Author Archives: John Samson

Active Obedience In Baptist History

Posted on by

Article “The Active Obedience of Christ: An Intrusion into Baptist Life?” by John Aloisi

Occasionally, some well meaning Baptists have asserted that belief in both the active and passive obedience of Christ as the ground of our justification is something foreign to Baptist life—perhaps something picked up from the Gospel Coalition, the now inactive T4G, or some other evangelical organization of recent vintage. But is this true? And more specifically, is this understanding of the active obedience of Christ something new to Baptist life or is it rather something that many Baptists have affirmed from the early decades of Baptist history?

Particular Baptists

In 1677, Particular Baptists in London produced a confession of faith that summarized the views they held in common with each other and, to a large extent, with other Protestants. Following the Act of Toleration (1688/89), messengers from more than one hundred Baptist churches in England and Wales approved and published this confession, now known as the Second London Baptist Confession (1689). In this confession, Particular Baptists affirmed the traditional view of the active obedience of Christ in several places. For example, they wrote, “The Lord Jesus by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself…hath fully satisfied the Justice of God” (LBC 8.5).

A few chapters later, these early Baptists more explicitly affirmed that God justifies sinners “by imputing Christ’s active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith” (LBC 11.1). And they further explained, “Christ by his obedience, and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are justified…his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead” (LBC 11.3). In using this language, the Particular Baptists were expressing their essential agreement with both Presbyterians (Westminster Confession) and Congregationalists (Savoy Declaration) concerning the active obedience of Christ. However, interestingly, on this point, Baptists were even more explicit in distinguishing between Christ’s active and passive obedience and directly affirming the imputation of the active obedience of Christ than the Presbyterians were (esp. 11.1).

General Baptists

Particular Baptists were not the only early Baptists to affirm the active obedience of Christ. In 1678 General Baptists living in England drew up a doctrinal statement of their own. And much like the Particular Baptists, they also asserted that the righteousness secured by the active obedience of Christ is imputed to believers.

They affirmed: “by faith we receive that righteousness that the Law, or the first covenant, required of the first Adam; which righteousness Christ hath fulfilled…by his active obedience” (Orthodox Creed 16). Even these early Baptists, who generally aligned themselves with Arminian theology, affirmed the active obedience of Christ.

Early American Baptists

By 1742 the Philadelphia Confession had become one of the most widely accepted confessions of faith among the Baptists living in Colonial America. In this confession, early American Baptists affirmed that God justifies sinners “by imputing Christ’s active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith” (Philadelphia Confession 11.1). These Colonial Baptists essentially reaffirmed what English Baptists had confessed in the previous century.

More Recent Baptist Voices

In addition to such confessional statements, many Baptist theologians and pastors have taught the traditional view of Christ’s active obedience as well. For example, James Petigru Boyce (1827–1888), founder of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, once wrote, “Our justification is due also to the active obedience of Christ, and not to passive obedience only. …the ground of justification is the whole meritorious work of Christ. Not his sufferings and death only, but his obedience to, and conformity with the divine law are involved in the justification, which is attained by the believer” (Abstract of Systematic Theology 35.2).

On the other side of the Atlantic, Charles Spurgeon (1834–1892) affirmed a similar understanding of justification. Concerning Romans 5:19, Spurgeon declared, “Now this is not Christ’s death merely, but Christ’s active obedience, which is here meant, and it is by this that we are made righteous” (sermon preached April 30, 1865). Spurgeon came to this conclusion not because he was influenced by the Gospel Coalition or some other group but because he found it in the text of Scripture.

In more recent years, Baptist theologians such as Wayne Grudem and John Piper have similarly argued for the traditional view of the active and passive obedience of Christ (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 570–71; Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ, 123–24).

Conclusion

From this quick survey, it seems clear that many Baptists have affirmed the traditional view of the active obedience of Christ, and they have done so since the 1600s when modern Baptist history began. This understanding of Christ’s active obedience is not something foreign to Baptist theology, and it is certainly not something of recent origin. Rather, it is a doctrine that has been embraced by our Baptist forebears and included in many of their confessions of faith. Theoretically, one might object that the reason so many early Baptists affirmed the active obedience of Christ was because they were not dispensationalists. While it is true that the Baptists cited above did not embrace dispensationalism, a number of dispensationalists have held the traditional view of Christ’s active obedience as well. If you have been clicking the links above, you may have noticed that the link to the Spurgeon citation takes one to a blog post by Phil Johnson. Though not a Baptist, Phil is a committed dispensationalist, and he posted the quote from Spurgeon about the active obedience of Christ because he agreed with it. Elsewhere, Phil has also presented a very solid biblical and theological argument for the active obedience of Christ. Similarly, Kevin Bauder of Central Baptist Theological Seminary has written affirming belief in “the importance of Christ’s active obedience for the justification of the believer” and pointing out this helpful article on the subject by Justin Taylor

