Credo-getics: Confessional Christianity vs. Mormonism, Pt I

I begin by making an honest confession.  Despite my acute interest and study in the discipline of apologetics, it is with chagrin that I admit to being relatively ignorant of the touchstone points for apologetical dialogue with Mormons.  Because of their prevalence in the two communities that we’ve lived in, I am as comfortable in conversation with Jehovah’s Witnesses as I am in these fine fleece jammies Fanny got me for Christmas.  Furthermore, the gravity of the issues notwithstanding, debating well-educated antitheists is easier for me than trying to cogently communicate an order of gut-bombs from Sonic via the drive-in squawk box.  Mormonism, though...well, until the other morning, I had only met one other, and that years ago in Kansas. 

Elizabeth, then, is only the second Mormon I have ever knowingly had a conversation with.  In part, my lack of study with respect to Mormonism and the various other cults stems from the deep conviction, one vindicated by a fair bit of experience, that the presuppositional approach to defending and commending the Faith relativizes the need to memorize all the nitty-gritty details of the cults’ doctrines and a battery of canned arguments and responses.  Rather, when one commits to reasoning and arguing presuppositionally, one needs only to known the depths of his own Faith, once for all handed down to the saints, and how to reason out from it.  In nowise does this diminish our responsibility to becoming conversant with the plethora of perspectives in our society.  What it does do, however, is encourage one to more deeply study the only one that really matters, the biblical perspective, commonly called confessional Christianity.   

Elizabeth is a fun personality in her mid- to late-twenties.  She helps operate a quaint little Celtic shop in Lexington, VA, called Celtic Tides.  We love going to Lexington, which is just under an hour away.  When we do, we are sure to make a stop at the Tides.  This day, we were picking up a belated Christmas gift Fanny had stealthily order me right under my nose; it was a great surprise.  I had spoken to Elizabeth on the phone earlier in the week, confirming that the ring was in and when we might be able to pick it up.  I also picked up several clues in that conversation that lead me to suspect that she was a Mormon, not least that she attended Southern Virginia College in Buena Vista, a small village between our place and Lexington. 

Last month I posted a bit on the practical doctrine of the Trinity, which included applications by Kevin DeYoung and Cornelius Van Til. These quotes were making the apologetical application of the doctrine of the Trinity to the perennial philosophical conundrum of the one-and-the many or unity and diversity.  As I cited Van Til there, saying,      

In the ontological trinity there is complete harmony between an equally ultimate one and many.  The persons of the trinity are mutually exhaustive of one another and of God’s nature.  It is the absolute equality in point of ultimacy that requires all the emphasis we can give it.  Involved in this absolute equality is complete interdependence; God is our concrete universal (Common Grace & the Gospel, 8).

So, granting that we were in a shop that had the Triquetra (the so-called Celtic knot or Trinity symbol) on virtually everything, I couldn’t think of a better point of departure for a conversation with Elizabeth, as she has this symbolic testimony to the living true God daily before her. 

However, the conversation began in a different direction.  After asking her if she was indeed a Mormon, Elizabeth happily affirmed that she was and expressed her passion for her chosen religion.  I then replied that, as for me and my house, we were confessional Christians, who passionately owned the early Creeds (I mentioned to her the Apostles' and Nicene) and the historic confessions of the Reformation.  This fairly started our conversation with a judicial full disclosure of our precommitments.  Allowing her to continue talking, she demonstrated that she had a solid understanding of her own position and the crux issues at stake in the clash between your respective worldviews. 

Something that she was quick to point out was that Mormonism holds to human divinization, what they call the doctrine of exaltation, whereby good Mormons will eventually become Gods.  (This is not to be confused with the doctrine of theosis, taught by the Patristics and today emphasized in the Orthodox tradition.)  After all, for Mormons, God the Father was once a mere fallen mortal, who was good enough to become a God and inherit our universe.     

