Biblical Doctrine Of Reprobation | SBC Today’s Traditionalist Ron Hale Overthrows Scripture

Ron Hale is another anti-Calvinist whose doctrine runs into its own contradictions.

Reprobation is the clear and unequivocal teaching of Scripture.

Proof from Scripture

This is admittedly an unpleasant doctrine. It is not taught to gain favor with men, but only because it is the plain teaching of the Scriptures and the logical counterpart of the doctrine of Election. We shall find that some Scripture passages do teach the doctrine with unmistakable clearness. These should be sufficient for any one who accepts the Bible as the word of God. “Jehovah hath made everything for its own end; Yea, even the wicked for the day of evil,” Prov. 16:4. Christ is said to be to the wicked, “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence; for they stumble at the word, being disobedient; whereunto also they were appointed,” I Peter 2:8. “For there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old written of beforehand to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ,” Jude 4. “But these, as creatures without reason, born mere animals to be taken and destroyed, railing in matters whereof they are ignorant, shall in their destroying surely be destroyed,” II Peter 2:12. “For God did put in their heart to do His mind, and to come to one mind, and to give their kingdom unto the beast, until the word of God should be accomplished,” Rev. 17:17. Concerning the beast of St. John’s vision it is said, “All that dwell on the earth shall worship him, every one whose name hath not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the lamb that hath been slain,” Rev. 13:8; and we may contrast these with the disciples whom Jesus told to rejoice because their names were written in heaven (Luke 10:20), and with Paul’s fellow-workers, “whose names are in the book of life,” Phil. 4:3.

Paul declares that the “vessels of wrath” which by the Lord were “fitted unto destruction,” were “endured with much long suffering” in order that He might “show His wrath, and make His power known”; and with these are contrasted the “vessels of mercy, which He afore prepared unto glory” in order “that He might make known the riches of His glory” upon them (Rom. 9:22, 23). Concerning the heathen it is said that “God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting,” Rom. 1:28; and the wicked, “after his hardness and impenitent heart treasures up for himself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,” Rom. 2:5.

In regard to those who perish Paul says, “God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie,” II Thess. 2:11. They are called upon to behold these things in an external way, to wonder at them, and to go on perishing in their sins. Hear the words of Paul in the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia: “Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish; For I work a work in your days, A work which ye shall in no wise believe, if one declare it unto you,” Acts 13:41.

The apostle John, after narrating that the people still disbelieved although Jesus had done so many signs before them, adds, “For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and He hardened their heart; Lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, And should turn, And I should heal them,” John 12:39, 40.
Christ’s command to the wicked in the final judgment, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the Devil and his angels,” Matt. 25:41, is the strongest possible decree of reprobation; and it is the same in principle whether issued in time or eternity. What is right for God to do in time it is not wrong for Him to include in His eternal plan.

On one occasion Jesus Himself declared: “For judgment came I into this world, that they that see not may see; and that they that see may become blind,” John 9:39. On another occasion He said, “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes,” Matt. 11:25. It is hard for us to realize that the adorable Redeemer and only Savior of men is, to some, a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence; yet that is what the Scriptures declare Him to be. Even before His birth it was said that He was set (that is, appointed) for the falling, as well as for the rising, of many in Israel (Luke 2:84). And when, in His intercessory prayer in the garden of Gethsemane, He said, “I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me,” the non-elect were repudiated in so many words.

Jesus Himself declared that one of the reasons why He spoke in parables was that the truth might be concealed from those for whom it was not intended. We shall let the sacred history speak for itself: “And the disciples came, and said unto Him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? And He answered and said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but unto them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath. Therefore speak I unto them in parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And unto them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith,

“By hearing ye shall hear, and shall in no wise understand; And seeing ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive; For this people’s heart is waxed gross. And their ears are dull of hearing. And their eyes they have closed; Lest haply they should perceive with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And should turn again, And I should heal them.” Matt. 13:10-15; Is. 6:9, 10.

In these words we have an application of Jesus’ words, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine,” Matt. 7:6. He who affirms that Christ designed to give His saving truth to every one flatly contradicts Christ Himself. To the non-elect, the Bible is a sealed book; and only to the true Christian is it “given” to see and understand these things. So important is this truth that the Holy Spirit has been pleased to repeat six times over in the New Testament this passage from Isaiah (Matt. 13:14, 15; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10; John 12:40; Acts 28:27: Rom. 11:9, 10). Paul tells us that through grace the “election” received salvation, and that the rest were hardened; then he adds, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear.” And further, he quotes the words of David to the same effect:

“Let their table be made a snare and a trap, And a stumbling block, and a recompense unto them; Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, And bow down their backs always,” Rom. 11:8-10.

Hence as regards some, the evangelical proclamations were designed to harden, and not to heal.

This same doctrine finds expression in numerous other parts of Scripture. Moses said to the children of Israel, “But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let you pass by him; for Jehovah thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that He might deliver him into thy hand, as at this day,” Deut. 2:30. In regard to the Canaanitish tribes who came against Joshua it is written, “For it was of Jehovah to harden their hearts, to come against Israel in battle, that He might utterly destroy them, as Jehovah commanded Moses.” Joshua 11:20. Hophni and Phinehas, the sons of Eli, when reproved for their wickedness, “hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because Jehovah was minded to slay them,” I Sam. 2:25. Though Pharaoh acted very arrogantly and wickedly toward the Israelites, Paul assigns no other reason than that he was one of the reprobate whose evil actions were to be overruled for good: “For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth,” Rom. 9:17 (see also Ex. 9:16). In all the reprobate there is a blindness and an obstinate hardness of heart; and when any, like Pharaoh, are said to have been hardened of God we may be sure that they were already in themselves worthy of being delivered over to Satan. The hearts of the wicked are, of course, never hardened by the direct influence of God, — He simply permits some men to follow out the evil impulses which are already in their hearts, so that, as a result of their own choices, they become more and more calloused and obstinate. And while it is said, for instance, that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, it is also said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex. 8:15; 8:32; 9:34). One description is given from the divine viewpoint, the other is given from the human viewpoint. God is ultimately responsible for the hardening of the heart in that He permits it to occur, and the inspired writer in graphic language simply says that God does it; but never are we to understand that God is the immediate and efficient cause.