And much closer to home, Rolland McCune, former professor of systematic theology at DBTS, was both a Baptist and a dispensationalist, and for decades he taught the traditional understanding of Christ’s active obedience (McCune, Systematic Theology, 2:198–205). In fact, concerning this issue, McCune wrote, “Any view of the atonement that cannot grant the merit of obedience as well as the just satisfaction of God’s outraged holiness is deficient. It calls into question, however minimally or inadvertently, the necessary, complete, and absolute ethical basis of one’s salvation” (2:201).[1]

While some Baptists have asserted that their fellow Baptists should reject the traditional understanding of Christ’s active obedience, this quick survey of Baptist history suggests that, from seventeenth-century London to twenty-first-century Allen Park, a great number of Baptists have held the traditional view of Christ’s active and passive obedience as the ground of our justification.

[1] Recently, Ryan Meyer and Mark Snoeberger sat down to discuss the question of whether or not belief in the active of obedience of Christ is compatible with dispensationalism. You may want to check it out: https://dbts.edu/captivate-podcast/is-active-obedience-anti-dispensational/.

Three Views On Man’s Condition

Posted on by

1. PELAGIANISM – Salvation is all of man (human monergism)

BELIEF: MAN IS WELL

Named after the British monk Pelagius (354 – 418 A.D.)

Pelagius believed that Adam’s sin affected no one but himself. Those born since Adam have been born into the same condition Adam was in before the Fall, neutral towards sin. Human beings are able to live free from sin if they want to.

Pelagius read one of Augustine’s prayers which upset him greatly. Augustine had prayed “Lord, command what You will and grant what You command.” Pelagius thought that if God commanded something, for Him to remain just, man would need to have the ability to do what God commanded without grace. There would be no need for God to “grant” what He commanded. Augustine defended his view that although God commanded, He needs to grant grace to us so that we can be empowered to do what He commands.

Pelagianism is a humanistic, man centered teaching and while it is very positive, it limits the nature and scope of sin and flatly denies the necessity of God’s grace. Pelagius’ view was condemned as heresy by the Church, as it has no basis in Scripture. However, the view never really went away and is still very prevalent in our own day. As one man said, “we are born Pelagians at heart.” We think we can do anything God commands or achieve salvation without the need for grace.

2. SYNERGISM (through the actions of more than one – cooperation)

BELIEF: MAN IS SICK, EVEN MORTALLY SICK

Observing that if man was as healthy as the optimists say, then surely war, disease, starvation, poverty and such problems we face today would have been eliminated by now. Since such problems have not been fixed, Synergists conclude that something is basically wrong with human nature. Yet, they contend that the situation is not hopeless. Its bad, perhaps even desperate, but not hopeless. We haven’t blown ourselves off the planet yet so there’s no need to call the mortician yet.

Human nature has been damaged by the Fall. The will is NOT enslaved to sin, but is capable of believing in Christ, even prior to regeneration (although not entirely apart from God’s grace). Every sinner retains the ability to choose for or against God, either cooperating with God’s Spirit unto salvation or resisting God’s grace unto damnation.

Election is conditional, determined by individual choice: the only people God has chosen are those whom He already knew would believe. The faith He foresees is not exclusively a divine gift but partly a human decision. Therefore, the ultimate cause of salvation is not God’s choice of the sinner but the sinner’s choice of God.

Under this broad heading of synergism, we have two basic schools of thought:

A. SEMI-PELAGIANISM – which teaches that man initiates, God helps.

“… Divine grace is indispensable for salvation, but it does not necessarily need to precede a free human choice, because, despite the weakness of human volition, the will takes the initiative toward God.” R. Kyle (Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

B. ARMINIANISM – which teaches that God initiates by offering grace, and that mankind either does or does not cooperate with that grace.

This belief, though quite popular in our day, would still be classed as synergistic because regeneration takes place through the cooperation of man with God’s grace.

