Original Sin, Inherited Guilt and Baptism

Here's my latest paper I've turned in on humanity. I dealt with the relationship between original sin and baptism and I argued that original sin actually provides one good argument for the believer's baptism position.

Since at least the time of Augustine of Hippo, a connection has been observed between original sin and baptism. Augustine argued for the doctrine of original sin on the basis of the fact that infants were baptized.[1] Calvin taught that through baptism the believer has assurance that “this condemnation [of original sin] has been removed and withdrawn.”[2] Charles Hodge, like Augustine, used the “universal” practice of infant baptism as an argument for original sin.[3] However, more recently this connection has been an argument used by some Baptists against original sin.

Steve Lemke, in a paper arguing against the possibility of salvation apart from conscious personal faith in Christ, argued that children under the “age of accountability” should not be considered sinners. While correct in arguing against pluralist or inclusivist notions of salvation outside of Christianity, Lemke seems to error by denying original sin. He states: “By affirming the age of accountability, Baptists deny that children are guilty upon birth, and thus deny infant baptism.”[4] It appears that Lemke claims that Baptists reject infant baptism because they reject imputed guilt. Further Lemke states, “An alternative proposal that is both more biblical and more logical considers one to be saved or lost only after the age of accountability.”[5] Here Lemke asserts that infants are not born sinners—thus it would appear from these statements that he denies original sin. Lemke’s position seems to assume that if one believes in original guilt that that logically implies the necessity of infant baptism.[6]

The argument of this paper is that the doctrine of original sin does not imply the necessity of infant baptism. Rather, only someone who holds to a sacramental view of baptism should even draw that inference. In contrast, Baptists reject the notion of baptismal regeneration—as evidenced by the Cambellite controversy.[7] If one holds that baptism is a confession of something that has already taken place rather than an efficacious act, then the doctrine of original sin cannot imply the necessity of infant baptism. If baptism has no power to wash away sin, then whether or not infants are born with guilt becomes irrelevant to the baptism question. Therefore, this paper will demonstrate 1) that the doctrine of original sin does not necessarily imply infant baptism logically, 2) that the dominant stream of Baptists has not historically rejected the doctrine of original sin, and 3) that original sin is actually more consistent with the believer baptism position.[8] These three points will sufficiently demonstrate that original sin can and should be held to by theologically consistent Baptists today.

Logical Necessity

Nothing intrinsic within the doctrine of original sin contradicts the fundamental tenants of believer baptism. In fact, neither Augustine nor Hodge framed an argument that it did. In contrast, they both argued for a different relationship between the two concepts. Both Augustine and Hodge state infant baptism as a universally accepted fact, and use that given to argue for original sin.

No Contradiction

It may be necessary at this point to define what is meant by the doctrine of original sin. Charles E. Warren does a helpful service by laying out 5 tenants of the historical doctrine:

(1) God created Adam as literally and historically the first human being in whom was the entirety of human nature and from whom the entire race descended. (2) Adam was created with original holiness, which included the potential for biological immortality. (3) Adam sinned by disobeying the commandment of God. (4) God punished Adam by afflicting him with both spiritual and biological death. (5) Adam’s altered human nature, guilty and condemned, is transmitted to every member of the human race by the process of natural generation.[9]

These doctrines contain nothing that should be a problem for the believer baptism position. The first four tenants are essentially affirmed by all Bible believing Christians and have no bearing at all on the current argument. Yet Warren’s fifth tenant is the matter of controversy which this paper will deal with.

Warren has included in his definition of original sin the concept that guilt and condemnation are now connected with human nature in such a way that all of Adam’s posterity inherits both of them by way of “natural generation.” Does this tenant imply that because of this inherited guilt and condemnation, infants must be baptized to remove their original sin? Of course, this paper will argue the negative response. Inherited guilt and corruption could only imply that infants should be baptized if a person holds that baptism has a sacramental efficacy to wash away sins.

Baptists have always rejected a view of baptism that sees it as efficacious. The Baptist Encyclopedia demonstrates this point by saying, “infants are not the friends of Christ’s kingdom, and they never will be unless they are born of the Spirit of God. Baptism has no tendency to produce a new heart, and its bestowal upon unconscious infants is a senseless and unwise abuse of a blessed ordinance intended only for the Saviour’s friends.”[10] This statement can be useful in formulating a definition of baptism from a Baptist perspective.

The definition that will be used here is: baptism is an ordinance of the church, given at the beginning of the Christian life, symbolizing an event in which a person has already been born again, declaring that the old man has died and has been buried with Christ and that the new man has risen with Christ. This definition presupposes (1) that baptism is not efficacious, but demonstrates what has already happened through the efficacious work of the Spirit of God, (2) that baptism is intended for believers, and (3) that baptism is a visual demonstration of the internal working of God in a person’s heart.

A historically consistent Baptist cannot find any contradiction between original sin and believer baptism. Because of the Baptist definition of the ordinance, such an contradiction is not permitted. To argue that inherited guilt implies infant baptism is an example of the logical fallacy of non-sequiter. Two syllogisms will demonstrate this point:

From the perspective of a Roman Catholic:

Baptism has the efficacy of a sacrament to wash away original sin.

Infants are born with original sin,

Therefore, infants should be baptized.

However, from the perspective of a Baptist:

Baptism has no efficacy in the work itself to wash away any sin.

Infants are born with original sin.

Therefore, baptism will have no affect on original sin one way or the other.

The point is, from the Baptist perspective, original guilt does absolutely nothing to promote infant baptism. Only someone who accepts that baptism has any efficacy should draw the conclusion that what Lemke says is a logical inference from inherited guilt. The argument that Lemke makes can only be sustained if one throws out what Baptists have historically believed about baptism. It is hard to believe that a Baptist, such as Lemke, could even draw such a conclusion.