Although this doctrine is harsh, it is, nevertheless, Scriptural. And since it is so plainly taught in Scripture, we can assign no reason for the opposition which it has met other than the pure ignorance and unreasoned prejudice with which men’s minds have been filled when they come to study it. How applicable here are the words of Rice: —

Happily would it be for the Church of Christ and for the world, if Christian ministers and Christian people could be contented to be disciples, — LEARNERS; if, conscious of their limited faculties, their ignorance of divine things, and their proneness to err through depravity and prejudice, they could be induced to sit at the feet of Jesus and learn of Him. The Church has been corrupted and cursed in almost every age by the undue confidence of men in their reasoning powers. They have undertaken to pronounce upon the reasonableness or unreasonableness of doctrines infinitely above their reason, which are necessarily matters of pure revelation. In their presumption they have sought to comprehend ‘the deep things of God,’ and have interpreted the Scriptures, not according to their obvious meaning, but according to the decisions of the finite reason.

And again he says,

No one ever studied the works of Nature or the Book of Revelation without finding himself encompassed on every side by difficulties he could not solve. The philosopher is obliged to be satisfied with facts; and the theologian must content himself with God’s declarations.7

Strange to say many of those who insist that when people come to study the doctrine of the Trinity they should put aside all preconceived notions and should not rely simply upon the unaided human reason to decide what can or cannot be true of God, and who insist that the Scriptures should be accepted here as the unquestioned and authoritative guide, are not willing to follow those rules in the study of the doctrine of Predestination.

Another article you should read concerns the result of taking positions that eviscerate God’s knowledge of futurity. Without election and its complimentary doctrine of reprobation one is left with a unknowing God.

The Scripture proofs above leave no doubt that God not only knows all future events, he predestined them. Short of that, the SBC Traditionalists substitute human reason and tradition in the place of Scripture.

Michael A. Cox ‘s Inclusivity Of Scripture Taken Out Of Context | SBC Today

A Biblical Critique of CalvinismPart 1c: The Inclusivity of the Gospel Invitation | SBC Today.

One of the respondents Mike Davis says:

Proof-texts, proof texts. Both sides can proof-text.

And it is plainly possible to reject God’s grace. We must allow no root of bitterness to spring up, cause trouble, and defile because bitterness rots the bones. Bitterness, like sin itself, is contagious. We are herein told to uproot bitterness in our life. When the weed of bitterness rears its ugly head it poisons everyone around it. We must prevent this. Does this verse not demonstrate that God’s grace is both resistible and accessible to all? I believe that it does.

So are you exhorting the unregenerate sinner to overcome their sin nature and root out their own bitterness in order to be able to not resist the gospel? Hmmm…

Moreover, propitiation, in my estimation, is not appeasing an angry God, it is removing the cause for alienation.

Propitiation is a turning aside of God’s holy wrath, a satisfaction of His just anger. It demonstrates that His justice will be satisfied (Romans 3: 25). This is not a Calvinist vs Traditionalist issue.

Calvinists seem to be theoreticians who rarely reflect upon the serious theological and anthropological implications their system of thought necessitates.

Calvinists have been accused of a lot of things but this may be the first time I’ve seen them accused of not being thoughtfully serious. I’m not sure how a statement like that benefits the debate.

To which I will respond here: Actually, Mike, Rick Patrick accused Calvinists of being non-thinkers. It is nothing new among the anti-Calvinists. Cox uses ad hominem to discredit his opponents before they respond. You’re wrong before you respond and they have poisoned the well for all who come from their camp or any who are passing by. But you’re right, Cox has taken Scripture out of their context. He most appropriately fits 2 Peter 2:1, which he is back-handing against Calvinists, who in his estimation, though he would deny making any such accusation, are falsely teach predestination leading their hearers to destruction. Peter more appropriately addresses him, as will be shown. He offers no exegetical work and just proof-texts, as you say, and then after offering his polemical theories has the audacity to accuse others of what he himself has done.

One of the glaring examples of Cox’s failure as a teacher is the failure to take into consideration audience, but more, to consider all of what the Scripture is saying to them. For instance, Cox denies that some are destined. After mentioning 2 Peter 2:1 without its context, he leaves behind what 1 Peter 2 says:

So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation—if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good. As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture:

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”

and

“A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense.”

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. (1 Peter 2:1-12 ESV)

Cox’s disdain is for those who believe that God destines. But here we have Peter rejecting Cox as an example of those in 2 Peter 2:1, as a false teacher bringing in destructive heresy denying that Christ has bought a people for himself. The fact is, as Peter has said, that the chosen stone was sent to crush those for whom it was destined and to provide salvation for those chosen to be living stones. There are those who either directly deny that (Cox) or those who teach other contrary doctrine which leads others to behavior which denies it. The entire passage is about the cornerstone and his chosen generation. Believers are a new creation, a new generation, as Peter says, born again, by promise. Peter is warning against any behavior which would deny the Lord. Peter should know! He was once guilty of the very duplicity. As is clear, Jesus’ generation is the new creation, created to give praise and glorify God as opposed to the world which cannot except by their condemnation on the Day. It is a chosen creation. Believers are of a chosen Seed. Peter begins with the announcement of the promise, according to which some are predestined to life, others he are destined to condemnation. Peter does perfectly echo John 3:16, but also:

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:18 ESV)

The fact is, this is why the Father sent the Son into the world, that the believing ones who are part of the new creation would believe, and by that the world would be saved. It also means that, as Peter is reflecting on the very same, Jesus came to pass judgement on the unbelieving, of which Peter says, they were destined to such as condemned already. Election and predestination is all over Peter’s writings and that is why it so closely parallels John, because John likewise is clear about Jesus coming for his own, and not for the world, John 17. There is no doubt that judging between them comes by the word preached. The believers are sanctified by the word while the precious stone crushes its enemies. That is the point. Jesus tells of Judas, one of those who is predestined to the condemnation that Cox rejects. Though he had the same word preached to him it does not penetrate salvifically because there is nothing in him for it to appeal to as his nature and judgement is fixed by Scriptural revelation, Jesus said. In Cox’s estimation, Judas’ free-will determined God’s plan, but it leaves one without an answer as to how God’s fulfilling Judas’ desires meets the criterion of fulfilling Scripture which is God breathed. Did Judas’ desire his own eternal destruction? Did Satan enter into him by Judas’s desire? Did Jesus know Judas’ was going out to betray him, or not? Just how does prophecy work in Cox’s theories? In Cox’s estimation, Judas is an enemy we should love, because Jesus loved him, because he loved the world so much, even knowing that he was a devil from the beginning. Did the Father so love the world that even Judas’ could change prophecy and make God a liar?