I told Elizabeth that that sounded like a wonderful teaching!  We would all love to think of ourselves as Gods, and that the prospect of such, as held out by Mormonism, certainly allures the human consciousness.  In fact, I continued, if left to ourselves that is exactly how struggle to live life out in our fallenness.  Shifting tone, I told her that I had read of something that sounded strikingly similar to her doctrine of exaltation.  I then quoted Genesis 3:4—5 for her.

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

I explained the context to Elizabeth, wherein Adam and Eve were confronted with two hypotheses, one God’s and one Satan’s.  With respect to the tree, God's word on the matter was ‘Eat, die the death,’ whereas Satan contradicted God’s word of judgment and suggested that God has base motives for withholding the fruit; Satan said, ‘Eat, become gods.’  Experience and experiment, thought our first parents (and all their kids since!), would be the only means of knowing which word on the matter was true.  They ate, and...the rest is history.  Genesis 5 leaves no ambiguity as to which interpretation of the tree was correct.  The genealogical record of the antediluvian patriarchs has the refrain “and he died” no less than eight times!  Moses wanted to leave no doubt for the reader that the wages of sin was death.  Even now-fallen Eve recognized immediately, sensing her alienation and shame, that with the words of the serpent, ye shall be as gods, were a lie: “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat” (Gen. 3:13; cf. 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14).  The fact is, humanity’s universal experience provides absolute, empirical evidence of the truth of God’s word on the matter—every moment of every day!  He most certainly has not left himself, not least his justice and righteous judgment, without witness.    

Her expression revealed that Elizabeth was not quite prepared for the topic to lead to these conclusions.  She mustered new resolve, and suggested that the serpent’s hypothesis was nevertheless true, even if God’s prediction of the consequences of disobedience were wrought out.  I explained to her that such a view of the text was certainly at odds with Jesus and his Apostles, and thereby could not be correct. 

For instance, I told her, when Jesus said, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it” in John 8:44, he had Genesis 3 in mind.  Similarly, when St. John spoke of the devil, he added that he “sinneth from the beginning,” which again points us back to the fall in Genesis 3.  Therefore, those, such as the LDS’s prophet Joseph Smith, who founded Mormonism, perpetuate Satan’s suggestion as the truth of the matter, they are therefore from the “seed of the serpent” (Gen. 3:15), and are “full of all subtilty and all mischief,” “enemies of all righteousness,” and never “cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord” (Acts 13:10; cf. 1 Jn. 3:8ff).  In short, they are of their father the devil, as Jesus put it (Jn. 8:44).  So, I concluded with Elizabeth that what she was presenting as a distinctive doctrine of Mormonism rested on a satanic lie, the one that introduced all subsequent sin and misery into our originally-good world.  Jesus, as revealed in the Scriptures, came to destroy the works of the devil (1 Jn. 3:8); and I prayed and continue to pray that that is precisely what he was and is doing in the heart of Elizabeth. 

I confirmed that she followed me and understood what I had said.  She said she did, and that she could see my point.  Still, her expression indicated that, although she followed the reasoning, she was suppressing the truth of the matter in unrighteousness, clinging to her deeper commitment to the lies of Mormonism.

Nevertheless, she still seemed to be rather engaged in the conversation, as Fanny and Israel browsed the goods.  Therefore, I took this to be a green light to springboard of the ambiance of Triquetra round about us, and set the holy doctrine of the Trinity against Mormonism’s paganistic polytheism (henotheism to be precise).  But the second part of the conversation will have to wait until tomorrow.  Until then be blessed in our thrice holy God!

Discussion with Kyle Butt (Pt. 3 of 3)

Here is the third and final part of my discussion with Kyle Butt at www.ApologeticsPress.org. Part two can be read here, and part one here.

Hello Kevin,

Back to our discussion. I hate to disappoint you in regard to the rigor of my arguments. But it seems very simple to me, Romans 5:18 applies the same scope to Jesus blood as to Adam’s sin. With all due respect, you refused to answer this and claimed is was an “Uh uh!”. Now, I think the reason you may be missing the point is due to a failure to understand what happened when Adam sinned. His nature, or his ability to live forever, was not altered. The simple reason that he did not continue to live forever is that he was separated from the Tree of Life. Notice that Genesis 3:22 explains that even after he sinned, if he would have eaten from the Tree of Life he would have lived forever. The reason we die (and Adam died) is not because of a a corrupted nature, it is simple because we do not have access to the Tree of Life.