3. AUGUSTINIANISM (Reformed) – God saves by His Divine power alone (Divine monergism)

BELIEF: MAN IS DEAD

Each of the members of the Trinity are at work in the salvation of sinners. God the Father elects a people for salvation, Jesus the Son redeems them in His atoning work on the cross, and God, the Holy Spirit, regenerates them, bringing them to life.

Lazarus, being a lifeless corpse in the tomb, did not cooperate with Christ with regard to his own resurrection. Jesus simply cried out “Lazarus come forth!” and this call was powerful and sufficient in and of itself to bring dead Lazarus back to life. Christ did not interview the dead man Lazarus and ask if he would like to be resurrected, and once he got the “all clear” went ahead with his plan, now having obtained Lazarus’ permission and assent. Nor did Lazarus, once brought back to life, immediately take Jesus to court in attempt to sue him for violating his free will – his libertarian rights as a dead man to stay dead! No, for the rest of his earthly life, Lazarus was deeply grateful for the unspeakable mercy he had received from the Master.

This is a beautiful picture of what God does in our regeneration from spiritual death. Man, once receiving this grace of regeneration, then infallibly responds in faith to the effectual call of God.

I believe this is the biblical description regarding the state of man before he is regenerated. He is “dead in trespasses and sins.” (Eph. 2:1).

Augustinianism is named after Saint Augustine of the 5th Century A.D.. As far as his relationship to God is concerned, man is a lifeless corpse, unable to make a single move toward God, or even respond to God, unless God first brings this spiritually dead corpse to life. Although spiritually dead, it is a strange death since he is nevertheless up and about actively practicing sin. He is what horror stories call a zombie – dead but walking around. This is a fair description of what Paul says about human nature in its lost condition. Apart from Jesus Christ, these sinning human corpses are the living dead. Man’s will is enslaved (John 8:34).

Man has a will, most definitely, but this will never wants God (Rom. 3:11; Rom. 8:7), without the direct and gracious intervention of God. The sinner actively practices evil. He is also by nature an object of God’s wrath (Eph. 2:3). BUT GOD, who is rich in mercy…. even when we were dead… made us alive (by grace you have been saved)… (Eph. 2:4, 5)

This truth is demonstrated in many passages in scripture, but perhaps the clearest is Ephesians 2:1-10. Colossians 2:13 also states, “When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him…”

Notice that both in Ephesians 2:5, and Colossians 2:13, it was when we were dead that God made us alive. Not one mention is made of our role in all this, such as, “when you were dead, you decided to cooperate with God’s grace, and He then raised you…” I don’t know how the Apostle Paul could have taught Divine monergism more clearly. It was when we were dead that God made us alive.

The classic issue between Augustinian theology and all forms of semi-Pelagianism focuses on one aspect of the order of salvation (ordo salutis): What is the relationship between regeneration and faith? Is regeneration a monergistic or synergistic work? Must a person first exercise faith in order to be born again? Or must rebirth occur before a person is able to exercise faith? Another way to state the question is this: Is the grace of regeneration operative or cooperative?

Monergistic regeneration means that regeneration is accomplished by a single actor, God. It means literally a “one-working.” Synergism, on the other hand, refers to a work that involves the action of two or more parties. It is a co-working. All forms of semi-Pelagianism assert some sort of synergism in the work of regeneration. Usually, God’s assisting grace is seen as a necessary ingredient, but it is dependent on human cooperation for its efficacy.

Dr. R. C. Sproul writes: “The Reformers taught not only that regeneration does precede faith but also that it must precede faith. Because of the moral bondage of the unregenerate sinner, he cannot have faith until he is changed internally by the operative, monergistic work of the Holy Spirit. Faith is regeneration’s fruit, not its cause.

According to semi-Pelagianism regeneration is wrought by God, but only in those who have first responded in faith to him. Faith is seen not as the fruit of regeneration, but as an act of the will cooperating with God’s offer of grace.

Evangelicals are so called because of their commitment to the biblical and historical doctrine of justification by faith alone. Because the Reformers saw sola fide as central and essential to the biblical gospel, the term evangelical was applied to them. Modern evangelicals in great numbers embrace the sola fide of the Reformation but have jettisoned the sola gratia that undergirded it.”

