom to describe the eternal distinctions of the divine persons in terms of "generation" (of the Son) and "procession" (of the Holy Spirit) rather than as relations of authority. Even if the biblical language of μονογενής (monogenes) indicates unique sonship rather than generation, the language of "Father" and "Son" must be granted as eternally true.

The revealed proper names for the divine persons indicate an eternal relation of shared nature, which real relation is denominated in the terminology of "generation." Among orthodox theologians, there is no materiality or composition intended thereby and the adjectival qualifier of "eternal" may be properly ascribed to the generative relation between the Father and his Son as distinct eternal persons.

Even if ERA theologians find the language of eternal generation extrabiblical (we disagree), this traditional terminology certainly encapsulates biblical conceptions regarding the Father’s sharing of the divine life with the Son. The use of "eternal generation" ought to be an issue of freedom between mutual proponents of ὁμοούσιος (homoousios). In his most recent comments to Reformation 21, a generous reading would suggest Grudem is already open to this first proposal.

Second Proposal

Second, we propose other complementarian theologians grant freedom to ERA theologians to prefer the language of "eternal functional subordination," "eternal relations of authority and submission," and "eternal submission of the Son." Those of us who are more classical in our language have legitimate questions regarding the implications of these newer terms. But, apart from direct contradictions of the unity of the three persons, we should believe the ERA theologians when they say they are not seeking to compromise the shared nature of the three.

For instance, let us hear them out regarding the structure of willing within the Trinity. But, if they as a group have not deemed it necessary to address that issue conclusively yet, we are compelled to wait patiently until they feel led by the Spirit to declare their view formally. Moreover, it just may be that the Spirit is leading the churches, through the ERA theologians, to recognize there is more theological development required beyond the ecumenical councils. This may especially be the case with regard to the "will," which has meanings developed not entirely from Scripture, which is a controverted term historically, and which is often used in contemporary conversations with widely varying meanings affected on all sides by anthropocentric individualism.

Third Proposal

Third, while we would counsel mutual allowance of preferred terms and patience regarding questions that go beyond current declarations, we also propose the ERA theologians consider a necessary connection of eternal relations of authority with the singular and undivided authority of the Godhead.

"Listen, Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One" (Deut 6:4): Scripture uses numerous terms and images, such as "rule," "king," "lord," and "throne" to indicate divine authority. The term, "Lord," for instance, carries significant Trinitarian weight in the Bible. The Shema placed both the common name of God and the covenantal name together in the Israelites' wholehearted confession of loyalty to him (Deut 6:4-5). The covenantal name of Yahweh was later correlated with Adonai, "Lord," among the Hebrews. "Lord" thence came into early Christian usage. The fundamental Christian confession is "Jesus is Lord" (Rom 10:9-10; 1 Cor 12:3). Paul specifically identified God the Father with the "Lord" Jesus Christ in a Shema-like statement (1 Cor 8:6). Paul also included the Holy Spirit in that divine Lordship (2 Cor 3:17). For Paul, there is only "one Lord," but if there is a particular placement of that authoritative term with one of the three persons, it resides foremost not with the Father but with the Son (Eph 4:5; 1 Cor 8:6).

When earlier theological exegetes such as John Calvin read these and like passages, they concluded the Son's eternal authority was equivalent to that of the Father. They were thus reluctant to countenance any eternal diminution of the Son's authority. For instance, when commenting upon 1 Corinthians 15:27-28, which says the Son will be "subjected" to the Father at the end, Calvin argued the Son's kingdom nevertheless has no end. He did not deny the Son's subjection to the Father, but located that subjection in Christ's "humanity" rather than in his "glorious deity." This partitive hermeneutic helps correlate 1 Corinthians 15:28 with other canonical passages such as Daniel 7:14, 27; Luke 1:33; Ephesians 1:22-23; Philippians 2:9-11; Colossians 1:18-20; and 2 Peter 1:11, which elevate and continue the Christ's complete authority into eternity.

Similarly, the creedal tradition supporting unified Lordship is substantive. It begins in the fourth-century Nicene Creed, which states of Christ that "his kingdom will have no end." Also important is the sixth-century Athanasian Creed, which locates divine authority in the divine nature, not once, but twice: "Likewise, omnipotent Father, omnipotent Son, omnipotent Holy Spirit—and nevertheless not three omnipotents, but one omnipotent." "Therefore Lord Father, Lord Son, Lord Holy Spirit—and nevertheless not three lords, but one Lord." More recently, article II of the Baptist Faith and Message declared that God the Father is "all powerful," the Son is "ever present Lord," and the Holy Spirit as "fully divine" also "empowers." But the Baptist confession located divine authority not compositely in the persons but indivisibly in the divine nature: Among the infinite "perfections" of the "one and only one living and true God" is that he is "Ruler of the universe."