Now, let’s look at the “strawman” you are suggesting I have concocted. From where do you think a baby gets its “sinful nature?” It must be from their parents, and they must have gotten it from their parents, etc. So, eventually, you must suggest that someone (I assume Adam’s direct descendants) got it directly from their parents. The Bible just doesn’t teach that.

Furthermore, your dealing with Eze 18:20 does not take into account the “soul” who sins and the “guilt” associated with the sin. It is not saying that everyone who dies sinned. It is saying that those who sin will die. There is a logical fallacy involved in rolling it backwards. For instance, all redbirds that eat worms will live does not mean all redbirds that live eat worms. Or all people that drink acid will die does not mean all those who are dead drink acid. We can see this to be the case with Jesus, who never sinned and yet physically died. Also, Enoch would be a good example of someone who sinned, but it does not look like he died in any kind of traditional since.

And finally, to say that “the wages of sin is death” is right, but don’t miss the next part of the verse “but the gift of God is eternal life.” If you are going to contend that “death” means physical death then you are going to have a hard time explaining “eternal life” meaning spiritual life. The way you are presenting the case, that should mean that people who obey God do not physically die. The Bible explains that sin is lawlessness, ie. The breaking of a law. To contend that babies sin is to go against the meaning of the word “missing the mark.” There just is no Scriptural justification to suggest that babies are born sinful.

Sincerely,

Kyle Butt

_____________________________________

Kyle, it is good to hear from you again.  I really appreciate the time you put into the last response.  Really, though, it raises more questions than it answers.  However, you make some substantial statements that deserve addressing. 

First, you said, “So, eventually, you must suggest that someone (I assume Adam’s direct descendants) got it directly from their parents. The Bible just doesn’t teach that.”  Thankfully, you have attempted to teach me what the Bible actually does teach.  So, let’s work from that. 

You have explained the results of Adam’s sin as having only a spatial or geographical consequence; that is, his (and our) being separated from the tree of life.  It is this, supposedly, that causes death.  Thus, how we get there may differ dramatically; nevertheless, we both come to the same conclusion.  I think this purely biotic interpretation of the fall is absurd and has no reputable exegetical or theological precedents.  Still, we can actually more forward from it.  Let me explain.

According to what you have told me, death is the punitive consequence of our separation from the tree of life.  Adam’s fall is the proximate cause of his (and his progeny’s) separation from the tree of life; Adam’s sin denies access to the tree of life.  Therefore, where we find death, we find the punitive consequence of Adam’s fall.  Hence, the death of infants is the punitive consequence of Adam’s fall.  We both agree, then, that the death of infants is the result of Adam’s sin.  Again, how the two of us arrive at this conclusion is divergent to be sure, but we both end up here nonetheless.  For discussion’s sake, I’ll grant you that infants don’t commit personal, volitional sins (particular sins).  However, they are suffering death because of sin, namely Adam’s sin, which is all I have been contending in our talk. 

Secondly, I am perfectly perplexed by all this.  If Adam’s sin and fall resulted in no substantial or essential change to our nature but was merely a deprivation of the tree of life, then we must conclude that the human condition is right where God created and left it.  All the maladies we suffer must then be attributed directly to God’s account.  Would not God be directly accountable for the little one with Leukemia?  Twins conjoined, sharing vital organs, must be part of God’s originally “very good” creative work?  You have God driving an ambulance, my friend.  If nothing in man’s nature changed in the fall, then our nature is as God created it and gave the attribution of “very good.”  Look, I’m no physiologist, but I wished God would have consulted someone on design tips; or, at least mention to him that Mitochondrial Myopathy isn’t the best idea for babies.  “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies” (Ps. 58:3), and this is “very good”?!?.  

