Let's face it, the difference between Calvinism and non Calvinism is centered on the effects of the "fall" upon mankind. What do Baptists traditionally hold on this subject? I have found several interesting articles that might surprise many here. Here is the first from Dr. J. W. "Jack" MacGorman;
Source- http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/pe...nevitably-leading-to-heresy-if-not-worse.html
Source- http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/pe...nevitably-leading-to-heresy-if-not-worse.html
"Few names in the 100-year history of Southwestern Seminary have been any more prominently or effectively associated with Southwestern than Dr. and Mrs. J.W. MacGorman… For this reason, and many more, Southwestern is delighted to announce that the new chapel will carry their name…Baptists have always been about the task of honoring, reading and expounding the New Testament. As a professor of New Testament and Greek for more than 50 years, Dr. MacGorman became the epitome of what this seminary is about…” (//link)
Hence, to question the magnitude of academic ministry and effective scholarship of this Southern Baptist giant seems entirely out of the question.
Of the many writings and lectures MacGorman produced, I cite two sources he penned in 1976 and 1980, respectively—Romans: Everyman’s Gospel and Layman’s Bible Book Commentary: Romans, 1 Corinthians Vol 20.7 The citations concern Paul’s words in Romans 5:12-21 (particularly his comments concerning inherited sinful guilt vs. inherited sinful nature):
Romans: Everyman’s Gospel
(1976, pp 77-84, all emphasis added):
“No passage in this letter is more difficult to understand than Romans 5:12-21. No passage has suffered a greater distortion at the hands of its interpreters.”
“To these difficulties in the passage itself, translators and interpreters have added their own misunderstandings of Paul's meaning. The following items will provide examples of what is intended by this statement:
1. The Vulgate, a fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible, wrongly translated the last clause of Romans 5:12. Where the Greek text has, "Because all men sinned," the Vulgate rendered, "In whom all sinned." Adam was regarded as the unnamed antecedent of "in whom."
2. Upon the basis of this translation error in the Vulgate, Augustine (a.d. 354-430) developed his doctrine of original sin. He taught that all men were seminally present in the loins of Adam when he sinned. Thus he held that the whole human race sinned in Adam's sin. By virtue of our physical descent from Adam, we inherit his guilt. We are born guilty of original sin, according to Augustine. …
3. In the seventeenth century Johann Cocceius proposed a different theory of original sin. He taught that God entered into a covenant with Adam as the federal head of the human race. If Adam obeyed God, all mankind would receive eternal life; but if he disobeyed, all would be condemned to corruption and death. Since Adam sinned, God imputed his sin to all his descendants. This has been called the Federal Theory of Original Sin or the Theory of Condemnation by Covenant. It has influenced greatly the churches of the Reformed tradition. However, there is not one shred of evidence in the Bible that God ever entered into such a covenant with Adam. The theory was born in Europe, not Eden.
4. Many interpreters of Romans 5:12-21 have tended to ignore both its general and immediate context in the letter. In Romans 1:18 to 3:20 Paul set forth his doctrine of sin. Here he showed how all men, Gentiles and Jews alike, have become guilty, because all men have sinned (3:9, 19, 23). Human guilt derives from human sin; it is not inherited. Men are guilty because they have sinned, not because they were born.”
“No interpretation of Romans 5:12-21 that obscures or refutes the plain teaching of Romans 1:18 to 3:20 can be correct. Is it not interesting that Paul managed to demonstrate the guiltiness of all men in this earlier passage without any reference to Adam?”
Layman’s Bible Book Commentary:
Romans, 1 Corinthians Vol 20
(1980, pp.52-56)
“We want to know how men were made sinners by Adam's disobedience. Was it because all men were seminally present in the loins of Adam when he sinned, and thus inherited his guilt (Augustine)? Was it because Adam as the federal head of the race cast the wrong vote in Eden, and so rendered all men guilty before God (Cocceius)? We must affirm that there is no evidence for either of these theories of original sin in this passage. Indeed a study of both Genesis 3:1-24 and Romans 5:12-21 reveals that neither passage explains how the effects of Adam’s sin were transmitted to his descendants.”