Historic Argument

As was stated earlier, Augustine had argued for original sin on the basis of infant baptism—not the other way around. This traditional argument continued within paedobaptist thought. Augustine’s argument with Pelagius was over original sin. Pelagius and Augustine both baptized infants—this was not a contested practice for them. Augustine also held to a sacramental view of baptism, but this was not the emphasis of the debate. Augustine argued that if Pelagius was to be consistent with his view that infants are born innocent, then he would have to reject infant baptism as well.[11] Baptism was not the issue in question, because neither Augustine nor Pelagius wanted to give up this sacrament. Elsewhere Augustine stated that the fact that infants should be baptized is what, “the authority of the universal Church everywhere cries out.”[12] He also states, “the rule of the Church indicates” that “it includes baptized infants among the faithful.”[13] The baptism of infants was an accepted fact agreed upon by Pelagius and Augustine—it was not up for debate. Augustine used this accepted agreement to argue for original sin.

Charles Hodge used the same argument. Hodge discusses the relationship between original sin and Baptism not under the topic of Baptism, but under the topic of original sin. He argues within the paedobaptist tradition that since infants are baptized, they must be guilty. If they are guilty it could not be their own actions which have made them guilty; therefore original sin must be what has tainted them. Hodge states,

Baptism is an ordinance instituted by Christ, to signify and seal the purification of the soul, by the sprinkling of his blood, and its regeneration by the Holy Ghost. It can therefore be properly administered only to those who are in a state of guilt and pollution. It is, however, administered to infants, and therefore infants are assumed to need pardon and sanctification. This is the argument which Pelagius and his followers, more than all others, found it most difficult to answer. They could not deny the import of the rite. They could not deny that it was properly administered to infants, and yet they refused to admit the unavoidable conclusion, that infants are born in sin.[14]

Here is another paedobaptist arguing from the accepted practice of infant baptism that original sin must be a necessary implication. According to Dale Moody, this method of arguing for original sin from the accepted fact of infant baptism dates back to the time of Origen.[15] In sum, the argument that original sin necessitates infant baptism turns what has been historically argued by paedobaptists on its head.

Baptist History

Original Sin has been accepted historically by Baptists. This is demonstrated by Baptist statements of faith, as well as from the writings of Baptist theologians. Each of these lines of evidence will show that the dominant stream within Baptist life has historically held to original sin—including original guilt.

Confessions

The 2^nd London Confession was the most enduringly popular confession used among Baptists in the 18^th and 19^th centuries. New confessions during this period were usually considered based upon this one.[16] In the statement on the “Fall of Man, of sin, and the Punishment thereof” it states, “They being the root, and by God’s appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind; the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath.”[17] This Baptist confession explicitly states that guilt is imputed, along with corruption. Clearly the British Particular Baptists (as well as American Baptists subscribing to the Philadelphia Confession of Faith which was essentially the same confession) must have had no problem reconciling the doctrine of original sin with believer Baptism.

The Abstract of Principles was the first Southern Baptist confession of faith and was part of the charter for the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. All professors of the institution, even to this day, are required to pledge to “teach in accordance with, and not contrary to the Abstract of Principles.”[18] In this document, the article on the Fall states that man “fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and wholly opposed to God and His law, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors.”[19] Here again, this Baptist confession does not shy away from the doctrine of original sin. The Abstract of Principles affirms both original corruption and original guilt. Its language affirms that infants are born under condemnation even before they become “actual transgressors.”

While the Abstract of Principles was the first confession for a Southern Baptist institution, the Baptist Faith and Message was the first to be adopted by the convention as a whole. This confession was basically the adoption of the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, which in turn was a revision based upon the 2^nd London Confession. The Baptist Faith and Message was originally adopted in 1925 in the midst of the controversy between the fundamentalists and the modernists—the same year as the “Scopes Monkey Trial.” The confession adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention stated almost exactly the same words as the Abstract of Principles regarding original sin. It states in the article on the “Fall of Man,” that man “fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and in bondage to sin, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors.”[20] Here again, this Southern Baptist confession of faith clearly accepts original corruption and original guilt. Liability to condemnation precedes a person’s “actual transgressions.”

In 1963 there was a significant change.[21] In the midst of controversy again, the Southern Baptist Convention adopted another revision of the Baptist Faith and Message. Here one can begin to see a difference simply by the article title. It no longer said “The Fall of Man,” but rather just “Man.” The language of this article significantly weakened the position held on original sin. It now reads that man “fell from his original innocence; whereby his posterity inherit a nature and environment inclined toward sin, and as soon as they are capable of moral action become transgressors and are under condemnation.” [22] This change no longer says that man is born with a corrupt nature, but instead a “nature and environment inclined toward sin.” This change no longer asserts that man is born corrupt, but only that he has the odds stacked against him. Finally, in this revision liability to condemnation no longer precedes transgression. As the Baptist Faith and Message now reads, there is nothing clearly stating that infants are born guilty.

Though it must also be noted that though this statement is weaker in regard to this doctrine, it does not entirely contradict the older statements. Professors at Southern Seminary still have to sign the Abstract of Principles as well as affirm the Baptist Faith and Message. If these statements were in contradiction, then no one could logically subscribe to both of them—and Southern Seminary would either have to close its doors or make the signing of the Abstract of Principles a mere formal “hoop” to jump through. It would be completely out of character for a group of Baptists, with a tradition of affirming original sin (including original guilt) for nearly 300 years, to suddenly change their minds on the subject and contradict the main stream of all previous confessions. The new statement is merely more ambiguous, but it does not explicitly deny either original sin or original guilt.

Baptist confessions have traditionally affirmed the doctrine of original sin, and until recently have not hesitated to affirm original guilt. From the 2^nd London Confession in Britain, to the original Baptist Faith and Message in America, Baptists have affirmed this doctrine in their confessions. It should; therefore, not be suggested that Baptists have historically seen any contradiction between affirming original sin as well as believer baptism.