A Possible Formula: If we were ERA theologians, we would suggest the language of eternal relations of authority explicitly follow linguistic rules previously detected in Trinitarian doctrines like eternal generation and divine glory. For instance, patristic orthodoxy used the terminology of eternal generation, not to suggest a diminution or composition in the divine nature the Father shares with the Son, but to emphasize complete participation. Through generation God the Father eternally shares his being entirely with the Son, without loss, division, or composition. The Father's begetting of the Son secures simultaneously the distinction between the persons and the unitary divine nature. The procession of the Holy Spirit is construed according to a similar if distinct set of rules governing procession.

Another instance may be detected in the Johannine doctrine of divine glory. Jesus begins his prayer to the Father in John 17 with two major ideas about the perfection of glory. First, the Father and the Son glorify one another (John 17:1). (And the Holy Spirit sovereignly glorifies the Son in John 16:14.) Second, the Father and the Son shared this glory "before the world was" (John 17:5). The divine attribute of glory is thus eternally one yet also dynamically moving between the persons. Perhaps, on the basis of a similar complexity in divine equality and differentiation, one could argue the eternal relations of authority originate with the Father and proceed toward the Son, in the dynamic of paternal headship and filial submission, but without ever diminishing the eternally perfect authority of the Son (and the Spirit).

In a few sentences immediately after Grudem's quotation from Malcolm's book, Malcolm stated, "the one who sits on the throne is the origin of all power; the Lamb is worthy to receive all power; and the seven spirits exercise all power" (God the Trinity, 218). The authority of God could similarly be seen as located in the headship of the Father, shared entirely and eternally with the Lamb, and sovereignly exercised by the Holy Spirit. The "eternal relations of authority and submission" exegetically detected by Bruce Ware could perhaps be correlated with the placement of divine authority in the singular throne shared between God and the Lamb (Rev 22:3b). Eternally, there is only one authority and it is located in the divine nature. The eschatological reorientation of authority and submission finds it fulfillment, not in a division of authority upon the singular divine throne, but in the divisible slavery of humanity (Rev 22:3b), whom the Son subjected through himself to the Father (1 Cor 15:28).

Fourth Proposal

Our fourth proposal is that other theologians retract any calls for the removal of the ERA theologians from their teaching offices. Yes, there are times when we must join the apostle Paul in ringing down anathemas upon those who proclaim a different gospel than that which the church received (Gal 1:8-9). Yes, there are times to stand for eternal truth in a shifty world, but this is not yet that time.

While we share Trueman and Goligher's questions about the implications of the eternal relations of authority approach to the Trinity, it is not clear the eternal gospel has been compromised. Theologians like Grudem and Ware have proclaimed the good news in their public ministries of teaching with long effort and much grace. Even if moments of ineloquence or indiscretion were discovered in their writings, though we know of none, who among us would dare claim absolute perfection in our own presentations of the holy dogmas of inerrant Scripture? Do we really believe these men have compromised the gospel of God and Christ? We think not.

Conclusion

Speaking of the gospel, that is how we would like to end this excursion from Trinitarian theology into theological anthropology. As Derek Rishmawy indicated early in this controversy, the debate itself could have positive benefits. One of the benefits is that it helps us arrive at theological accuracy. However, the major benefit of the controversy is not that it drives us back through considerations of historical theology into biblical theology, though these are necessary and good, but ultimately it drives us to consider the triune God in himself and in his activity toward his creation.

So, here is the main thing to see: The eternal Father sent his only begotten Son into this world in order to unite with our humanity. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died on a cross for our sins and rose from the dead for our justification. The Father and the Son sent the eternally proceeding Holy Spirit into the world in order to convict us of sin and judgment and the righteousness available through faith in the Son. And through regeneration, the Spirit unites us with the Son of God, allowing us to approach the Father in the service of worship.

And that is what we, his redeemed slaves, will be doing for eternity: Worshiping the one enthroned Lord God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—three persons yet one in essence, eternally sharing the divine perfections in the beautiful order of relations without division, without diminution, without composition.

Malcolm and Karen Yarnell

Fort Worth, Texas

June 2016

Semi-Pelagianism? A Plea for Clarity and Charity

Recently, the charge of semi-Pelagianism was leveled against the signatories of the statement on the traditional Southern Baptist view of salvation. Please allow me to respond with a clear denial of the charge and an appeal for anybody entering this conversation to, first, clearly substantiate any inferences and claims, primarily appealing to Scripture, and, second, rise above inflammatory rhetoric.