Packer and Johnston assert:

“‘Justification by faith only’ is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia. What is the source and status of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received, or is it a condition of justification which is left to man to fulfill? Is it a part of God’s gift of salvation, or is it man’s own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who say the latter (as the Arminians later did) thereby deny man’s utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder, then, that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principle a return to Rome (because in effect it turned faith into a meritorious work) and a betrayal of the Reformation (because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the Reformers’ thought). Arminianism was, indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favour of New Testament Judaism; for to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other. In the light of what Luther says to Erasmus, there is no doubt that he would have endorsed this judgment.”

Augustinianism removes all ground for boasting, demolishes all human pride and exalts God’s grace as the sole efficient cause of a sinner’s salvation. As Jonah 2:9 says, “Salvation is of the Lord.” Therefore, the glory for it goes to God, and to God alone.

So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. – Rom. 9:16

The KJV – Six Common Misconceptions

Posted on by

Article by Jeremiah Knight

Here are the 6 common misconceptions or false beliefs about the King James Version (KJV).

1. The KJV was the first English translation of the Bible.

The KJV was not the first, but the tenth English translation of the Bible.

1. Wycliffe’s Bible (1388)

2. Tyndale’s Bible (1516)

3. Coverdale’s Bible (1535)

4. Matthew’s Bible (1537)

5. Taverner’s Bible (1539)

6. The Great Bible (1540)

7. The Geneva Bible (1560)

8. The Bishop’s Bible (1568)

9. The Douay-Rheims Version (1609)

10. The King James Version (1611)

2. The KJV was authorized by God.

The belief that the KJV was authorized by God to be translated is just an assumption with no biblical basis. The KJV was called the “Authorized Version (AV)” because its translation was approved and mandated by King James I, and it was appointed to be read in churches. This was stated in the original title page of the KJV:

THE HOLY BIBLE

Containing the Old and New Testaments

Translated out of the Original Tongues

And with the Former Translations

Diligently Compared and Revised

BY HIS MAJESTY’S SPECIAL COMMAND

APPOINTED TO BE READ IN CHURCHES

3. The King James is always true to the literal words of the Hebrew and Greek texts.

While the King James Version is generally a very literal translation, it is not always literal in all of its renderings. In Luke 20:16 and Romans 3:4, the KJV paraphrased the Greek “me genoito” (“may it never be”) into “God forbid”. And in Matthew 27:44 the Greek “oneididzon auton”(“they reviled him”) was paraphrased by the KJV into “cast the same in his teeth”.

4. The KJV is a perfect translation.

There is no such thing as a perfect translation. The only perfect texts of the Bible were the texts that came from the hands of the Biblical writers written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Perfect translation is not possible because of the nature of language. Receptor languages, such as English, can’t always reflect perfectly the concepts or meanings of the Greek and Hebrew words. And in some cases the meaning of Hebrew and Greek words are difficult to decipher. Translations are just approximations to the original text. The goal of each translation is to be closer as much as possible to the message of the original text, that’s why translations are continually revised to be more accurate. The King James Bible was not exempt from revisions. There were four major revisions of the KJV (1629, 1638, 1762, 1769) and more than twenty minor revisions. The changes in these revisions are due to not only printing errors or spelling standardization, but also to textual or translation errors.

5. The KJV is a better translation than the modern versions.

The truth is, modern versions are much better than the KJV. The KJV is not a readable version compare to many modern versions because of its archaisms and obscure literal renderings. The KJV was based on late and inferior Greek texts while the modern versions are based upon much older and much more reliable Greek texts. The so-called omissions in the NIV and other modern versions is not a conspiracy nor a malicious intent to distort the Bible, but it’s due to variation in the Greek manuscripts. There are Greek manuscripts that have those verses and there are also Greek manuscripts that do not have those verses. This happened because of scribal copying errors, alterations or emendations. Through the science of textual criticism it is possible to determine with high accuracy which variant is reliable or not.

6. The KJV translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

There are Christians who believe that the KJV translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit in the same manner as the biblical writers. But this is denied by the translators themselves. In the original preface to the King James Version of 1611 the translators admitted that their work was not perfect and not on a par with the inspired authors of Scripture. There were instances where the translators were not absolutely sure of the original reading of the Greek or Hebrew text and they indicated that in the margin with textual variant notes.

Those who believe that the KJV translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit must use a King James Bible with Apocryphal books because the translators, who were mostly Anglicans, added these books in their original translation. The Apocrypha was a part of the King James Bible for 274 years, until 1885 when the British and Foreign Bible Societies excluded them from the revised version.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.