Kyle Butt Discussion (Pt. 2 of 3)

Here is the part two of three of the exchange I had with Kyle Butt at www.ApologeticsPress.org. Part one can be read here. 

 

Hello Kevin,
Good to hear back from you. My understanding of Romans 5:12-19 is that the sin that entered the world through Adam has the same scope as the justification through Christ. As verse 18 says: “Therefore, as through one man’s offense, judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men resulting in justification of life.” Just as I don’t think this verse teaches universal salvation, neither does it teach universal condemnation.

Sincerely,
Kyle Butt

____________________________________

Kyle, thanks for getting back.

I am perplexed that you deny that this text teaches universal salvation!  That is the prime facie sense of the verses.  Doesn't "all" mean all?!?  If it doesn't, then what kind of salvation is this teaching? (NOTE: I emphasized this for argument's sake only.)

 Thanks.

Kevin
____________________________________

Hey Friend,
It certainly can’t mean universal salvation. That would contradict a number of clear verses, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8 just to name one. Only those who obey the Gospel will be saved, but it is available to “all flesh” and only those who sin will be condemned.

Kyle
___________________________________

Kyle,

I'm glad you brought up the instrumental means of apprehending the benefits of Christ.  And, I agree, sin is the instrumental means of incurring condemnation for "all."  The question is: whose sin?  The condemnation that comes to all is, "by one man" (5:12), "through the offense of one" (v. 15). "by one that sinned" (v. 16a), "for the judgment was by one to condemnation" (v. 16b), "by one man's offense judgment came upon all men to condemnation" (v. 18), "by one man's disobedience many were made sinners" (v. 19a).  From the text, and from the aorist tense of the verbs, it was Adam's sin that brought condemnation and the curse.  The thing is, granted that other verses contradict universalism, with respect to salvation, there are no verses that contradict the universality of the fallen Adamic sin nature.  To deny it, however, as you do, one ends up contradicting the phraseology that permeates this very text.

Also, did Christ die for infants?

Kevin    
__________________________________

Hey Kevin,
While I appreciate your study, it just is simply not right. Using your thinking, Jesus’ sacrifice should be the “instrumental” means of incurring salvation for all, because verse 18 clearly equates the efficacy of both Jesus’ sacrifice and Adam’s sin: through one mans offence..to all, through one man’s righteous act...to all. Whatever you claim Adam’s sin did, you are forced by verse 18 to say Jesus’ sacrifice did the opposite with equal scope. And sure there are verses that contradict the universality of the fallen Adamic sin nature, like Ezekiel 18:20.

Kyle Butt
__________________________________

No, Kyle, that is not the case.  Federal Headship theology rescues the expositor off the horns of your dilemma.  As I said before, the correspondence is not one to one.  The "one" stands for the representative head, the "many" and the "all" are the ones in whose stead the representatives are acting.  This much is clear from 1 Cor. 15:22, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."  These two heads represent two classes of humanity.  Either one is "in Adam" or "in Christ."  One, as you noted, escapes the former class by laying hold of the benefits of the latter by grace through faith.  Speaking of contradictions...

Of course, the soul that sins dies (Eze 18:20).  But, Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:22 that "in Adam all die."  According to my view, it, "the soul," is part of the larger class of "all" in Adam.  According to your view, however, the particular "soul that sinneth" is absolute, and you deny the fact that "in Adam all die."  Therefore, you create a textbook contradiction within the Scriptures. 

By the way, Kyle, you failed to answer my simple question: Did Christ die for infants?

Kevin

___________________________________

Hello Kevin,
Hope that you are doing well. Christ did not need to die for infants, since they do not inherit their parents’ sin, and since sin is lawlessness, infants have not “missed the mark” and are saved, thus Jesus said “let the little children come to me.” They could come to Him since “of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.” As for our previous discussion, it seems very simple to me to say that, “Therefore, as through one man’s offense, judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men resulting in justification of life.” “All men,” has the same scope in both places. Thanks for writing.

Sincerely,
Kyle Butt

___________________________________

Kyle,

Thanks for the well-wishing.  It is mutual. 

If I may be frank, I expected more rigorous argumentation from a rationalistic apologist.  It seems your strongest rebut is a hearty, “Uh uh!” 

First, not that you have shown much interest in listening to the voice of the Spirit speaking in Scripture, I will redirect you to the six phrases from Rom 5, which plainly contradict your thesis.  You claim that condemnation and judgment are incurred only by the individual’s personal sins, a sort of imitation of Adam; Paul says it came to all by means of Adam’s sin.  Please don’t take it personally, but I, with every other Christian that submits to the authority of the Word, will have to go with Paul’s reckoning.  You have rightly emphasized earlier that we cannot maintain an interpretation that contradicts other clear passages, but that is what you are doing—with a vengeance.

Second, you seem to hang your theological hat on Eze 18:20, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.”  While I would love to delve into this context with you, let it suffice to say that, ripped from the context, as you have used it, the best this verse does is refute the strawman position you present, that the implication of the Calvinistic doctrine of original depravity is that infants inherit their parent’s personal sins.  I know of no one worth hearing arguing that, much less myself.  It does not contradict the orthodox doctrine of original depravity.  Nevertheless, this is your flagship verse. 

Consider the logical implications of your tenacity in the teeth of evidence to the contrary. 

            1. Death comes to those who sin (Eze 18:20).

            2. Some infants die.

            3. Therefore, some infants sin.

Regarding the validity, it follows as night to day.  As for the soundness, the first premise is a favorite of yours, so I doubt you will deny it.  To deny the second premise would be absurd.  But, I have a pretty strong feeling you’ll continue to deny the conclusion.  You hold your position in the face of clear Scripture and logic. 

Lastly, speaking of death, according to the unanimous voice of the biblical authors, sin and guilt is the sufficient cause of death.  How, then, do you account for the death of infants, if not for Adam’s sin and guilt?   The wages of sin (sgl.) is death, after all (Rom 6:23a).  You see, our position has an answer, it comes from Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15; it was Adam’s sin. 

I do hope for more that another “Uh uh.”

Thanks and blessings,

Kevin