Could This Soteriological Innovation Save the SBC?
About Dave Miller
Dave Miller serves as senior pastor of Southern Hills Baptist Church in Sioux City, Iowa, and editor of SBC Voices. He served as President of the 2017 SBC Pastors’ Conference. He is a graduate of Palm Beach Atlantic College (now University) and SWBTS. He served churches in Florida and Virginia before returning to Iowa, where he grew up, in 1991, and has served two churches there. Twitter
Nope!
It is unAmerican to question BACON!
It’s Un-American to ruin bacon. :o)
Dressing the “Tulip” in “Bacon” won’t make it any more palatable than before.
Mmmmm. Bacon. uuugggghhhh.
What were we talking about?
Absolutely! If we can’t rally around BACON, all hope is lost.
If bacon can’t solve it, then there is no hope…
A rose by any other name smells as sweet. . . or as whatever.
The “A” is what will be the initial catching point for Arminians, and it seems to me the remaining letters do not do justice to the Calvinist positions of limited atonement or irresistible grace. My suspicion is that if promoted–assuming this not not just fluff (which I suspect it is)–you will be accused of being less than honest and forthcoming about what Calvinism really believes. And I say this as one who is not particularly enamored with 16th century theology of either flavor.
John
A is the problem? Really? Bummer. I didn’t see it as Dumbing down what Calvinist’s believe but as a way to say, can you agree with us this far? When Dave says “could this save the SBC” (I mean its obviously silly) but it semms he’s aiming at common ground.
So if we Tweak the “A” to something more along the lines of foreknowledge instead of election then maybe they’ll go for it! Maybe?
Otherwise, I’m working on a CASSEROLE acrostic.
How many Arminians do you know who could go for “Already Elected” any more than they go for “Unconditional Election”?
As I said, I am not in love with any 16th Century theology, be it Calvinism or Arminianism. They both require presuppositions that are consistent with the Enlightenment and European philosophy of the post 1500s, but not necessarily with the Ancient Middle East. And I do not really like the idea of “foreknowledge,” because it implies that God is somehow bound by time, or at least bound in time. We experience time in a linear fashion, but I suspect God does not. After all, if He is the Lord of All, then He is also the Lord of Time, and can and does experience it differently from us. So while from our perspective, He knows “the future,” from His perspective, it has already happened. To speak of His “foreknowledge” implies that time is a universal constant, and if a universal constant, it is a framework He is required to work within. That does not seem consistent with what the Bible reveals about God, at least to me.
John
Lettuce rejoice!
It may be a baconbit too soon
If only we could come up with a “fried chicken” a acrostic. It would be approved in a moment!
I was busy working on a GREEN BEAN CASSEROLE acrostic…
I might get on board with that!
john
I’m just worried about the hyper-baconists who don’t believe in sharing their bacon with others.
If you are supposed to have bacon, it will appear on your plate!
Campus Crusade may have to revise their four spiritual laws… “God loves you, and has a wonderful meat for your breakfast…”
That’s an idea right there.
“Never falling away”.
I fall away all the time. But He comes after me as He does the lost sheep.
Sheep wander away, constantly. That is why they need a Shepherd. Will He lose us? No. Could we lose ourselves? Jesus warns us against that in the Bible.
I don’t like all of the eternal security talk because may lead people to taking all of this for granted. It fosters a sense where the Christian faith is like a business deal, a contract, rather than a living relationship.
We do have the assurance of our salvation, but we don’t ever want to take it for granted.
He has saved our bacon, and that’s good enough for me :D.
Now there’s a theology we can really sink our teeth into….er, sorry.
I don’t think this idea is going to fry
REASON: it’s definitely not kosher
Dave,
In church today I was preoccupied with the assurance of salvation by the word “begotten”. In 1 Peter 1:3-5 it says, “Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” Begotten means, “brought into being” and the same word is used in John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only BEGOTTEN Son…….” I know your “N” has merit because we have been BEGOTTEN of God.
Amen.
I prayed the Bacon prayer this morning and I got turkey bacon. I need to improve my prayer life.
Please credit Jules La Pierre for making this excellent graphic!
https://www.facebook.com/BACONItsTheNewTULIP/posts/248793505236447
I had a BLT at Camelia Grill in the French Quarter last week. Oh. My. Goodness. It was unreal. Piles of thick,crispy bacon, lettuce, tomato, mayonnaise, on wheat bread. Wow.
It happened after the vote on the resolution on unity in the gospel, though, so I think it was a sign. Now, this.
Hold the tomato and mayo and I’ll eat it.