Baptist Theologians

Baptist theologians also have a long tradition of affirming the doctrine of original sin. One can begin to see this even with the Arminian, Thomas Helwys. Under influences from the Anabaptists, Helwys rejected his earlier Calvinism. Though Helwys was otherwise an Arminian, Tom Nettles argues that he retained the doctrine of total depravity based on the following: he still affirmed that “‘men are by nature Children off [sic] wrath’ are born in ‘iniquitie [sic] and in sin conceived.’”[23] Also, the confession adopted by his church while in Amsterdam states that man “fel [sic] by disobedience. Through whose disobedience, all men sinned. His sinn [sic] being imputed vnto [sic] all.”[24] These statements also show that Helwys did not reject the doctrine of original sin.

It is also clear that Benjamin Keach also affirmed both original sin and original guilt. He and William Collins drafted a catechism (known both as The Baptist Catechism, and Keach’s Catechism) in about 1693 in which one of the questions concerning the Fall answers as follows: “The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.”[25] Here Keach and Collins explicitly affirm original sin—including original guilt.

John Gill is another Baptist theologian who continued in this affirmation of original sin. Thomas Nettles describes Gills view in these words, “Adam fell, bringing a change in man’s nature and a verdict of condemnation on all his posterity.”[26] Nettles continues by describing Gills view of the federal headship of Adam; he states that Gill taught that the soul became corrupted at the moment when it is united to the body. Gill, one of the greatest theologians among the Baptist ranks, affirmed that corruption and condemnation come not just before actual transgressions, but before an infant leaves the womb.

Andrew Fuller, arguably the most significant figure in Baptist history, also affirmed original sin and inherited guilt. Fuller debated Dan Taylor, an Arminian Baptist, concerning this very issue. In one letter Fuller states,

Original sin, to be sure is a mysterious subject. There is a difficulty attending the existence of evil in the souls of all mankind upon every hypothesis. . . Some, with Pelagius, deny the thing itself, and maintain that human depravity comes entirely by imitation. Others admit the fact, that we “are depraved by Adam’s transgression,” but deny the guilt of such depravity on that account; this appears to be the case with Mr. T[aylor]. Others admit the fact of such depravity, yet, notwithstanding, acknowledge its guilt; this is my sentiment.[27]

Here, Fuller shows that he rejects notions of original sin that deny that Adam’s posterity is counted guilty. Fuller affirms the Augustinian formulation of original sin which affirms that humans are born guilty. Fuller follows this statement with another, “The Scriptures represent God as a just Being, who will by no means inflict punishment where there is no guilt. . . Surely then we might conclude, even though an apostle had never told us so, that death would not have passed upon all men by one man’s sin, if, in that sin, somehow or other, all had not sinned.”[28] Fuller did not hesitate to affirm the doctrine of original sin—including inherited guilt. He saw that it was demanded by the justice of God. Clearly he could not have seen this as contradictory with his own view of believer baptism.

John L. Dagg spoke vividly of original sin and the condemnation that all men deserve in Adam. He states,

There is a moral union between Adam and his descendants. His disobedience unfurled the banner of rebellion, and we all rally around it. We approve the deed of our father, and take arms in maintaining the war against heaven, which his disobedience proclaimed. He is the chief in this conspiracy of treason, but we are all accessories. As to the outward act, the eating of the forbidden fruit, we did not commit it; but, regarding it as a declaration of independence and revolt, we have made it our own, and it may be justly set to our account, as if we had personally committed the deed.[29]

Dagg’s theology was later endorsed by the Southern Baptist Convention when it resolved, “that a catechism be drawn up containing the substance of the Christian religion for the instruction of children and servants and that brother John L. Dagg be desired to draw it up.”[30] Dagg was trusted as a representative to write for the instruction of children for the entire Southern Baptist Convention. He tenaciously embraced the doctrine of original sin and thought it sinful to oppose God by denying inherited guilt.

James P. Boyce, founding president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, when dealing with the question of infants had this to say: “Certain passages of Scripture are supposed to refer to young children as though innocent of guilt. . . But these passages do not teach freedom from corruption. On the other hand, corruption in early infancy is plainly taught.”[31] Boyce follows this statement with an even more clear affirmation of infant guilt:

It follows from the facts in these last two statements, that a corrupt nature makes a condition as truly sinful, and guilty, and liable to punishment, as actual transgressions. Consequently, at the very moment of birth, the presence and possession of such a nature shows that even the infant sons of Adam are born under all the same penalties which befell their ancestor in the day of his sin. Actual transgression subsequently adds new guilt to guilt already existing, but does not substitute a state of guilt for one of innocence.[32]

Boyce’s position could be no clearer. Certainly, he held that infants inherited guilt, and were born sinners. He found no contradiction between this and the baptism of believers only.

Augustus Hopkins Strong, a Northern Baptist, also affirmed original sin as well as original guilt. Strong stated, “that no human being is finally condemned solely on account of original sin; but that all who, like infants, do not commit personal transgressions, are saved through the application of Christ’s atonement.”[33] Strong rejects any notion that infants are accepted into heaven on the basis of their innocence, or that they should not be recognized a sinners. He solidly stands in the tradition of other Baptists before him, and he stands in the Augustinian tradition concerning original sin. He could not have seen this as being at odds with his being a Baptist.

Edgar Young Mullins, former president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and contemporary of A. H. Strong, also affirmed the doctrine of original sin. However, he too made it clear that “men are not condemned therefore for hereditary or original sin. They are condemned only for their own sins.”[34] He did affirm the reality that sin is inherited and that infants dying in infancy are saved on the basis of “Christ’s atoning work extend[ed] to them.”[35] It seems that Mullins would have affirmed that people are born sinners. This was not in contradiction to his being a Baptist.