Cox’s hates what the Scripture teaches, there is no doubt, so one wonders what he really thinks of God.

A Journey To The Dark Side

Journey allows no alcohol on premises? Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress.

Perhaps the one thing that men need more than an adventure, beside a stiff drink so they might forget the pain, is balance. Journey provides Eldredge’s message it doesn’t provide balance, and apparently, neither does it provide wine to make the heart merry. It is geared to those who have cash- those who can afford to get drunk on themselves in ways that others cannot, but it offers no Scriptural solution to what men need most. It appeals to those who are dissatisfied with life, and offers just another quick-fix remedy to a best life now. In short, it is a self-improvement program that centers on the narcissistic tendencies of people. Surely, one cannot think this plays well to those who live in poverty, or those who live in inner-city blighted neighborhoods, or those in countries where mobility is limited by governments so that people cannot use the wilderness? There are dozens of scenarios where men could never avail themselves of anything like what is offered by Journey. Most men will never leave their communities, not out of choice, but by necessity dealt to them by the circumstances into which God has placed them.

The sight questions whether it is good to continue to instruct men on original sin and offers instead the alternative instruction on men’s original glory that can be found within. What original glory? Man’s heart is desperately wicked, without remedy, what man can understand it, Scripture says. And it instructs us not to look for the things this world has to offer, but to seek His heart and his glory. Beside, what was man’s anointed duty? Adventure? Glory seeking? Hardly. It was to be a caretaker of a garden. He was given charge over it, and was to prosper in it, multiplying, finding the joy of serving God in God determined circumstance. He was to live in God’s glory, not his own. No great adventures, no glory except God’s and that reflected in the good creation.

I would ask also, what is original sin? Is it important to instruct men in it? How can men find glory without recognition of who they are now? Or, perhaps, some think they’re not still under the effects of the noetic consequences of the fall? What is meant by the fall? If there is any glory in man, it cannot be found this side of the resurrection when we will be made like the One who is truly Glorious, can it? No, Scripture promises glory when we are in the presence of the Glorious one, and that in the resurrection, not before. Until then, noetically speaking, we can’t really know what it meant to be a man, originally.

One thing I do agree with, men have more often than not been made the fall-guys for every complaint of the feminized church. And it is tiring. But doesn’t Eldredge offer merely the satisfaction of being what is demanded by others? So, what is the difference, isn’t measuring up to some standard that is not being met the object of Journey? Journey offers the solution to the complaints, but the solution is just another capitulation to the demands of judges of appearance, judges no better, and no less full of pride than themselves. Both men and women are failures, that is the default position of Scripture. That is the only option, we can never quite measure up, and that because of original sin. Which is why we must emphasize it and teach it clearly. Humility, not self-glorification, paves the road to grace. To know ourselves truly, is the only way to recognize what we truly need.

As Isaiah reveals, we are men who are unclean, and the only solution is not a grand adventure to find our inner glorious man, but to humbly throw ourselves upon the mercies of God that he might lift us up to glory- that he might send help to the helpless. The glory which is spoken of in Scripture that we will have is that which is sent to us, which we are clothed in by another, into which we are being transformed, and of which belongs solely to God, alone. How childlike we should be then, for we cannot even dress ourselves. It is a shallow and empty belief that finds its hope in this life and what it offers. Even if a man could be set free by Journey’s offer, he would still be without hope and to be pitied. What man can offer men is only what men have, filthy rags and not the vestments of kings.

It is a curious thing that Journey offers freedom in their alternate religious pursuit when Scripture declares it is truth that will set men free. And the truth is, men, even those who are saved, are still sinners, inglorious in and of themselves. But that is original sin in its out working. If we are not to teach it, we will never know that it is Christ who provides the means to glory, and not some four-day adventure. Think of the usurpation- Journey claims it sets men’s hearts free, not Christ. The only way to Him is to accept what he says of us, not to perfect one’s manhood at a four-day retreat.

Compare the apostle’s vision of manly maturity with John Eldredge’s famous sine qua non of manhood.” Eldredge says, “Deep in his heart, every man longs for a battle to fight, an adventure to live, and a beauty to rescue.”

That is a little boy’s lie. That’s the stuff of children’s fantasies. You simply won’t find a description of manliness like that in Scripture. Instead, Scripture says what motivates real men is a love for the truth; a contempt for error; and a passion for being used by God in the work of snatching people from the grip of the father of lies.

I keep hearing about churches who (in order to appeal to ostensibly “masculine” instincts) have moved their men’s fellowship to the pub, where they discuss theology as a hobby and share their views on life as Christian men over beer and cigars.

Let me point out that there’s nothing particularly manly about that. It’s still a private hen party, but you’ve just substituted beer and cigars in place of tea and crumpets.

Southern Baptist Steve Lemke In Denial Of A Foundational Christian Doctrine

Southern Baptists and the Doctrine of Imputed Sin – SBC Heritage.

The author highlights a portion of Boyce, but I think the wrong one. Boyce makes it clear that opposition to this doctrine is opposition to Christ.

6. This adds nothing to the penalty which must have been suffered nor to the guilt which would have accrued from natural headship; for guilt is simply just liability to punishment.

7. In each case, whether of federal, or of natural headship, the same difficulties appear. (1.) In each we are dealt with for an act with which we had no conscious connection. (2.) In each we are made sinful, and therefore sinners, by that act; for the inherent corruption is spoken of and treated by God as sin in the highest degree to be reprobated and punished. (3.) In each the consequences of sin are equally beyond escape. If it be contended that under natural headship we could not be punished until we had actually sinned, it may be replied: (1.) That this does not appear to be the fact, for at least some of the penalties, namely, corruption and natural death, and we believe all, are inflicted before actual sin. (2.) That it would show no more equity or justice in God, nor any advantage to us, but rather disadvantage, that our probation, upon which the infliction of these penalties depends, should have taken place in the weakness of infancy, and under the disadvantages of an already corrupted nature, rather than in the personal and intelligent act of the one perfect man connected with us by natural generation.