If you really want to get approval, I think you’re going to have to fit your theology into the letters BBQ.
Pork BBQ
People chosen
Only by grace
Regenerated by the Spirit
Kept despite ourselves
Beaten into submission
Because I am a wretch
Quieted with the love of God
Okay, the bacon one is better. Back to my day job. Would you like fries with that?
Free grace
Regenerates lives
Imputes Righteousness
Evangelizes the Lost
Seeks the Savior
Yep, I’ll take FRIES with my Pork BBQ.
Everything is better with bacon on it.
I’ve been looking at the post illustration, and it occurred to me that it was ripped off of a poster that hangs in Harvard University’s Porcellian Club . . . a very exclusive social club of elected members who are members for life.
Members carry pig paraphernalia (pig key chains, that sort of thing) and membership is SO EXCLUSIVE that only the ‘right people’ have ever made entry into the distinguished Porcellian.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, while at Harvard, never made the cut, and reportedly stated that this was ‘the greatest disappointment of my life’. Many other famous people never gained entrance into the hallowed halls of the Porcellian . . . Jack Kennedy, of course, was voted down because of his Catholic faith.
Yep. It looks like a Porcellian poster, all right. Now, the question is how did DAVID get a hold of a copy of it?
🙂
It’s been floating around the net for a few weeks, so we just copied it over here. Not sure where it started the run.
Started with this guy: https://twitter.com/bkben3 he’s on IRC and quite surprised at how it’s taken off.
Seeing how we are doing breakfast… How about a large serving of…
GRITS
G – Grate Commission Focused
R – Repentance from Arrogance and Divisiveness
I – Intentional in seeking Unity
T – Total commitment to the BFM2000
S – Sensitive to the Views of Others
I’m familiar with the Great Commission, but what is the “Grate Commission”?
Spreading cheese to the uttermost parts of the earth.
First bacon, and now, cheese.
Who could have a problem with this?
That’s Monty Python’s calling, I believe.
I just saw a bit of a program on bacon on the travel channel last night. And I love bacon. You folks are creating some consuming desires. Definitely a lust of the flesh…and I can even cook bacon!
Jesus wept.
I like this acrostic Dave, very “crisp” though I think we can do better….can’t some one do something with ‘grace’ or ‘saves’ that says the same?
Here are two suggestions for G.R.A.C.E. that I humbly submit:
G ood-for-nothing sinners = Total Depravity
R eserved a people unto Himself based solely on His good pleasure = Unconditional Election
A ctual, not merely potential, atonement = Limited Atonement
C onquering grace is certain to save = Irresistible Grace
E ternal life promised = Perseverance of the Saints
G alatians 3:22/Genesis 6:5 = Total Depravity
R omans 9:11; 11:5 = Unconditional Election
A cts 2:39; 5:31 = Limited Atonement
C olossians 2:13 = Irresistible Grace
E phesians 4:30 = Perseverance of the Saints
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also, Moody Roberts, pastor of Rupert Missionary Baptist Church, came up with the following:
G racious Election
R uined Sinners
A ccomplished Redemption / Absolute Atonement
C ompelling Love
E verlasting Life
Nobody else does, but I like my personally adopted tulip:
Total Depravity – Gen 6:5/Gal 3:22
Unlimited Love – John 3:16/Romans 5:8
Limitless Atonement – John 3:16/2 Cor 5:19
Invitational Grace – Matt 16:24 / Romans 10:13
Perseverance of the Saints – Eph 4:30 / 2 Cor 1:22
Personally, I love the breakfast acrostics, think I want to work on that!!
And in the words of that famous theologian, Forrest Gump -“That’s all I have to say about that.” GRIN
If you look closely at John 3:16, you’ll notice the word “believes.” That word limits the “whosoever.” Jesus died so that whoever believes, not whoever disbelieves, will go to heaven. He did not die so that whoever disbelieves will go to heaven. He died for believers to go to heaven. He died for believers [to go to heaven].
Nick,
I understand everyone is welcomed to an opinion, but grammatically you cannot make a verb modify a noun or pronoun. Whosoever stands by itself grammatically in this subordinate clause.
Whosoever is not “limited” in any way. In the original language it actually means, “whosoever.”
My understanding of the original is that it literally means “all the believing ones.” Not simply “all,” as in: “Jesus died so that all will go to heaven,” but rather, “Jesus died so that all-the-believing-ones, and only the believing ones, will go to heaven.” If you remove the “believing ones” as modifying/limiting the “all,” then you end up with Universalism: Jesus died so that all will go to heaven. People are free to believe that, but that’s not what John 3:16 says. You can’t just toss out “believing ones.”