W. T. Conner, former president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, somewhat modifies earlier views of Baptists. The confessional stance of Baptist Calvinism had been eroding for some time. This was already evident with Mullins. Yet Conner seems to show more hesitancy to speak of inherited guilt than most of his predecessors. Though he continued this tradition of affirming the doctrine of original sin in Baptist life, Conner echoes his teachers, Strong and Mullins, in saying,

There is general agreement among evangelical theologians that all disability up to the point of positive transgression and deliberate rejection of moral light is provided for in the atoning work of Christ. . . No man, therefore, will be lost merely because of original sin or race sin. Up to the point of positive transgression or rejection of moral light, the individual is provided for in the grace of God without personal repentance and faith.[36]

Conner, along with Strong and Mullins, demonstrated a concern to say that original sin alone does not finally condemn an infant; however he is clear that infants are saved not because of their innocence, nor because they are not considered sinners. Conner affirms that infants who die in infancy are saved by Christ’s work on the cross. Again, apparently Conner saw nothing in this doctrine that was in contradiction with his being a Baptist.

Exceptions

There was some dissent in Baptist life concerning the doctrine of original sin. This is evident from the early Anabaptist and General Baptist confessions. The Waterland Confession,an Anabaptist confession from 1580, gives one example of this. It states, “The first man fell into sins (d) and became subject to divine wrath, and by God was raised up again through consolatory promises (e) and admitted to eternal life at the same time with all those who had fallen (f); so that none of his posterity, in respect of this restitution, is born guilty of sin or blame (g).”[37] This statement shows that this particular group of Anabaptists rejected the concept that any of Adam’s posterity was born guilty. However, there is no evidence that this rejection of original sin was for the purpose of being consistent Baptists. As has been shown, other Baptist groups did not see any need to reject this doctrine in order to become Baptists.

John Smyth, contemporary of Thomas Helwys, also rejected original sin. In the confession by his church, in 1609, it states, “WE BELIEVE WITH THE HEART AND WITH THE MOUTH CONFESS . . . (5.) That there is no original sin . . . but all sin is actual and voluntary . . . and therefore, infants are without sin.”[38] Here Smyth seems to be concerned about the justice of God—not about any consistency with the Baptist position. He cannot reconcile how God can count people guilty without “actual transgressions.” Smyth’s concern does not seem to be on the basis of a rejection of infant baptism.

Again, the Smyth party of early English Baptists drew up another confession between 1612 and 1614 which states as follows:

18. That original sin is an idle term, and that there is no such thing as men intend by the word (Ezek. xviii. 20), because God threatened death only to Adam (Gen. ii. 17) not to his posterity, and because God created the soul (Heb. xii. 9).

19. That if original sin might have passed from Adam to his posterity, Christ’s death, which was effectual before Cain and Abel’s birth, He being the lamb slain from the beginning of the world, stopped the issue and passage thereof (Rev. xiii. 8).

20. That infants are conceived and born in innocency without sin, and that so dying are undoubtedly saved, and that is to be understood of all infants, under heaven.[39]

Here the Smyth party gives a fairly extensive explanation for their rejection of original sin, and this explanation does not have any tie to the concept of infant baptism.

Fairly recently Dale Moody, at Southern Seminary, vehemently opposed the concept of inherited guilt. Moody may be one of Lemke’s predecessors in arguing that there is a direct link correlating original sin and infant baptism. He wrote that in the early church there was a “primitive idea of purification” which “leads to infant baptism only when perverted by the fallacious notion of original guilt.”[40] Though Moody disdained the concept of original guilt, it does seem that he recognized that if the doctrine is true that it is still not a justifiable basis for the practice of infant baptism.[41] So even though he thought that original guilt lead to the practice, he must not have thought that it was a necessary implication. He quotes the Anabaptists in their own rejection of original guilt, yet he does not demonstrate how they saw any tie between the concepts of original sin and infant baptism.

Baptists have historically not needed to deny original sin in order to remain Baptist. Baptist confessions, and the writings of Baptist theologians both testify to a long tradition of affirming this doctrine. The majority of these documents affirm inherited guilt, and it is only relatively recent that the mainstream of Baptists has weakened their statements affirming this traditionally held biblical doctrine. The exceptions within Baptist life, who have denied the doctrine of original sin, seem to reject the doctrine on the grounds of God’s justice—not because it is inconsistent with the believer baptism position. The historical record is probably the most significant evidence that holding to original sin or inherited guilt does not necessarily imply infant baptism. If original sin did imply infant baptism, one would expect that the dominant stream of Baptist life would have rejected it. But instead, the reverse is true.

Original Sin Implies Believer Baptism

In contrast to those who have claimed that infant baptism is necessary because of original sin, this doctrine might actually be used to support the believer baptism position. This argument may be akin to that of Paul K. Jewett, who argued that “covenant theology implies believer baptism.”[42] It may seem to flow against the stream of ecclesiastical history.[43] However, there is one point that can be made that refutes those who would try to reject original sin on the basis of believer baptism.

As Cathcart had maintained, “baptism has no tendency to produce a new heart, and its bestowal upon unconscious infants is a senseless and unwise abuse of a blessed ordinance intended only for the Saviour’s friends.”[44] Assuming the Baptist view of baptism is correct, and that the proper subject of baptism is a believer only, then original sin may be the very reason for rejecting infant baptism. The doctrine of original sin says that infants are born guilty and under condemnation and in need of Christ. Therefore, infants are born lost. No Baptist would want to baptize those who are by all accounts lost. By logical necessity, for the Baptist, if infants are guilty and condemned they should not be admitted into membership of the church through baptism until they have come to an age where they have expressed faith and shown evidence of regeneration.

Charles Hodge, on the other hand, stated exactly the opposite. He said that baptism can “be properly administered only to those who are in a state of guilt and pollution.”^[45] This is where a fundamental disagreement between paedobaptists and Baptists can be observed. Baptists would say that it is the regenerate that needs baptism; whereas, paedobaptists would say that it is the unregenerate that needs it.

So maybe original sin does not necessarily imply believer baptism. However, for one who presupposes that believers are the proper subjects of baptism, original sin can serve as another argument for why this is the case. The whole issue revolves not necessarily around any supposed efficacy of the baptismal waters, but around the identity of the proper subjects of baptism.