What is to be noted is that infants, children and adults, all alike die, being subject to the highest penalty, because all have sinned in the highest degree. Death is the just penalty for the guilt of sin. It is not just sinning, but the possession of the sin nature which is itself guilt worthy. Yet, no one comes by this through the natural progression of coming to an age of accountability, the false doctrine to which Lemke holds. They arrive at it through conception.

As Boyce concludes, Lemke’s denial of imputed guilt destroys the imputed righteousness of Jesus.

9. It would also appear that only through the representative headship could blessing come in the event of the fall. Had our fall been through merely natural headship we can see no way for recovery. But to the fall under the federal headship of Adam corresponds our salvation under the federal headship of Christ.

10. In support of the Scriptural theory, therefore, we can not only adduce the fact that the federal headship of Adam was just and right, because duly constituted by God, and that too in the fittest person of the whole race, but that it was an act of special mercy and grace, not only in itself, as involving the blessing of participation in the good as well as the evil, but as making a way for restoration in Christ the second Adam.

The first heresy leads inexorably to the second. How then does a denier of essential doctrine remain the Provost of a SBC seminary?

Joshua is correct in stating the historic reality. That it is true that the SBC historically is self-contradicting is one thing, that heresy is tolerated as proper and acceptable in the SBC is another. The historic combattre only begins to expose the deep seeded problems that plague the SBC.

From Lane’s Blog.

The Great Beth Moore Of Babylon: What’s A Little Whoring Among Friends In The SBC?

Sermon Review, “Don’t Throw Away Your Confidence” by Beth Moore.

Rosebrough reviews Beth Moore, beginning a little over have the way into this program. BM (oh so appropriate) is one of the myriads of false teachers around today. She is a darling of the SBC pop-cult circuit. She is simply a prosperity charlatan. Chris begins with an interesting dilemma, what do you call her? She can’t be a teacher with authority in the church, she is not a pastor, she can’t be an elder, and for a non-denominational denomination that ostensibly holds to male headship in the church, it begs the question as to why this changeling is allowed to thrill in the entertainment industry called the SBC. And true to its form, the SBC Cabaret sports all sorts from traveling buffoons and women masquerading as men.

Chris asks why she is so popular. How can such ignorant prosperity teaching have such a pop-cult following and not be identified as such? I think there is an answer.

It is because of the latitudinarianism that is central to the modern SBC’s big-tent ecumenism. You can believe what you want, teach as falsely as you want, make the bible say anything you want, while pretending you’re not telling others what to believe. What a man teaches is what he is the telling others to believe, but not for those in the SBC. Sad, self-defeating compromisers cannot see that the freedom that they think they are extending to others to hold personal opinions and naming it truth is really the enslavement to the opinions of men regardless of how much truth there might be mixed with it. Are there no competent teachers in the SBC? Well, they’re few. But fewer still are those who venture to criticize their own even when they know the truth is not being presented. And why is that? It is all for the sake of the great ethos of the SBC’s very own Erasmus, E. Y. Mullins,  that has controlled the SBC for over a century:

“Can’t we all just get along?”

How fortunate Protestants are that Luther wrote his response to the Erasmus’ Diatribe. And how unfortunate for the SBC that it, by and large, rejects that response. One of the issues that Luther addressed was the shallowness of Erasmus’ beliefs and by extension that of the Roman Church if it was willing to say that its own doctrines were mere trifling with opinion.

There is another Moore Whoring example found here. There is much more that could be said about this sithsda, her travels to the dark side, and how it affects others she has lured into it. But what is mortally important is the fact that this stuff is so ubiquitous even among the so-called conservative resurgents and the emergents within evangelicalism. The SBC is chock full of it, but their disease is not well contained. Instead, it serves as an example to others not even affiliated with it. It is such an acceptable form of blasphemy, and so lucrative, that no one wants to challenge it except the politically incorrect. Element Church in Cheyenne in only the out working of the very thing that was given room to grow in the SBC. It is not surprising that many of the local SBC’ers here in Cheyenne end up there.

People like Joel Osteen are not anomalies among this crowd. Indeed, he was the hero of my fellows in at Sunnyside Baptist in Cheyenne where was a member for fifteen years. Joel is the son of a former Southern Baptist. The apple of false teaching doesn’t fall far from the tree. His dad followed in the footsteps of a long line of prosperity teachers who promoted methods as king, promised blessing through pragmatic means. Leaders like Elmer Towns and the Blackabys, and even the American Pope, Rick Warren, flow from this self-improvement tradition. The reality is that manipulation of God by means is the pornographic centerfold of the SBC ideology today, and has a long pedigree in it. The fruit of the big tent revivalism is Beth Moore, and as she puts it, the same-o same-o that has been around for nearly a century and a half, produces heresy. No doubt, as we know, the SBC has had wide influence among evangelical churches and individuals, pro-baby-killing presidents and redistributionists have been produced by her loose canons. And that’s the problem. For its part, the SBC is as guilty as any secular influence of letting the yeast of apostasy ferment and the moral indifference of the nation become what it is.

Even those outside the SBC are affected. Methods and means have become either more therapeutic or more product oriented, both providing the “needs” of the serial narcissist, the addictive ecclesial shopper, or simply the lust-filled spiritual thrill seeker with any kind of lascivious licentious leaning. The attractions of the SBC rarely are any different than those offered by secular providers. And why? Because those businesses and attractions are owned by those who belong to the largest protestant denomination. The world surely is less and less likely to believe in the means of sanctification which found in the word and more and more likely to invest in the imaginations of entrepreneurs in pastoral clothing, like Moore or “reformed” perverts like Driscoll. Instead of finding of those who should be dealing with it, we more often than not find more solid teachers supporting these slithers. Like Beth Moore, who should have long ago been caged and disinfected by the watchmen, the passive acceptance of her, continues the spread of the disease of pragmatism.

Check out Chris Rosebrough’s F4F, there be pirates there.

Is there much difference between the SBC and the RCC?

For an examination of Driscoll’s latest porn tome “How To Sell You Wife”.

Enns/Mohler Reviewed By Doctor James M. Hamilton Jr.

Three Objections Enns Makes to Mohler: Apparant Age, Authority, and World-Picture | For His Renown#comment-37186.