Please allow me to also point out an important observation from Galatians 2:21 – “…for if…then Christ died in vain.” Paul reveals in this verse a litmus test which he employs to test if a doctrine is true or not (in his day, circumcision was the issue). That litmus test is this: If the presented doctrine results in Christ dying IN VAIN, then that doctrine is necessarily false and must be rejected as such.
Now let me apply that to the view that the atonement was “limitless.” If Christ truly covered the sins of all people, (and I’m assuming you’re not a Universalist), then (barring for the moment a discussion on the reason some end up in hell if Christ truly paid for all of their sins, including their sin of rejection) Christ must have died in vain for those who end up in hell. To Paul, that option would be unthinkable, because it fails the test for any posed doctrine relating to the atonement. For Paul, it is impossible (even if only hypothetically) that Christ could have died in vain (because Christ accomplished the work the Father sent Him to do, and so to say Christ’s death was in vain is really to say the Father’s plan was in vain, and the Scriptures are clear that the plans of the Almighty, Sovereign, Omnipotent, King of the universe are never in vain – Gen. 50:20; Job 23:13; 42:2; Ps. 115:3; 135:6; Pro. 19:21; Ecc. 3:14; Isa. 14:27; 55:11; 46:10-11; Dan. 4:35), and therefore any doctrine that has His Son accomplishing a vain plan (or doing anything in vain, for that matter) is a false doctrine, according to Paul’s litmus test.
The word in question, “pisteu?n” (literally “believing men”), is a participle, and here’s what a Greek Grammar says about participles.
“Although they share some characteristics with infinitives, participles function more like verbal adjectives than nouns. As a verb it has tense and voice, but as an adjective each participle has a specific case, gender, and number too. In fact, they function identically to adjectives in sentences. Like all adjectives, the participle will agree in case, gender, and number with the noun or pronoun it modifies. This precision takes the guess work out of deciding which noun the participle is modifying. Inflectional changes will signify the five aspects of the participle (tense, voice, case, gender, number; see paradigms).
“Frequently participles are preceded by the definite article. When the article is present, the participle will likely be used as a substantive (see ‘substantival use of adjectives’ above).
“In addition to serving as adjectives, participles also function in ways similar to adverbs. In most cases they will qualify the main verb of the sentence. When functioning as adverbs, they are generally anarthrous, i.e., without the Greek article, and they show all of the characteristics exhibited by adverbs. Even in such cases one must not overlook the adjectival force of the participle.
“Since participles have retained characteristics of their verbal root, they may govern cases within a sentence or clause. Furthermore, they can have a subject, a direct object, an indirect object, and be modified like a verb. In these ways the participle functions like a verb.
“Because participles function as adjectives and adverbs, most of the characteristics describing these two parts of speech can be applied to participles.” (The Complete Biblical Library: Introduction to Greek Grammar & Indices)
=========================
As far as the word “whosoever,” I’ve been taught that the Greek has no such word.
Nick,
You are perhaps a superior linguist to myself, so I will not push the syntax issue too far.
I teach Latin, Greek, and Hebrew but at the High School level. So, I could definitely be wrong about how God intended “pas” to be translated.
I can say with some confidence that “believing” does not qualify “pas,” but “pas” qualifies the verbal. You are arguing that the phrase actually means, “some limited group that believes” with “pas” carrying the weight of “some limited.”
I personally know of no grammatical rule of syntax in Greek or English that would support that view.
In fact, all the translation with which I am similar see the entire phrase of “pas ho pisteuon” as being the subject clause for the predicate “not perish but have eternal life.”
The limitation is on how one optains eternal life, not “the size of the group” that is available to receive eternal life. “All” have an opportunity to believe (according to this one verse apart from a larger theological perspective that may bear upon one’s interpretation), and those who “receive” eternal life are that portion that “believes.”
All secondary syntax requires interpretation (and even much primary syntax). I do not see your argument, from a grammatical standpoint (Enlish and/or Greek, or Latin for that matter) to be cut and dry.
Again, I’m no expert so that is my “non-expert opinion.” You have to go beyond the primary syntax to exegete this verse in the manner you do. I’m sure you understand that the other side uses this same verse to prove their point, in part, also.
Frank, you said:
>>I could definitely be wrong about how God intended “pas” to be translated.
“…hina pas ho pisteuon” must be taken together. “Pas” does not stand all by itself. Recently, as you probably are aware, a well-known Southern Baptist preacher hammered the word “Whosoever!” several times, as if it were a complete sentence. It’s not. At best, it’s “whosoever believes.” More accurately, it’s “all the believing ones on Him” or “all who are believing on Him.”