Conclusion

There has historically been a link between the doctrine of original sin and baptism, though the link may or may not be determinative of how it is practiced. There will continue to be debate between Baptists and paedobaptists about who the proper subjects of baptism are, though much may come down to presuppositions. This paper has argued that the doctrine of original sin does not necessarily imply infant baptism. On the contrary, depending on ones presuppositions it may actually be an argument against the practice of infant baptism. Baptists throughout history have typically not had any problem affirming both original sin and believer baptism. Even when there have been exceptions, where Baptists have shied away from the concept of inherited guilt, it has not been on the basis of any contradiction with believer baptism. Original sin is simply not a problem for Baptists because they do not believe there is any efficacy in the act itself. Those who would say that “Baptists deny that children are guilty upon birth, and thus deny infant baptism,”[46] need to reexamine the historical record, as well as reexamine their logic.

---

[1]Augustine The Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins and the Baptism of Little Ones 1.28. ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Roland J. Teske, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21^st Century[WSA], part I, vol. 23 (Hyde Park, New York: New City Press, 1997), 49.

[2]John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.15.10, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Fort Lewis Battles, Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 1311.

[3]Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2003), 2:247.

[4]Steve W. Lemke, “Who Can be Saved? Tiessen’s Accessibilism vs. Jesus’ Exclusivism” (paper presented at the annual southwest regional meeting of the Evangelical Society, Fort Worth, Texas, 22 March 2007), 9.

[5]Ibid., 8.

[6]The main argument of Lemke’s paper was against inclusivism. His treatment of original sin was only one part of his larger argument, and he does not treat the entirety of the doctrine. However, what he did say was enough to demonstrate that at least he denies original guilt and denies that infants are born sinners.

[7]Robert G. Torbet, A History of the Baptists, 3^rd ed. (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Judson Press, 2000), 274.

[8]“Believer baptism” will be used instead of “believer’s baptism.” The term is in contrast to “infant baptism” rather than “infant’s baptism.” Paul K. Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1980), 226.

[9]Charles E. Warren, Original Sin Explained? Revelations from Human Genetic Science (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2002), vii.

[10]William Cathcart, “Baptism, the Scriptural Subjects of,” in The Baptist Encyclopedia: A Dictionary of the Doctrines, Ordinances, Usages, Confessions of Faith, Sufferings, Labors, and Successes, and of the General History of the Baptist Denomination in All Lands (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Louis H. Everts, 1883), 1:70.

[11] Augustine, The Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins, 1.58 (WSA, I.23:67).

[12] Ibid., 1.62 (WSA, I.23:71).

[13] Ibid., 1.28 (WSA, I.23:49).

[14] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2:247.

[15]Dale Moody, The Word of Truth (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981), 462.

[16]Gregory Wills, Readings in Baptist History (classroom lecture notes, CH 26100—History of the Baptists, Spring 2003, photocopy), 2.

[17]William Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Judson Press, 1969), 258-59.

[18]James P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Baptist Publication Society, 1887, reprint ed., North Pompano Beach, Florida: Christian Gospel Foundation), Appendix B.

[19]Ibid.

[20]Committee on Statement of Baptist Faith and Message, Baptist Faith and Message, 1925 [on-line]; accessed 25 November 2007; available from http:// www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp; Internet.

[21]This change was essentially retained the 2000 revision with only changes in punctuation and a conjunction.

[22]William Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 394.

[23]Thomas J. Nettles, By His Grace and for His Glory: A Historical, Theological, and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life (Lake Charles, Louisiana: Cor Meum Tibi, 2002, 57.

[24]William Lumpkin Baptist Confessions of Faith, 117.

[25]Thomas J. Nettles, Teaching Truth, Training Hearts: the Study of Catechisms in Baptist Life (Amityville, New York: Calvary Press, 1998), 62.

[26]Thomas J. Nettles, By His Grace and for His Glory, 81.

[27]Fuller, Andrew G. The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller: with a Memoir of His Life, ed. Joseph Belcher (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 2:522-23.

[28]Ibid., 2:523.

[29]John L. Dagg, Manual of Theology (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Gano Books, 1990), 165.

[30] Ibid., Preface to the New Edition.

[31]James P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology, 243.

[32]Ibid., 250.

[33]Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Judson Press, 1945), 596.

[34]Edgar Young Mullins, The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Judson Press, 1938), 302.

[35] Ibid., 286.

[36]W. T. Conner, Christian Doctrine (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1949, 143-44.

[37]William Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 45.

[38]Ibid., 100.

[39]Ibid., 127.

[40]Dale Moody, The Word of Truth, 462.

[41]Ibid.

[42]Paul K. Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, 233.

[43]Ibid., 5.

[44]William Cathcart, “Baptism, the Scriptural Subjects of,” 1:70.

[45] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2:247.

[46]Steve W. Lemke, “Who Can be Saved? Tiessen’s Accessibilism vs. Jesus’ Exclusivism,” 9.

Tired of Sissy Attempts at Sanctification?

John Owen's Mortification of Sin (one of three works by Owen in the new edition edited by Justin Taylor and Kelly M Kapic) is a refreshing change from some of the other things I have read in the last few years on overcoming sin.

Much of the literature on sanctification these days follows a "therapeutic" model where an individual aims at personal healing. Owen's approach offers a different language of describing sanctification. Rather than healing ourselves we need to "be killing sin."

In my estimation, the therapeutic model offers a practically Pelagian form of sanctification. Owen's treatment of mortification constantly brings one back to the gospel in affirming that the actual work of mortifying sin is in looking to the Cross of Christ.

My favorite quote from the work is this:

Set faith at work on Christ for the killing of your sin. His blood is the great sovereign remedy for sin-sick souls. Live in this, and you will die a conquerer; yea, you will, through the good providence of God, live to see your lust dead at your feet.

I long for a day when this truth and this method of fighting sin is embraced more widely.

Review Published

I also recently wrote a review of a book I read for class for half.com. You can check that our by clicking on the title of this post.