My comment:

I wonder how Enns knew what every Jew thought? Sounds like assumption to me. Beside, Isaiah didn’t think that way, and he was a very well known authority. But that brings up another point, the Jews recorded and looked to history for their theology, irrespective of what the popular opinion might be. It is by the means of history that truth is conveyed, so intimately so, that the Prophets are embedded in it just as their prophecies are and cannot be extracted as independent elements without changing both. There are two things at work in the OT, the Law and the Prophets, as principle means of revelation. The Law is historical, the Prophets its interpretation. Paul is recalling the history of Christ as a prophet, using history as the hermeneutic for his Soteriology, just as the prophets before him, and it makes no sense to exclude a real Adam as history for the sake of a consistent apologetic. History is Paul’s authority. Reducing the hamartiological reference of Adam to an allegorical essence creates more problems than it solves, for as we read allegory in Scripture it is not clear and is open to many diverse interpretations. That would simply not do for an essential doctrine of the faith. If Adam was not truly the first Adam, then neither was Christ the second, historically, or soteriologically, necessarily, but only in an interpretive allegorical sense. Then just as likely, Paul could make his doctrine not truly revelational, and false, for perhaps Jesus wasn’t uniquely incarnated, perhaps he was only one of a series of Christs and in process of becoming. The purpose of history is to anchor the revelation so that it cannot be changed, just as Moses was to make everything exactly a representation of what is in heaven, Paul says that this creation reveals that: His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. And though it is as Law, insufficient without the revelation of the Grace of God in Christ’s incarnation (history), it remains what it is so that the latter stands upon a rock which cannot be moved.

Update: And a non (an anonymous unlinked attack-bot) named Steve showed up to criticize my response above. He said:

Ironically you criticize Enns for claiming to know what every Jew thought and then, in the following sentences, yourself make claims about what “the Jews” did and how they thought. I’d love to know how you move from your understanding of the claims of a handful of Israelite-Jewish sources to making claims about what the 95% or more of illiterate Israelites/Jews did and thought.

Thought it would be fun to draw attention to your self defeating rhetoric here…wherein you engage in the exact kind of claims about the extant evidence and ancient Jews for which you dismissively criticize Enns in your opening sentence. But again, in the world of polemics, boundary policing, and enforcement, who needs nuance and critical self-reflection?

BTW, good job representing “the Jews” in the image of your ideal evangelical: “the Jews recorded and looked to history for their theology, irrespective of what the popular opinion might be.” Got any arguments to show that the sources making up the extant corpus of Israelite/Jewish literature don’t “syncretize” (by Hamilton’s implicit folk-polemical definition of the term) and trade in some of the various cosmological, “scientific,” and the like positions of their times?

Finally, love how you tagged your post about this and Enns on your own blog under “liberalism,” “Deception,” and “apostasy.” I’m sure if I did something comparable about your blog posts I would never be called out for slander, ad hominem attacks, willingness to sling accusations online while being unwilling to handle such serious matters the way the Bible outlines, and so on. I probably also wouldn’t be accused of polemically misrepresenting a brother in Christ.

Steve the Syncretistic Christian

I will respond here.

No, I didn’t. What I intended is Jews as in those who wrote Scripture. We do have that record, we don’t have the record of every Jew. Yes, there were Jewish people who were Cabalists, a host of other paganish Jews and myth believers of all sorts in the community of all of Judaism. We have some of those records, not all, but the topic is not them, it is what the Scripture has to say, and not even of those who wrote the words of it, but what they were told was meant by them is. So, the definition of Jew in my response has to do with what should be the proper subject of inquiry -not what all Jewish people might have thought, but what those writers of the OT did think, and not as those being idiosyncratic, but as prophetic.

I didn’t express my image of what the Jews did in writing history. It is simply the nature of history. The only accurate history we have, for our purposes, is that of Scripture itself. The source of prophecy within the context of Scripture is its history, but that history records the words of the Prophets. It is not the history outside it which records that meaning. You might not like that, you may caricature it as dismissal. I am simply pointing out that Paul used that hermeneutic, and that to use another will necessarily change the meaning of Adam.

In short, our starting point is different, and so the outcome will be. The pointed question is upon what authority does one operate in selecting the hermeneutic. If we use Scripture to establish its own meaning it will say one thing, if we use natural revelation, it will say another.

I don’t hide behind any smoke-screen, I enabled my link. So, the worst that can be said about me is that I am transparent and wrong. You on the other hand are a non-person. What you do is launch random missiles, infer that I am so and so and such and such and have the audacity to criticize my doing the same somewhere else. Great, now enable your link, so that others might be able to find out something about you.

I am, unlike you, accountable. I have a church with Elders, who have access to what I write and say. If there were such sinful behavior on my part, they would intervene. Not only that but I have invited such. I am wondering, since you post essentially anonymously, just how do your Eldlers hold you accountable for the robot attack? By the way, making whips and turning over tables is often the most gentle thing that can be done. And by the way, I don’t know Enns as a brother. I do know him as promoting false teaching, and all false teaching does divide and that word is heresis. I have been known to be guilty of it myself. But, just so you can get it together, I think Calvin in promoting infant baptism, was a false teacher. I also reject certain convenantal teachings. I would be out of the Standards, but well within my right to descent, because those things are not essential nor do they necessarily undermine any fundamental. I think that my fellow members of the PCA I attend are just as false in holding to what Scripture doesn’t teach. If they thought those disputable matters the only truth, the whole truth, and there was no other truth, they would not allow exceptions. Now, that doesn’t make them enemies of the faith, heretics of that sort. It is not as if they promote justification by works, or deny inerrancy which by its nature would undermine salvation by faith alone. So, I wouldn’t deny Enns membership based upon his false teaching on evolution unless it undermined inerrancy, but since he denies inerrancy, we have already crossed that bridge. I wouldn’t let him teach as an Elder if I could stop it, if he taught evolution, or denied the six-day creation (see the PCA position paper citation below) just as my Elders would not allow me to teach as an Elder, or at all, if I began to contradict the fundamentals from the “pulpit.” As far as I understand, Enns was ruled within the WCF by the Presbytery, but outside of it by the Board at WTS. I would agree with the Board that Enns rejects the historical orthodoxy of the Christian church which they would say is the position of the WCF. Now, what their Presbytery ruled is what it ruled. And so he wasn’t defrocked. But I am not of that Presbytery, and obviously the Board of WTS thought better. Though they couldn’t defrock him, they did the next best thing. Enns would have to be accepted within our Presbytery, on the other hand. It is not likely that he would pass muster. But then again, the PCA has its liberal components, vis-a-vis the NT Wright controversy. Others, D. A. Carson, Paul Helm, and G. K. Beale, have said no less than I. He has overthrown the necessary doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. In not soft terms, he has embraced soul killing heresy.