“We know that the death of Christ on the cross does not automatically grant all men a right standing with God. In Romans 3:24-25 Paul made plain that Christ's accomplishment on the cross avails for us only upon the basis of our faith in him. We do not inherit salvation because of what Christ has done. Rather by God's grace we receive salvation through faith in Christ.
We do not inherit salvation through Christ's obedience apart from our personal involvement in faith. Nor do we inherit condemnation through Adam’s disobedience apart from our personal involvement in sin. Neither salvation nor guilt can be inherited.”
Given the quotes above from one of Southern Baptists’ most eminent New Testament scholars, we may safely make three simple inferences.
First, the embolden pronouncements8 coming from many Reformed Baptists concerning an alleged “danger” existing in denying the “clear” words of the Apostle Paul in Romans 5:12 which supposedly reveals “inherited guilt,” pronouncements making outrageous insinuations about leading to “true heresies” is so fundamentally skewed and wrong-headed it almost takes my breath away. Young men slobbering all over themselves about “clarity” in a passage when New Testament scholars who’ve taught in our seminaries over a half-century describe the same text as a text about which no passage either remains “more difficult to understand” or suffered “greater distortion” at the hands of its interpreters can be found, should concern every church in the Southern Baptist Convention. Pastor! What under the blue heavens have you been teaching your people?! We’ve got a serious, serious crisis here.
Second, Dr. Harwood’s view concerning inherited sinful nature but not imputed sinful guilt stands squarely in the mainstream of Southern Baptist theology as Dr. MacGorman clearly reveals. Rather than embracing a dangerous, innovative, unorthodox position, young Harwood's exegetical conclusions match perfectly those of a seasoned New Testament scholarly veteran. Consequently, those who judge Harwood of embracing an “unorthodox” position creating “danger” for the church need look no further than what has precisely been taught in New Testament exegesis at Southwestern seminary for the last half century. Carefully read MacGorman’s lips:
Human guilt derives from human sin; it is not inherited. Men are guilty because they have sinned, not because they were born.
If there is a problem with Harwood’s position, somebody needs to tell Dr. MacGorman since, for the last 50+ years, he’s apparently also constituted a danger to the Christian church by teaching views which fly in the face of Scripture, make humans self-autonomous, maintain a self-contradictory position, open the door to unorthodox heresies such as universalism, and views which, in essence, constitute another gospel.
The absurdity of such circumstances as we find ourselves in presently can hardly be imagined. It really becomes personally discouraging to me to see men (many of whom are pastors) who have no more depth of who we are and have been as Southern Baptists than what can only be described as burgeoning ignorance. Far too many reveal an unforgivable chasm of knowledge about our rich heritage, and I fear it may just be too late for us to recover. And frankly, were it not for some young scholars like Harwood, all hope would be lost for Southern Baptists to retain our rich, historic theological identity.
Third, Dr. MacGorman avers:
“This [imputed sinful guilt] has been called the Federal Theory of Original Sin or the Theory of Condemnation by Covenant. It has influenced greatly the churches of the Reformed tradition. However, there is not one shred of evidence in the Bible that God ever entered into such a covenant with Adam. The theory was born in Europe, not Eden.”
Too often we’re told the theories of the Reformed position come strictly from biblical exegesis rather than traditionally Reformed assumptions. Scholars like Dr. MacGorman help us see through this thin veneer and stay close to exegetical theology rather than theological exegesis. Contrary to popular opinion, we're people of the book, not people of confessions.
And, as MacGorman demonstrates, Adam Harwood’s position, similar if not identical to his scholarly conclusions during a 50+ year academic career, builds on a firm allegiance to Scripture alone.