            First, regarding “semi-Pelagianism.” What is it? It is a postbiblical issue. According to The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2^nd edn), the semi-Pelagianism of the 4^th and 5^th centuries “maintained that the first steps toward the Christian life were ordinarily taken by the human will and that Grace supervened only later.” It is worth taking a minute to reread that definition. (Did you read it again? Okay, let’s continue.) Semi-Pelagianism was condemned at the second Council of Orange in 529. While such a council does not carry ecclesial or theological authority whatsoever for Baptists, I believe most Baptists, including the Statement’s signatories, would agree with that council’s condemnation, which is later called “semi-Pelagianism.” Moreover, it is very instructive that the same council also condemned the doctrine that God predestined men for evil. I would agree with the council’s condemnations on both of these counts and invite all Baptist theologians to join me in agreement. (By the way, all Baptists are theologians.)

            Note here that we doubt the comments of Herman Bavinck, who has been cited as an authority on semi-Pelagianism by a group known as “The Gospel Coalition,” are particularly helpful in this free church conversation. Bavinck scorned Anabaptists, Pietists, Methodists, and, yes, Baptists for being too pious and for, inter alia, taking such biblical passages as the Sermon on the Mount literally. Bavinck, moreover, said Baptists erred in shifting the focus “from baptism itself to the believer’s acceptance.” (Guilty! See chapter two of my The Formation of Christian Doctrine for more interaction with Bavinck.) Finally, Bavinck argued that the Baptist idea that original sin does not entail original guilt is part of semi-Pelagianism. The Baptist Faith & Message itself in article three then would likely be classified a “semi-Pelagian” document under such a partisan definition. Our confession states clearly that Adam’s “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.” If our common Southern Baptist confession is “semi-Pelagian,” then we are all “semi-Pelagian,” whether we are Calvinist or something else, at least according to Bavinck, the Dutch Reformed self-professing opponent of Baptists.

            Second, the authors and signatories of the statement have made it clear that they affirm the priority of divine grace in nearly every article of the statement, including article two. Indeed, article two itself states, “While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.” Moreover, article four, on “The Grace of God,” states, “We affirm that grace is God’s generous decision to provide salvation for any person by taking all of the initiative in providing atonement, in freely offering the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit, and in uniting the believer to Christ through the Holy Spirit by faith.” A careful reading of the document thus indicates that the signatories believe that faith comes to human beings as an act of divine grace, just as the cross and the proclamation of the gospel are acts of divine grace. Personally, I have always taught my students that divine grace has the priority in salvation, from beginning to end, and I will continue to do so.

            We do not claim to know all the details of how divine sovereignty relates to human responsibility, because we do not believe Scripture reveals all those details. We do claim, however, that God is sovereign and gracious and that man is simultaneously responsible to believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ, because these things are revealed in Scripture. We approach theology this way because we are satisfied that the Word of God is the sufficient and unique authority for Christian theological reflection. Church history is helpful as a laboratory for the exposition of Scripture, which is our authority, but the Christian tradition with its condemnatory councils and burnings of human beings does not carry any authority for us “traditionalist” Baptists. (Honestly, for this reason, I don’t really care for the term “traditionalist,” and prefer “Biblicist” or “Baptist,” but others object to our use of those terms.) Systematic theology is also helpful, but it is a human response to divine revelation, and not authoritative in and of itself, as I recently discussed elsewhere.

            Now, the appeal for clarity: Please, as you enter this conversation, whatever position you take, clearly substantiate your claims. Substantiation helps with clarity in definition and discussion. Feel free to use tradition as part of your substantiation, if you must, but please join it primarily with direct appeals to Scripture. The statement cites plenty of Scripture and we are ready to engage those texts and any biblical text from a Christ-centered perspective. I would covet your engagement with me in the holy writ. I am more comfortable and happier there than anywhere, for the Bible is God’s Word and He talks to me there deeply in my heart (Romans 10). Please also clearly state where you stand on an issue. I have stated my position, and I would like to hear what you believe Scripture says. We can learn from each other that way.

            Alongside this appeal for clarity, I ask you to join me in a commitment to charity. Paul says that we should be at peace with all men, “as much as is in you” (Romans 12:18). I know that my sinful flesh is at war with the spirit in me, and I hope you will join me in committing to letting the Holy Spirit, who brings joy and peace within, reign within. As part of this commitment, it would be helpful if all of us refrain even from the appearance of speaking evil of our brothers, including the use of inflammatory words like “heretic,” “hyper-Calvinist,” and “semi-Pelagian.” This will only be possible as a work of grace, but I still hope we will respond responsibly to His grace. Peace to you, my brothers in Christ, Calvinist or otherwise.