So you are free to disagree with me, but do not take my tags, or categories as the whole story. Those are drawing points not definitional of the posts. They are cheese bites on the mouse-trap and you’ve been caught.

Next time take time to read my response. You might just understand it better. Rather than jumping to the defense of your allegiances, try, really hard, to set aside the prejudice. As you should have seen, I didn’t neglect the difference between some Jews and other, as Enns does. I in fact infer the stipulation that there is a distinction to be made. To universalize the perspectives of the Jews into a monolithic whole simply neglected the reality that all do not use the same hermeneutic, ergo Isaiah. It should be obvious that a perspective from being caught up into that heaven from which he describes the Lord’s habitat is quite different from the Jew in the market describing it. Again, that isn’t the problem really. The problem is by what authority does one apply any hermeneutic. If that authority doesn’t come from Scripture, it is no authority at all.

“We know where to put some biological theories of origins. We know this because they take as their starting point a metaphysic that is irreconcilable with Scripture. Precisely the question, then, is where do we put cosmological and geological theories regarding the age of the cosmos and the earth? We have at least two options: (1) to say that our exegesis of Scripture demands that the earth and universe are “young,” so any theories that contradict that must be wrong; (2) to say that our exegesis of Scripture allows a latitude of belief on the age question, so long as the core metaphysics of our faith (such as the idea that the universe has a beginning; God is free to perform miracles according to his purposes; and that the first humans were specially created, and all other humans descend from them) are respected. Those who take the second option should be careful not to identify their exegesis too closely with specific scientific theories such as the Big Bang.”

The thrust of this is as I said above. Where and when theories of origins overthrow the supernatural revelation in any way is the precise point at which it is the antithesis of Christianity. It is, then, not what might be, but what must be for this to be held in its own integrity. The supernaturalism of the revelation speaks of its own supernatural origin, and that origin, as the position paper remarks, must allow for God’s supernatural creation of that revelation. The natural reading is of creation, not process. Not only that, but the whole is one of supernatural intervention and preservation of revelation, and creation, from a supernatural beginning, to the supernatural recreation of the whole of the cosmos. So, it is not just my evangelical perspective, but one that originates without me within Scripture. (The PCA is not an evangelical association.) Making Adam only allegorically the type of another in reality only obscures, it does not further the meaning, as I also said. Is it polemic? Only in some sense, but that sense is drawn from the available science and the available texts of Scripture. The first has yet to discover anything which remotely can explain the origin of man. It can only speculate. The later explicitly states what were the facts. The natural reading is one of history. The unnatural reading is to make it mean something else for which there is no counter part in Scripture, nor is there anything definitive in science.

Anti-Intellectuals Karl W. Giberson And Randall J. Stephens: Collins & Noll Said It, We Believe It, That Settles It

Scholars like Dr. Collins and Mr. Noll, and publications like Books & Culture, Sojourners and The Christian Century, offer an alternative to the self-anointed leaders. They recognize that the Bible does not condemn evolution and says next to nothing about gay marriage. They understand that Christian theology can incorporate Darwin’s insights and flourish in a pluralistic society.

via The Evangelical Rejection of Reason – NYTimes.com.

I’m not the only one to notice that these guys are either stupid or have an agenda that blind’s them to their self-imposed ignorance.

Giberson and Stephens write as evangelicals to evangelicals—only this is not your father’s evangelicalism. The conclusion of the article tells you almost everything you need to know about the authors’ vision of evangelical faith when they claim that “the Bible does not condemn evolution and says next to nothing about gay marriage.” They say this without the slightest bit of irony at all. They seem genuinely unaware of the enormous revision of Christianity embodied in that single statement. Nevertheless, they are putting themselves forward as spokesmen for evangelicalism. Affirming gay marriage and evolution may sound like evangelicalism to the editors of The New York Times, but I doubt that very many evangelicals would agree.

But that is not the only irony of this piece. While accusing evangelicals of an anti-intellectual disengagement from the world of ideas, Giberson and Stephens fail to engage a single evangelical argument in favor of the Christian worldview. They simply assume a priori that Christian revelation has to bend and accommodate every wind of secularism blowing against it from the academy. This may be a good way to ingratiate oneself to the cultured despisers of religion (though I doubt it), but it is a horrible way to contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). But contending for the faith doesn’t really seem to be a priority for Giberson and Stephens. -Denny Burk.

No Denny, they have no intention of defending what they believe. And without reasoning. All of us who have looked at both sides of the issues know which side won. But those who are in denial, except that God works in them repentance, will remain blind, deaf, and dumb.

Denial Is A Distinctive Baptist Belief: The Heresy Of The Age Of Accountability

Baptists have not typically understood the impact of Adam and Eve’s sin in the Presbyterian way. While the Calvinistic Second London and Philadelphia confessions repeat much of the Westminster Confession language as an attestation to the profound impact of the Fall, the focus appears to be placed on actual sins rather than inherited guilt: through the “original corruption” of Adam we are “inclined to all evil,” and from this proclivity we commit “actual transgressions.”[v] More noticeably, both these Calvinistic Baptist confessions delete the affirmation of the Westminster Confession that “Every sin, both original and actual . . . [brings] “guilt upon the sinner.”[vi] All standard Baptist confessions of faith point to fallen human nature having a strong disposition or proclivity toward sin. For example, the BF&M affirms that Adam’s posterity “inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin.”[vii]However, Baptist confessions tend not to use the term “original sin” by name, and two Baptist confessions explicitly deny it. John Smyth in his Short Confession of 1609 affirmed, “That there is no original sin (lit., no sin of origin or descent), but all sin is actual and voluntary, viz., a word, a deed, or a design against the law of God; and therefore, infants are without sin.”[viii] Likewise, the Short Confession of Faith of 1610 affirmed that none of Adam’s posterity “are guilty, sinful, or born in original sin.”[ix] The focus is on guilt from actual chosen sin, not inherited guilt. (Some Baptists say they believe in original sin, but by this they mean being born with a sin nature, not the proper and historical sense of original sin as inherited guilt).

via Distinctive Baptist Beliefs:Nine Marks that Separate Baptists from PresbyteriansDistinctive Baptist Belief # 2—The Age or State of Accountability | SBC Today.

