Kyle Butt Discussion (Part 1 of 3)

Kyle Butt

What follows is part one of three of an email debate that I had with Kyle Butt over at ApologeticsPress.org.  Kyle holds a MA in New Testament from Freed-Hardeman University in Tennessee, which is affiliated with the Church of Christ.

The debate illustrated several things, not least that Pelagianism is alive and well in the ranks of so-called evangelicalism.  Moreover, it revealed that holding an advanced degree in NT does not necessarily mean that one can now read the Bible better.  Kyle, and I am sure the entire staff, argues for many central points of historic Protestant doctrine.  However, as the debate further illustrated, these arguments and the reasons for holding these various doctrines ultimately rest on rationalistic, unbiblical presuppositions.  The crux of this conversation was anthropology: man, before and after the fall; salvation, why, how, and for whom, and the Adam – Second Adam typological correspondence in the plan of redemption.  Enjoy the discussion.  

___________________________________

Do Babies Go to Hell When They Die?
by  Kyle Butt, M.A.

This article cites Calvin as teaching that children inherit the personal sins of their parents.  How about citing a source for that claim?

Thanks,

Kevin Stevenson

____________________________________

Hello Kevin,

Thanks for writing. Here a quote from Calvin: “Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God's wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19). And that is properly what Paul often calls sin. The works that come forth from it--such as adulteries, fornications, thefts, hatreds, murders, carousings--he accordingly calls "fruits of sin" (Gal 5:19-21), although they are also commonly called "sins" in Scripture, and even by Paul himself.” Also, the article actually says: Due to the influential nature of John Calvin and his teachings, many people have taught that sin is “passed” from one generation to the next. It is believed by many religious people that children “inherit” the sins of their parents. Notice that the article says Calvin taught that sin is passed from one generation to the next, or hereditary.

(John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.1.8, LCC, 2 vols., trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 251 (page 217 of CCEL edition). Cf. Institutes of the Christian Religion at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.)

Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
____________________________________

Thanks for the reply, Mr. Butt.

Let me be sure I understand you correctly.  In your essay, and especially in the two lines quoted, you are making a distinction between "sin" (singular) and "sins" (plural).  Is that correct?  Moreover, you are saying that Calvin taught that the former is somehow transmitted to the progeny, while others (not related to Calvin's perspective) teach that the parents' personal sins are inherited by the children.  Are these observations correct?

Thank you.

Kevin
___________________________________

Hey Kevin,
Thanks for writing. While I appreciate your attention to this matter, I can’t help but feel that something in your questioning is suspicious. You asked me to supply a source for Calvin showing that he taught that “sin is passed from one generation to the next.” I supplied a quote that shows that he taught that Original sin, or depravity is hereditary, which, as you know, means passed from one generation to the next. I then stated that many religious people believe that children inherit the sins of their parents. While I would say that these other religious people have a belief that is “related” to Calvin’s, I would not necessarily say that it is identical. I’m just not sure what else you want from me on this.

Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
___________________________________

Kyle,

Fear not.  I'm not trying to be tricky.  It is just that contending that sin is transmitted is one thing (namely orthodoxy), but saying that the personal, actual sins of one's parents becomes one's own is another (heterodox, if not heretical).  The language of the essay is ambiguous enough to seem that Calvin is indirectly behind this latter teaching, which he wasn't.  A reading of his commentary on Rom. 5:12ff suffices to demonstrate this.

Thanks again.

Kevin
___________________________________

Hello Kevin,
Thanks for writing. I see where you are coming from. I really appreciate your writing back. I must confess, I disagree with your assessment of “orthodoxy.” It seems to me that Calvin’s teaching on hereditary depravity is unscriptural and cannot be reasonable maintained for a number of reasons: http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=3749 and the implication of such a teaching would mean that babies really do go to hell when they die, which contradicts the biblical teaching about the eternal destination of babies. Thanks again for writing.

Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
___________________________________

Hey back, Kyle.

Thanks for the link.  I don't think it provided a case against the historical teaching on inherited sin, but the philosophical history it contained was an interesting diversion.  I'm not looking to draw our conversation into a long-hauled debate or the like.  Neither am I interested in lobbing appeals to authorities or batteries of verses at each other.  However, allow me to present just two thoughts from Paul, and ask your understanding of them.

Consider,

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and in this manner death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Rom. 5:12);

and,

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners" (v. 19a).

Notice that the italicized verbs are aorist indicative (active in v. 12, and passive in v. 19a), denoting a simple past action/event.  One man's (Adam) disobedience made you and I sinners.  How do you explain that we are sinners, if not as our inheritance from Adam's one disobedience?  Moreover, how do you explain that--if we are essential, naturally good--all, without exception (save Christ) do indeed practice sin?  Should even the worst odds have produced one sinless person?  How do you understand these verses, and why?