You said:
>>I can say with some confidence that “believing” does not qualify “pas,” but “pas” qualifies the verbal. You are arguing that the phrase actually means, “some limited group that believes” with “pas” carrying the weight of “some limited.”
I don’t deny that “all” tells us how many of the believing ones John 3:16 is referring to. My point was that “believing ones” tells us what the “all” is referring to. It’s not referring to “all trees,” or “all Americans.” Nor is it talking about “all humans.” It’s talking about “all the believing ones.” And because humanity consists of believers and non-believers alike, no matter how wide you make the “pas” of John 3:16, it will never be wider than the number of believers; it will always be a subsection of the whole of humanity. It’s not a limited group of believers, but indeed the entire group of believers, which, nonetheless, happens to be a limited group of the human race. It’s all the believers, to be sure. “All” does refer to the believers, not to the human race. It’s not: “Jesus died for all humans, so that the believers….” It’s: “Jesus died for all the believers, so that they….” But I’m getting ahead of myself. To think that “pas” refers to every single human being, one would be forced to say that every single human being is a believer (because “pas” refers only to believers).
As far as “What modifies what?”, my only point was that “all” (“pas”) cannot be detached from “the believing ones.” We can’t just make up what “all” refers to. It’s not talking about “all trees” or “all Americans,” but rather, “all the believing ones.” “All” is as wide as the Text dictates, and in John 3:16, it’s as wide as “all the believing ones,” however many or few that happens to be.
Necessarily, then, “all” does NOT refer to all the disbelieving ones. To assert that “all” refers to every single human being means, according to the Text, that every single human being is a “believing one.” God has not made me privy to how many humans are believing ones, but I do know that all of them, however many or few they are, will go to heaven, based on John 3:16.
Now, the question naturally arises, What connection is there between God’s Son and “all the believing ones”? The connection question is answered in the Text by the conjunction “hina.” It’s one of purpose. Jesus was sent for the express purpose of ensuring that all the believing ones would not perish but instead have everlasting life. So Jesus’ mission was designed to save all the believing ones. It is a direct connection. Jesus was sent to secure the salvation of all the believing ones. He was not sent to secure the damnation of all the non-believing ones.
Let me emphasize that John 3:16 portrays Jesus as succeeding in what He was sent to do. Whatever a person wants to believe about what Jesus was sent to do, they cannot “tamper” with His 100% success rate that John 3:16 teaches. I point this out because if somebody wants to claim that Jesus died for everybody equally, then they must conclude that Jesus succeeded with all the non-believing ones, just as He succeeded with all the believing ones. (Again, John 3:16 makes no hints of any failures.) So, since Jesus’ success with all the non-believing ones would be identical to the success He has with all the believing ones, then the only conclusion is that Jesus’ atonement was successful at securing the damnation of all the non-believing ones!
You said:
>>In fact, all the translation with which I am similar see the entire phrase of “pas ho pisteuon” as being the subject clause for the predicate “not perish but have eternal life.”
That’s right: all the believing ones will not perish but have everlasting life. Praise God for that fact, and praise God He made us believers!
You said:
>>The limitation is on how one optains eternal life, not “the size of the group” that is available to receive eternal life.
“All the believing ones” is a reference to people, not options (for obtaining eternal life). It doesn’t say “all the options for obtaining eternal life” but “all the believing ones.” The only limitation I see in the Text is the setting aside of a section of humanity who are believers in Christ. This section of humanity had something secured for them which was not secured for the rest (the non-believers). The size of the group is not my concern, nor is it discussed in John 3:16. (Revelation 5:9 gives some idea as to the size.) Whatever size it is, it is. All we know is it is comprised of believers and only believers.
You said:
>>“All” have an opportunity to believe (according to this one verse apart from a larger theological perspective that may bear upon one’s interpretation),
If that is found in John 3:16, please demonstrate where so. John 3:16 does not say, “Jesus died so that all will have an opportunity to believe.” It simply makes the statement that all who do believe will have everlasting life. John 3:16 does not answer the question, “Why do some believe and others don’t?” Nor does it answer the question, “How many are able to believe?” Nor does it answer the question, “Can a man believe prior to being regenerated?”
Second, the rhetorical question posed in Romans 10:14, “How shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?”, expects a negative answer: “They can’t!”
Third, John 12:39 says of certain ones, “they could not believe.”
So if John 3:16 teaches that “all have an opportunity to believe,” then it would be contradicting Romans 10:14 and John 12:39, at the very least.