From the 2nd London Baptist Confession:

Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.

They being the root, and by God’s appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free.

From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

From the BFM 1925:

He was created in a state of holiness under the law of his Maker, but, through the temptation of Satan, he transgressed the command of God and fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and in bondage to sin, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors.

From the WCF:

They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.

From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.

Anyone can see that there isn’t any difference in these confessions, so why? Why lie about what the confessions say? The natural inference is that the original corruption is in fact the punishment for condemnable sin. As the 2nd LCF notes that corruption is itself wholly opposed to righteousness and that all who are conceived are the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal. In other words, that natural corruption itself is condemnable sin as the WCF states- both itself, and all the motions thereof are sin. The 2nd LCF in stating that being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath it is clear that it is the nature and not the mere acts of it that are subjects of condemnation. So why would Lemke claim that the emphasis is on actual and not native depravity when the confessions are saying exactly the same thing?

The fact is when speaking of the subject of Original Sin, we are not at first speaking of our sin in particular. It is Adam’s sin that is spoken of, typically, as Original Sin (peccatum originans). As is fully clear and unequivocal, all three confessions make the point that it is Adam’s sin and his sin nature which are imputed, that is, both the corruption and the guilt that goes along with it. The clear and univocal agreement in the three confessions is that it was the imputation that brought condemnation, and that through conception, and not the sins which will issue out of our native corruption (peccatum originatum), but through natural generation, all are by nature children of wrath. In as much as the fruit does not produce the tree, but the tree the fruit. Note in the 1925:

inherit a nature corrupt and in bondage to sin

Sin and nature are not separated, but are one in their imputation. But more:

(All)are under condemnation, not just inclined to fall under condemnation through some future act upon reaching an AOA, but actually, by imputation, condemned by inheritance, or as the 1689 says, by natural generation.

Perhaps Lemke can explain how it is that a person who has inherited sin, not by actual deeds later done, but because of the act of another, as imputed by God, can be under condemnation and not be guilty. Condemnation is not applied to the innocent, but those who have transgressed. In other words, the imputation of Adam’s sin, as clearly defined in Romans, brought not just a bondage to sin, but condemnation for the guilt of having such an inclination. As Jesus makes clear, it is the heart, and not the head, the nature and not the will, that determines the state of the individual. The 1925 is crystal clear about the reality. The same thing can be said of the Philadelphia and the 2nd London, even the New Hampshire. In fact, distinctly Baptist, these confessions agree with the Presbyterian’s WCF.

Quite contrary to Lemke’s assertion, Baptists also, then, have a long heritage of rejecting the heretical notion of the AOA. What is hard to figure about Lemke’s dealings with those he is trying to proselytize, is did he honestly think that no one would look it up for themselves? What is evident, in trying to disconnect a historic Baptist view from the unorthodoxy of the modern majoritarian view, Lemke has effectively expunged the teaching of Romans. So, we must ask: what else is to be distrusted in Lemke and the entire camp that is opposed to the alternative historic Baptist orthodox distinctives? He is willing to deny his own confessional history all the while speaking as if he is neutral? This is a distinction for which to be known? Distinctive, but perhaps just distinctively, not historically Baptist. For what Baptist distinction is gained from fuscation? Prestidigitation?

Lemke affirms that what is becoming the so-called middle-ground in the SBC is nothing more than the tired old fault that has plagued it, and similar mainline churches everywhere. Namely, that man is not as evil as the Scripture declares. That at least man is “soul competent” and able to save himself by the same means that he came under condemnation, his own free-will. The only thing is, if Lemke doesn’t honestly give his audience a truthful alternative, historically speaking, what free-choice is he presenting?

We might hope, though sad it would be for a seminary professor, that Lemke apparently didn’t even read the confessions concerning bondage with any clear understanding. In the very section he sites, the proclivity is not merely toward some evil, but wholly to evil. Inclined doesn’t mean unfixed, but fixed, as the 1925 notes, so each will without exception proceed to actual sins. And why is that? Because there is nothing within them which is condemnable? That does not follow. Even the SBC’s more liberal, newer confessions, (1963, 2000), do not allow for Lemke’s liberal interpretation. What does inclined toward sin and will proceed to actual sin mean if not that it is not inclined to good at all and so is wholly evil. If it is not already also inclined to good, is that not what would be considered native, that is original sin, wholly corrupted? Does he equate innocence with neutrality as opposed to “only the righteous shall inherit the kingdom of God” (Lemke seemingly follows Hobbs)?* The confessional statements clearly mean that man can do nothing to effect good in any way, just as the 2nd LBCF says, and is therefore, very much as sinful at conception as any sins he will commit. If the inclination was inherited as nature as the confessions make clear, and it was toward sin and is not free to do otherwise, then guilt must be by descent and inhere in the corruption. It is not by the decision of the individual that the inclination was imputed, is it? And inclination is the same as being guilty. As Paul makes clear, merely coveting, that is being inclined toward sin, is as much as doing it. It is not out of the mind’s will that the issues of life proceed, but out of the heart. It is nature where sin abides and guilt inheres. It is not the outside of the cup, Jesus said, which the machinations of the imagination can never make clean which is the problem. It is the inside that must be cleaned and that goes to the heart, not the head. So likewise, it is the tree, and not the fruit, which determines its kind.