Thanks,

Kevin
_____________________________________

Hey Kevin,
Thanks for writing back. I think it is good to finish verse 19b, the entire verse reads: “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” Now it seems to me you are contending that this passage means that Adam’s sin automatically caused all men to have a sinful nature. The text, however, indicates that the same thing that Adam’s sin did for humans, Jesus’ righteousness did for them, which I doubt you would contend that Jesus’ actions caused all of humanity to be righteous.

As for all being sinners if we are “essentially, naturally good.” That really is easy (not trying to be arrogant). Were Adam and Eve created naturally good? Yes. Did they both choose to sin? Yes. So, the only examples we have of anyone ever being created naturally good, they sinned.

The compounded problem with the “all sinners” situation is that Jesus was the “son of Man.” His genealogy shows he was blood related to David (and of course, Mary). So if David had the hereditary sin and Mary did, there is no way Jesus did not. Furthermore, you would still need to contend with the implication of the belief that babies have sin and if they die with believing or obeying the Gospel, they would go to hell. Yet the Bible is clear that they do not. I greatly appreciate your response.

Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
______________________________________

Kyle,

Thanks for another response.  Your “easy” answer only confuses things further for me.  You said, “Adam and Eve only examples we have of anyone…naturally good.” And, you deny that humans are born with a sinful nature/disposition.  What, then, is the biblical view of fallen humanity?  We are not naturally good (since Adam and Eve are the “only examples” of such) and we are not naturally evil, according to you, although historical theology has near-unanimously set forth (save a Pelagius and Finney here and there).  What is our natural state this side of the fall?

Granted, I don’t have the debate and educational experience you do, so please be patient.  I asked for your understanding of Rom. 5:12 and 19a and you conjectured about what I may or may not believe, regarding the implications of Paul’s Adam—Second Adam typological analogy.  I would warn against pushing for an exact one-to-one correspondence; the text itself forbids such.  Nevertheless, while you don’t like the presumed consequence of your proposal, how then do you understand v. 19a in light of 19b? 

Would you agree that death is judgment for sin (e.g., Rom. 6:23)?  If so, then guilt must be present for the judicial death to happen.  Where we see death, therefore, sin and guilt are present.  How do you explain the fact of the death of infants?  This must be answered before we can consider their ultimate end. 

Finally, you thought to compound the problem by attempting to present Jesus as inevitably having a sin nature if Adam’s sin nature is passed to his progeny.  As the WCF says, it is by “ordinary generation,” (6:3).  If you think that Jesus’ conception and generation were ordinary, then our disagreement is on a different level altogether. 

Please explain your understanding of the Romans text. 

Thank you, again.

Kevin

_____________________________________

Hello Kevin,
Glad to get back with you. Sorry for the delay. Let’s deal with my first “easy” answer. When I said “Adam and Eve only examples we have of anyone…naturally good.” What I meant by that is that from your position, you would have to admit that they were “naturally good” without a sinful nature and that they still chose to sin. Thus, we cannot say that a person’s choice to sin is a result of any fallen nature, since Adam and Eve, according to you, did not have that “fallen” nature, but still chose to sin. So, I would ask, what was in Adam and Eve that caused them to sin and I would suggest that the same thing is what causes people to sin today. The answer, I believe, can be found in James 1:13-17. Let’s work through this and then we can move on to other topics such as Romans 5:12 and 19. Thanks.

Sincerely,
Kyle Butt

_____________________________________

Hello Kyle,

I’m glad you chose to get back with me again.  I hope the debate went well for you. 

In the last email, I conceded that you have more debate experience than me.  I am afraid that you have perhaps read too much into that. 

In this, your last email, you pose the Adam sinned/we sin dilemma, expecting me to defend the orthodox, biblical anthropology.  The explanation you are seeking is ubiquitously expounded throughout historical theology.  Despite your calculated ambiguity, I can discern enough to conclude that your view was carefully handle on 1 May, A. D. 418, at the Council of Carthage.  Nevertheless, you want me to answer your alleged conundrum before we “move on” to my challenges from Rom 5?!?

Including an allusion in one, I have explicitly asked for your understanding of Rom 5:12, 19 in the last five of my emails.  I may not have your experience in debate, but I am not naïve either.  Let’s deal with Rom 5, then we can look into your more recent concerns.  That is the common-sensical chronologic order that most people call “mov(ing) on.”  The burden is on you.

Thank you for your consideration,

Kevin