Wall Torn Down: Biblical Theology of Race

I just got back the first paper I did for my Humanity class. It needed a little more work on proofreading. I barely finished it by the deadline, but still got an A. I will post the text of the article here:

Wall Torn Down: A Theology of Race

When understood in light of the redemption historical scheme, the diversity of data related to the issue of race gives way to a unified theme running throughout both testaments. That goal is that all of the different races would be reunited under the head of a new Adam. The diversity of the biblical witness will be presented in four strands of evidence.

Of course, the first biblical theme begins with the creation of Adam as the biological head of all humanity. This theme demonstrates that all races belong to one big human family. The second theme is the calling out of the Jews as God’s chosen people—beginning with Abraham. This theme is evidence that the Bible also presented a form of racial segregation that was obligatory for His people. The third theme is the Old Testament hint that the Gentiles would one day be included in redemption. Gentiles who, by virtue of the earlier referenced segregation theme, should not have been intermarried with, ended up in prominent places such as the genealogy of David—and ultimately Jesus. Finally, the concept of Christ as the new Adam indicates that in the New Covenant the earlier need for segregation had been fulfilled and humanity was no longer to be divided along ethnic lines.

A Biblical theology of race will by necessity draw from many other areas of doctrine. Creation, providence, ecclesiology, soteriology, eschatology, and the relationship between the covenants et al. are all necessary doctrinal components to consider when synthesizing and articulating a Biblical theology of race. This paper will attempt to demonstrate that though diversity exists within the biblical teaching on this subject, the overarching teleological goal of God’s plan as revealed in Scripture is that all of the diverse human cultures would be united in the worship of the one creating and redeeming God. The underlining presupposition of this paper is that there is a predominant continuity between the covenants that is marked my specific areas of discontinuity which transforms the way in which Old Covenant ethical obligations are carried out within the New Covenant.

One Common Ancestor

The first theme which will be examined in this argument is the common origin that humanity has in Adam. This is one theme that all evangelicals should be in agreement about. It is clear, if one accepts the Genesis account of creation to be actually communicating something historical about the creation of humanity, that it teaches that Adam and Eve were the biological beginning of the species. It has even been argued that this is one area of biblical doctrine that can be verified by human genetic science.[1] Anyone who accepts the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis should understand that all humans of every ethnicity are all connected as a part of this one biological family.

The Creation Account

In the first chapter of Genesis, the narrator states, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply’” (vs. 27-28).[2] This passage is clearly teaching that when God created human beings, he began with one man—as we see from the pronoun “him.” This one man multiplied. It is left to the reader to understand that all further human beings would be a result of that multiplication. This understanding is further supported by the narrative in chapter three: “Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living” (v. 20). Of course when the text says “yx lK ~a” (mother of all the living) it would be absurd to take that as “mother of all living creatures.” The only way that it makes sense to understand this phrase is plainly that Adam was stating that Eve would be the mother, and origin, of all the human species.

Table of Nations

The next evidence within this theme is what is known as the table of nations found in Genesis 10. This text gives the genealogy of all of Noah’s sons: Japheth, Ham, and Shem. There is almost a repeated refrain at the end of the genealogy of each son which states, “These are the sons of [X], according to their families, according to their languages, by their lands, by their nations” (v. 20). The wording is not exact, but the same phrases close out each son’s genealogy. Then, the section is closed with this statement: “These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, by their nations; and out of these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood” (v. 32). The first observation one should make from this is that the phrases “family,” “language,” “land,” and “nation” are each indicators used to define ethnicity or race. The most significant observation one should make about this passage, though, is that the narrator seems to be explaining how every ethnicity of the known world all descended from a common origin. [3] This list of nations should not necessarily be taken as exhaustive, but should be understood to be representative of every race. Biblical theologian Geerhardus Vos says of this passage, “There names are registered to express the principle that in the fullness of time the divine interposition meant to return to them again, and to re-enclose them in the sacred circle.”[4]

Tower of Babel

On the heels of the table of nations comes the narrative of the tower of Babel in Genesis eleven. Though the tower narrative comes later, it seems that it must have served as an explanation of what is given in the table of nations. Verse 1 states, “Now the whole earth used the same language and the same words.” Yet in just the preceding two verses the narrator made reference to various languages. On this basis it seems that the table of nations and the tower of Babel should be taken together as a whole. Noah’s posterity intended to make a name for themselves. Therefore they united in a project which God foresaw would destroy them. It seems that God’s action here had aspects of both punishment and grace. The dividing and scattering of peoples throughout the earth and the confusion of language was a matter of God making things more difficult for people—in this sense the tower seems to have been a curse. Yet as God often saved through his very acts of judgment, that appears to have been the case here. Gerhard von Rad notes in this regard, “[T]here is also to be seen, mysteriously associated with this punishment, a saving and sustaining activity on the part of God which accompanied man.”[5] The diversifying of humanity into various ethnicities served the purpose of God’s electing Israel—safeguarding the seed of the woman spoken of in Genesis 3:15.

A Segregation Theme in Electing Israel

The next theme which will be examined is the fact that Israel was commanded not to intermarry with the surrounding Gentile nations. Though Israel had a common origin with all the rest of humanity, God’s purpose of salvation required the election of one nation to be separate.

The Life of Abraham

Abraham’s initial call is recorded in Genesis 12, where it records that Yahweh said to Abram,

Go forth from your country, and from your relatives and from your father’s house, to the land which I will show you; and I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and so you shall be a blessing; and I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed (vv. 1-3).

What is significant to the issue at hand is that God chose Abram to leave all of his relatives in order to establish a separate nation. As one traces the narrative of the patriarch’s this separateness is highlighted by a prohibition of intermarriage with the surrounding peoples. In chapter 24, the narrative illustrates this separation with Abraham sending a servant to get a wife for Isaac. He says to his servant, “you shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I live” (v. 3). The same prohibition is given when Isaac speaks to Jacob in chapter 28. It seems clear that this prohibition was given for the purpose of preserving the elect “seed” from being washed away into being indistinguishable from the gentiles.