While the later, more obscurantist, versions of the BFM have reversed the word order of the condemnation making it appear to be causal, and softened the bondage phrase of the 1925, by their own admission the intent of the BFM has not changed:

The 1925 Statement recommended “the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, revised at certain points, and with some additional articles growing out of certain needs . . . .” Your present committee has adopted the same pattern. It has sought to build upon the structure of the 1925 Statement, keeping in mind the “certain needs” of our generation. At times it has reproduced sections of that Statement without change. In other instances it has substituted words for clarity or added sentences for emphasis. At certain points it has combined articles, with minor changes in wording, to endeavor to relate certain doctrines to each other. In still others — e.g., “God” and “Salvation” — it has sought to bring together certain truths contained throughout the 1925 Statement in order to relate them more clearly and concisely. In no case has it sought to delete from or to add to the basic contents of the 1925 Statement. (1963)

With minor changes in wording, then, the 1963 sought in no case to delete or add to the intentions and meanings, ostensibly. There is no doubt the Hobbsian view was estranged from and confused about the doctrines of the faith which preceded it. But Hobbsian rewording, as is seen in Hobbs’ own commentary on the 1963, superintended to overthrow the original and introduced an entirely different faith to the SBC. In other words, what was meant by Hobbs, was not the intentions and meanings of the original. Hobbs stood diametrically opposed to the clearly Calvinistic doctrines of the 1925. In that, like Lemke is doing, through sleight of hand he sought to impose his belief system on the entire SBC. So much for soul competency and the liberty of the believer. On the other hand, if we accept the wording of the last phrase we find Lemke guilty of not reading his own confessions. For the reality is that the 1925 continued the Presbyterian formulations that had preceded for centuries. And if the essence of the doctrinal account didn’t change, by the admission of the committee, then the newer versions must be read in the previous generation’s light.

The 2000 reissued the statement as: Your committee respects and celebrates the heritage of the Baptist Faith and Message, and affirms the decision of the Convention in 1925 to adopt the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, “revised at certain points and with some additional articles growing out of certain needs . . . .” We also respect the important contributions of the 1925 and 1963 editions of the Baptist Faith and Message.

And what was that formulation in the NCF?

“We believe that man was created in holiness, under the law of his Maker; but by voluntary transgression fell from that holy and happy state; in consequence of which all mankind are now sinners, not by constraint, but choice; being by nature utterly void of that holiness required by the law of God, positively inclined to evil; and therefore under just condemnation to eternal ruin, without defense or excuse.”

The documents from which this is drawn define the “choice” as that of the federal head, Adam, who in the stead of all humanity chose: “…then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress the law of their creation…” That choice is made the possession of the progeny, in consequence of which all mankind are now sinners, according to the NCF, by natural generation. The progeny chose in Adam originally, and will in actual time, do so. Because Adam originally sinned, they are sinners by origin and because they are of their father according to nature, condemned sinners, they will in time produce the effects of his sin.

In short, though the later versions do not follow some language or order, they do contain the allusions to it. As was noted above, the 1925 is clear, condemnation, that is the guilt of original sin, is indeed imputed through natural generation to each and every individual that has been born or will be born and that guilt inheres as inclination to sin, not merely to the actual sins which follow. In short it is native ability which is condemned, for it, even if alone, is condemnable. And as noted above, technically when speaking of Original Sin we are not at first speaking of those who came after Adam, but Adam himself (peccatum originans). Then, his progeny by natural generation have what might be called aboriginal sin (peccatum originatum), that is, what was his is theirs by inherency. [The terms natural, or native, or nature, when speaking of the corruption by which the children of Adam are by nature the children of wrath in those confessions is what is known as original sin, (peccatum originatum) but note it is the “by which corruption” all are children of wrath. That is, they are under condemnation because of guilt which inheres in the corruption.] Regardless of how it is stated, it is the nature, and not the effects of that nature, though they also are enough to condemn, which is condemnable. As the BFM’s state, that nature was inherited, and that through natural descent. Who would argue that having a nature which is sinful is not condemnable? Well, Lemke does.

*Hershel H. Hobbs believed man to be created innocent with both the inclinations to good and evil so that righteousness was attainable, unnatural, as opposed to native, or original. That too, man’s free-will afforded him the chance of either attaining to a nature of evil. Restated, Hobbs believed, God created man in God’s image, capable of both good and evil. He believed God’s righteousness was not nature but action. In that image, man was at first neutral, and innocent, having both the tendency to do good or evil resident in his nature and able to achieve one or the other. It was Hobbs who inserted that man fell from his original innocence by which he meant neutrality, for he stated that man must by choice either become good or evil in actuality. But one must ask, from where and to where did man fall? What is the condition he fell into? The opposite of innocence is what? Neutrality? Yes, at least according to Hobbs, and from Lemke’s take on it, for they both believe that man must again fall according to his own “free” choice.  But to the rest of the rational world, it is guilt into which mankind fell. And he did not fall from neutrality, but from righteousness, if indeed innocence means anything. It was HHH with his committee who changed the word order in the 1963 from its original in the 1925, placing condemnation after capability. The AOA did not enter into SBC reality as doctrine until after the tampering by Hobbs. For a century before the 1963, then, neither Hobbs’ doctrine, nor that of Lemke, was part of the Baptist distinctives of the confessions of the SBC. It was the corruption of the confession by Hobbs that brings the controversy to the fore. Before Hobbs, the BFM was squarely on the same footing as the Presbyterians and could not be interpreted otherwise. Still, as noted above, the intent of the original is intended to be upheld by HHH’s own admission. So, inconsistent as the BFM’s are, as self-refuting as Hobbs’s was, , as disingenuous as Lemke is, the corruption of man’s nature and the guilt that inheres in that corruption (peccatum originatum), or simply short-handed, original sin, is still what is meant by them.

What’s Harold Camping Got To Do With Global Warming?

Despite consistent evidence that climate change does not portend an apocalyptic future, global-warming alarmism is invading nearly every aspect of our lives. The newly published book Climate Coup is an antidote to this, confronting the exaggerations, opportunism, and myths about global warming that are altering the shapes of our lives and deeply impacting decisions about health, education, law, national defense, international development, trade, and academic publishing. Is any alarmism justified? Are all of the claims being made unrealistic and unsupported? What is the role of government? This special book forum will offer perspectives from two experts gifted in their ability to communicate their different points of view on global-warming policy to the public. We hope you can join us for what promises to be an exceptionally vigorous discussion of the evidence and impact of global warming.

via Climate Coup: Global Warming’s Invasion of Our Government and Our Lives | Cato Institute: Book Forum.

When you think about doomsayers there are those who wear government approved decoder rings and are applauded by the left, and those who don’t and aren’t. Along with mathematical models they contrive that can’t predict the present let alone the future, bilking people of their money and freedom is a familiar spirit shared by both.