Thirdly, I would like to take one more stab at your symmetrical view of Romans 5:18 again.  Look at Romans 5:17.  The condemnation to all men in v. 18 comes to “all men,” meaning those in whom death reigned (v. 17).  The justification that comes to “all men” in v. 18 comes to “those who receive…the free gift of righteousness.”  Romans 5:18 does not apply to the same scope simply because it uses the same words.  Consider this example: “Just as the Declaration of Independence tells us that God has created all people with certain unalienable rights, so too the U.S. Bill of Rights guarantees the rights of all people without respect to race, creed, or religion.”  In this example, “all people” who are created with unalienable rights includes every person who is part of the class of humanity.  The U.S. Bill of Rights only guarantees the rights of U.S. citizens.  So this example demonstrates that the two are not necessarily the same class of people.  The question now becomes, who is Paul talking about?  Paul is talking about “all men” in whom death reigned and “all men” who receive the free gift.  The whole point is not to emphasize the “allness,” but to emphasize the coming of the condemnation and justification, respectively.  The “all” simply underscores the certainty of the coming justification to anyone and everyone who receives Christ.  Moreover, verse 18 is a conclusion to a fuller argument (hence, the “wherefore”).  As such, it is altogether conditioned by the premises in the preceding verses.  And as for the asymmetrical interpretation, please stop avoiding Paul’s emphatic language: αλλ ουχ ως (“but not like,” v. 15); και ουχ ως (“and not like,” v. 16); πολλω μαλλον (“much more,” v. 17); υπερεπερισσευσεν (“did much more abound,” v. 20).  All of these stress the asymmetry of the correspondence between Adam’s and Christ’s work. 

Thank you for reconsidering the problems with your perspective on this crux issue.

Blessings and light to you,

Kevin

_____________________________________

Hello Kevin,

Good to hear from you. After reconsidering my perspective, I still fail to see the “problems” you mention. My suggestion that Adam was separated from the Tree of Life and that is the cause of death was met by you with the statement: “I think this purely biotic interpretation of the fall is absurd...” but I noticed you did not do anything with God’s statement that if Adam could still eat of the Tree of Life, then he would have still lived forever. While it is true that something fundamentally changed in Adam’s spiritual condition with God due to his choice to sin, it is not true that something fundamentally changed in the spiritual condition of his descendants due to his sin. So, yes, we both agree that the death of infants is due to Adam’s sin, but we greatly differ as to the reason for that death. You are suggesting that there is a fundamental spiritual nature that was altered in such as way that sin marred not only Adam’s spiritual nature, but also the spiritual nature of his descendants. I am suggesting that if his descendants could have eaten from the Tree of Life, they would have lived forever, and there was nothing fundamentally different about their spiritual nature than there was from Adam’s when he was created. Now, I’m sorry that all this is perplexing you. That certainly was never my intent. In answer to your statement that “we must conclude that the human condition is right where God left it,” that simply is not the case. Adam’s sin caused physical consequences that were felt by his descendants for the rest of human history, just as a father who beats his son can cause physical consequences to the child but not spiritual consequences. While separation from the Tree of Life resulted in physical death, disease, etc, it had no effect on the purity or innocence of the spiritual condition of Adam’s descendants. Notice that the maladies you mentioned are all physical. Sure, Adam’s sin brought in harmful physical effects. But you can no more blame God for these effects than you can blame God for the harmful physical effects of an abusive father. While it is true that negative physical effects were not part of God’s original “very good” creation, it is not true that such effects have any bearing on the spiritual nature of Adam’s descendants.  Also, your statement: “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies” (Ps. 58:3), and this is “very good”?!?. Is a statement taken from Old Testament poetry and was never meant to be taken literally. The wicked certainly are not born “speaking lies” any more than they are born quoting Shakespeare. And if we wanted to quote poetry like that, we could see that the righteous man trusts in God “from his mother’s womb” (Psalm 22:9-10).