Mosaic Law

This theme of segregation continues from the patriarchal narratives to the giving of the law at Sinai. For one who accepts Mosaic authorship, it would seem that Moses recorded the earlier narrative prohibition from intermarriage with the Canaanites in order to prepare the congregation of Israel to live by the same obligation upon entering the land. Moses warns the people in Deuteronomy 7,

and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them. You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly (vv. 2-4).

From an examination of the reasons associated with this text it seems the purpose for this prohibition was religious. God prohibited intermarriage in order to keep his people from being turned away from him into false belief. Therefore, this prohibition is primarily more about belief than it is about ethnicity.

This prohibition within the Mosaic law is carried on throughout the Old Testament. The sin that so many of Israel’s kings fell into was that of marrying foreign wives. So that when the return from exile is recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah one of the specific sins that the people repent of is that of intermarrying with the surrounding nations. Ezra 9:2 states, “For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has intermingled with the peoples of the lands.” A high priority for Israel was maintaining ethnic purity because this was the means that the people of God would remain loyal to him for the preservation of His plan to save.

Conclusions Arising from Segregation

This pervasive theme of the separateness of Israel is set in stark contrast to the other biblical themes presented by this paper. Here a few conclusions will be given which will help make sense of how this data can cohere in unity with the rest of Scripture. The diversity of races within the Bible can be reduced to merely two—Jew and “the nations.” Distinct races certainly existed within the group labeled “the nations,” yet it does not even seem that the Bible even addresses intermarriage between different people groups outside of Israel. This demonstrates the second point: that the distinction of Israel as separate from the nations was for a religious purpose. It was to ensure and preserve Israel’s loyalty to Yahweh. Third, it will be noted that the ethnic separateness of Israel corresponds to the “Holiness Code” of ethical obligations for God’s people—it’s purpose is to maintain the purity of a people set apart for Him.

Inclusion of Gentiles

In contrast to the segregation that was presented above, the Old Testament also expresses the concept that God’s teleological plan of redemption is intended for the entire human race. This theme will be observed in Abraham’s initial call, in exceptions to the prohibition against intermarriage, and in the prophetic anticipation of Gentile inclusion.

Abraham’s Call

Despite the fact that Abraham’s call is a movement toward segregation, even within that narrative there is language which presents God’s concern for all the nations. The segregated aspects were mentioned above. Here God’s purpose for the nations will be examined. In Genesis 12, the last phrase within the Abraham’s call quoted above states, “And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed” (v. 3). Here we see that from the beginning, the purpose of Abraham’s being set apart was that he might be a blessing to all the nations of the earth. Though God was calling Abraham to be the founder of a distinct race, his purpose was the blessing of all races.

Significant Exceptions

Within the storyline of the Old Testament, it is apparent that some gentiles intermarried with Israel—yet it is spoken of positively. If the emphasis upon segregation was monolithic, one would expect all marriages to foreigners would be pointed out as sinful, but this is not the case. The first such example that will be pointed out is that of Rahab. Rahab the prostitute was a Canaanite resident of Jericho. God had commanded the Israelites to devote the city entirely to the ban—to wipe out every living thing. Yet because of Rahab’s faith (as the author of Hebrews points out) she is spared. Not only is she spared, but she finds her way in to the genealogy of David and of Christ (Matt 1:5).

The next noteworthy example of this type is Ruth. She was of all things a Moabite. Not only were Israelites not to intermarry with the surrounding peoples, but particularly Moabites were not to be allowed in the assembly for worship—even to the tenth generation (Deut 23:3). Yet David was only three generations removed from his Moabite heritage (Ruth 4:21-22). There are other examples of this phenomenon in Scripture, but these two will demonstrate the point sufficiently. The only logical implication that one can draw from this apparent inconsistency is that God’s purpose was concerned more about religious loyalty to Him than about ethnic purity.

Prophetic Utterance

Various prophets also heralded a message of salvation which would not be exclusive to Jews, but would also include the nations. Though this theme exists in other prophets, for space considerations, only Isaiah will be considered here. Page after page, when one reads through Isaiah he finds the term “nations” time after time in reference to their being included. A paper of this brevity cannot begin to deal with every instance. Yet two examples of this language are found in chapters 2 and 66:

It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it (2:2).

For I know their works and their thoughts, and the time is coming to gather all nations and tongues. And they shall come and shall see my glory (66:18).

These two examples demonstrate that part of the prophetic expectation of the Old Testament was the bringing in of the Gentile to the worship of Yahweh. [6]

A New Humanity

Finally, the emphasis of the New Testament concerning race is that in the cross, Christ became the head of a new humanity, tearing down ethnic barriers and uniting all believers in one family. This is demonstrated in the Gospels, Acts, and the epistles as well.

Gospels

The most significant racial tension at the time was between Jews and Samaritans. In three places in the Gospels, Jesus had significant interactions with Samaritans. First in Luke 10, Jesus gives a hypothetical case of a Samaritan who cares for a man who was beaten and robbed. Here Jesus shocked his listeners by demonstrating that such ethnic barrier crossing actually pleases God. Next, in Luke 17 Jesus cleanses ten lepers. One came back to thank him, and the text points out that the one who came back was a Samaritan (v. 16). Once again, the text presents the Samaritan in a good light in contrast to the chosen Jewish people. Finally, in John 4, Jesus stops to talk at a well with a Samaritan woman. Again, this ethnic barrier crossing shocks even his disciples and demonstrates that Jesus came to break down those walls.

Another significant observation in the Gospels is that occasionally Jesus would complement the faith he sees in Gentiles. In Matthew 15:28 Jesus said that a Canaanite woman had great faith. Then in Luke 7:9 Jesus says of a centurion that he had greater faith than Jesus had seen in all of Israel. These Gentiles of great faith stand in stark contrast with Jesus disciples who were said to have little faith (Matt 17:20).

