Leithart on Pentecost as Salvation and Judgment

Scot McKnight (A Community Called Atonement, 75-6) observes that the prophecy of Joel 2 that is fulfilled at Pentecost is a prophecy of political catastrophe. Pentecost, he concludes is both justification - “God’s act of justifying and making His judgment clear” by the gift of the Spirit that creates a community where God’s will is done - and a “judgment on the unjust rulers of this age.” Read more here.

What Does John 6:44 Really Mean?

The verse begins, “No man…” (Gk. οὐδείς).  This is what is called a universal negative, which means that every member of the class is excluded.  What, then, is negated with reference to all humanity?  Well, it is “can” (δύναμαι).  This term denotes ability.  Consider the BDAG definition, the standard of Greek lexicons: “to possess the capability (whether because of personal or external factors) for experiencing or doing something.”  So, what do we have thus far?  You could say it many ways.  But simply put it means that no person has the ability or capability to experience or do something, namely what follows in the verse—“come.”

Therefore, as it is, John 6:44—so far—means that no person (universally) has the capability to come to Jesus.  This seems to lead to a dire circumstance.  Thankfully, there is an exception.

That exception is “except” or “unless” (ἐὰν μή).  This conjunctive particle prepares the way for a condition.  Hence, no person has the capability of coming to Christ, unless...something.  That something is, if and only if the “Father who sent me draws him.”  So, the Father’s drawing is the only condition that excepts humanity’s universal inability to come to Christ. 

The term “draw” (ἕλκω) cannot be reduced, as is often done by Arminians, to mean “woo” or charm or some such thing.  It connotes an external force of power with the passivity of the object.  For example, “Simon Peter went up, and drew (ἕλκω) the net to land full of great fishes” (Jn. 21:11). “Do not rich men oppress you, and draw (ἕλκω) you before the judgment seats?” (Jas. 2:6).  “They caught Paul and Silas, and drew (ἕλκω) them into the marketplace unto the rulers” (Acts 16:19).  “And all the city was moved…and they took Paul, and drew (ἕλκω) him out of the temple” (21:30).  You see, then, it is not by the power of the object of ἕλκω that is intended but its subject, according to biblical usage. 

Therefore, John 6:44 means that no person has the capability of coming to Christ, except or unless the condition of the Father’s drawing occurs.  Who, though, does the Father draw?  According to Jesus in John 6:37, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”  “All” indicates another universal.  In this case, it is a universal affirmative rather than negative, as in v. 44.  All of those given by the Father to the Son will come.  Therefore, to state it negatively, none of those who do not come were given of or drawn by the Father to the Son.  Therefore, all and only those given to the Son by the Father (i.e., the elect) will come to Christ, which God makes possible by doing that which is humanly impossible, giving them the ability to come, thus drawing them.  That is what John 6:44 means, which is exactly what many claim, “No, it does not.” 

Some respond by invoking John 6:45, “It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall be all taught of God.' Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”  In so doing, they want the word “all” to ring in the ear.  This is a citation of Isaiah 53:14, however, which was originally and exclusively spoken to Israel, the elect, which confounds their case.  Moreover, it is begging the question.  What is the antecedent for “they” in v. 45?  It is the “given” ones of v. 37, the “drawn” ones of v. 44.  Therefore, it is fallacious in the highest degree to appeal to v. 45 to tell us who those are in v. 44, since v. 44, according to the most basic principles of grammar and hermeneutics, tells us who those in v. 45 are—the elect.  

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