As for the discussion of Romans 5, I guess I’m not understanding your confusion about my answer. Let me try again. Let’s look at Verse 19, which says: “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” Now, if I understand you correctly, you are contending that through Adam’s sin many “were made sinners” by no choice of their own, they were simply born that way. But notice that the verse makes Jesus’ sacrifice as efficacious as Adam’s sin. So, in order to maintain that Adam’s sin caused many to be sinners “without any thought or choice of their own” then we would be forced to conclude that Jesus’ sacrifice caused many to be made righteous “without any thought or choice of their own,” which is not the case. So, here is what is being said. Adam’s sin had spiritual consequences that were felt by all who chose to sin in the same way Adam did and Jesus’ sacrifice has spiritual consequences for all who chose to obey Jesus. The spiritual consequences of Adam’s sin are no more/less universal than the spiritual consequences of Jesus’ sacrifice.

Sincerely,
Kyle Butt

_____________________________________

Kyle,

Before we go any further, I need to ask you a related but non-textual question.  Have you lost a little one close to you, perhaps a child of your own or a younger sibling?  If so, I can better understand your tenacity to cling to your position in the teeth of evidence otherwise.  Still, I would suggest (in fact, argue) that you needn’t throw off certain (several, in fact) orthodox teachings of Scripture, such as original corruption.  It leads you headlong into various Platonic dualisms that are foreign to the text and has historically been the seedbed of heresies.  Moreover, your Pelagian convictions have been long ago condemned as heresy.  If your exegesis is driven by your personal bereavement, then I could at least understand your motives a little better.  The fact is, though, that accepting that children are born with a corrupt nature does not preclude the extension of God’s saving mercies in Christ being applied to their account.  There are a many evangelicals who maintain an orthodox anthropology yet are convinced that all infants that die enjoy the benefits of Christ and heaven.

I believe that one of the primary reasons that we continue to talk past each other stems from our differing presuppositions.  The obvious are your Pelagian convictions, which I view as heresy; mine are Calvinistic, which I’m sure you view as heretical. In your last email, your metaphysical dualist view was transparent.  I don’t believe for a second that the Bible teaches such.  Rather, the dualism is a provisional one (or an eschatological one, in several places).  The biblical view of man is, I argue, a metaphysical wholism.  That is, in his original probationary state in Adam, in Christ, and in the new creation, man is viewed as a whole being, a psychosomatic unity.  Any disconnect that exists between man’s material and immaterial, his physical and spiritual aspects is considered an abnormal condition that entered through sin.  This makes perfect sense when we consider the relational alienation that was caused by the fall: man was alienated from God, his fellows, his environment, and even himself.  This wholism, I believe, comes from Jerusalem, from Solomon’s Portico, whereas your Platonic view comes from Athens, from the Academy; the former is Hebraic (i.e., biblical), the latter is Greek (i.e., pagan).  Therefore, every passage one lobs at the other will inevitably be interpreted through the lens of his respective pre-commitment to one or the other of these fundamental anthropological presuppositions.  Interestingly, I believe this fact could be teased out even further through a discussion about the nature and properties of the tree of life. 

Your refusal to let a verse be conditioned and qualified by its surrounding context is frustrating.  Paul plainly tells us who the “all” and the “many” are; they are all of those represented by either of the two heads.  One class is all those in Adam; the other class is all those in Christ.  Yes; the effects and benefits of each head is imputed universally to each and every member of their class.  The classes, however, are exclusive.  Thus, the universal scope of each head’s effects is relative to the class represented by that head.  And, again, the asymmetrical correspondence is emphatically stated by Paul in the text.  Frankly, I don’t think that this view is difficult to grasp epistemically.  Yours seems to be more a psychological difficulty; it’s not that you can’t understand it, but won’t.  Accepting the exposition argued by myself (and orthodox historical theology) would lead you headlong into a number of blunders and contradictions, which conflict with your more fundamental commitments to a view that is foreign to the Bible as a whole. 

As an aside, I do in fact read the trust of the righteous man upon God in Ps 22 as literal, since it is a messianic psalm, speaking of Jesus’ always-present trust and reliance on the Father’s will.  Biblical poetry does often contain hyperbole, totality of polarity, and other tropes.  However, this in nowise precludes the possibility of poetry communicating literal, propositional truth through elevated language and verse. 

Thank you for your time.  I pray God give you grace to hear his voice.

Kevin

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 

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