Acts

The first evidence in Acts of this them of a new humanity is in chapter 2 with the day of Pentecost. People from all different nations were gathered together in Jerusalem, and when the Spirit was sent each heard in their own language (vv. 8-11). John Stott notes that since the time of the church fathers, interpreters have understood that a connection exists between Pentecost and Babel.[7] Babel divided a unified people into many. In contrast, at Pentecost, diverse nations were united together “speaking of the mighty deeds of God” (Acts 2:11).

Another significant matter in Acts is when, in chapter 10, Peter has a vision and is told to eat something that he initially thought was unclean. Peter is corrected by a voice that says, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy” (v. 15). Certainly, the vision must have meant more than just that the food laws were repealed. This vision was intended to teach that Gentiles were no longer to be considered unclean, but to be united within the Church.

Paul’s Teaching

Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles also had many things to say that are relevant to the issue of race. Two texts will be examined here. First, Christ tore down the barrier separating the races. Ephesians 2:11-16 says,

Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands—remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile both in one body to God through he cross.

Here Paul demonstrates that through the cross, the barrier that divided Jew and Gentile—and by extension all races—was broken down. Jesus died to create a new humanity that was reconciled to God.[8]

Next it will be noted that all believers share as fellow heirs equally as Abraham’s descendants. Galatians 3:28-29 says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to the promise.” Once again, it is clear that union with Christ unites all people who are His into one new humanity.

Implications for the Church

Three major implications of this doctrine now follow. First, all believers, as a part of the new humanity, are to be united as one family. This obligates believers to love their brothers and sisters of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds because we were all born again from an imperishable seed (1 Pet 1:22-23) that is more enduring than our natural biological heritage—all forms of racism are morally wrong. Second, in heaven one day, all races will stand together worshiping and it appears from Revelation 5:9 that racial distinctions will still exist. Yet they will serve the purpose of magnifying the glory of the one who purchased those men with His blood.[9] God will be glorified in that diversity. Finally, there is a continuity that exists between the covenants on this issue. Just as in the Old Covenant, God’s people were called to be separate; in the New Covenant the Church is still called to be separate. However, this segregation is no longer based upon ethnicity, but it calls believers to clearly distinguish between believers and unbelievers. The wall between Jew and Gentile was torn down, yet a new basis was established for distinguishing this new humanity—faith in Christ.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Piper, John. Brothers We Are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman, 2002.

Stott, John R. W. The Spirit the Church and the Word: the Message of Acts. Downers Grove, Illinois: 1990.

von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology. vol. 1. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. New York, New York: Harper & Row, 1967.

Vos, Geerhardus. Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1983.

Warren, Charles. Original Sin Explained? Revelations from Human Genetic Science. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2002.

---

[1]Charles E. Warren, Original Sin Explained? Revelations from Human Genetic Science (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2002), 1-2.

[2]All Scripture references will be from the New American Standard Bible (La Habra, California: Lockman Foundation, 1995).

[3]The idea that associates the sons of Ham with black people and understands black slavery to be fulfillment of that curse is untenable, and will not be dealt with in the main argument of this paper. It is more persuasive that “the curse was a prophecy. It’s main purpose was to predict the subjugation of the Canaanites by the children of Israel.” T. B. Maston, The Bible and Race (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1959), 116.

[4]Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1983), 59.

[5]Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (New York, New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 163.

[6]It may also be significant that the references are scattered throughout both halves of Isaiah. Thus, giving support for a unity of authorship.

[7]John R. W. Stott, The Spirit the Church and the Word: the Message of Acts (Downers Grove, Illinois: 1990), 68.

[8]John Piper, Brothers, We are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman, 2002), 205-206.

[9]Ibid., 207-208.

School Has Begun

Well, I've gotten off to a good start with the new school year. I found out what I was reading at the beginning of the summer, and I finished all but two books for one class, and one for the other (I read 6 in all this summer). I'm only a few weeks in, and I have one of those two finished, and the other nearly finished. Then for the other class I'll just read a little at a time through the semester. But anyway, things are going well.

Amy recently got a promotion at work. She's no longer in dining services. She is now working in the Provosts office. Her title is "Administrative Assistant to the Associate VP of Academic Administration." It goes without saying, she's now making almost three times as much as me when you include her benefits package. But my job is nice. I get to spend a lot of time reading. I don't think I would survive this load without a job where I could study while I'm at work like this.

Summer Work

I've been working a lot so far this summer. Trying to get in more than 40 hours when I can. I've written two articles to be published in an Old Testament Survey Study Guide. I've got my doubts about their being good enough, but we'll see.

I've tried to spend good amounts of time with my family as well. We went on a trip to San Antonio, and Amy and I got to spend a night in a McKinney bed and breakfast while the kids stayed at her brother's. It was nice to have that night alone for our 7th anniversary.

That's right. Amy and I have been married 7 years. It has gone by so fast. I can't believe we already have a child that is almost three. It seems like our lives are getting away with us, and we have barely even got started. We've been out of college and married for 7 years, and I'm still in school working on yet another Master's degree, working a job that just doesn't get it done well enough, so that she is forced back into the workplace--away from our kids where she really wants to be.

The Lord has a plan for all of this. I'm not sure what it is yet, but He will bring something good out of it.

End of Semester Blues

I'm having a hard time doing anything. It's the end of the semester. I really don't have a lot to do, but I just don't feel like doing anything. I have been so bogged down all semester long that I feel very tired and I don't want to do the little that I have left.

Prayer:
"Oh Lord, help me. I'm weak and frail. I suffer from evil desires and indifference of feeling. Fill my heart with passion for you, your truth, your holiness, and your ways. Guide my steps as my spirit desires what my flesh shuns. Help me to be obedient, and passionate for your name, and your glory, as it is exhibited in my life.

Why Did Jesus Suffer?

I preached at my home church. Click on the title to hear.
It was my first time using power point in a sermon, and it really made things difficult for me. I had way too much information on the power point and it really distracted from my delivery. Other than that, I'm happy with my content.

The Gospel in Six Minutes

After 2 decades of walking with Jesus, I still need the Gospel--I'm still a sinner in need of grace.