Adam Harwood at Truett-McConnell

All right, time for another ScreenFlow video. I've been directed to, I'm not sure if this is the transcript or the outline or just what it is, but at SBC Today, a new sermon message from Adam Harwood of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, delivered evidently at Truett McConnell College's chapel service, and this is the manuscript.

Okay, I see here now. Manuscript, there's even a PowerPoint we can look at, but I'll have to look at the video later on, and maybe we'll use the video if we're going to do further comment on this.

But it's being presented at SBC Today as, you know, just the be -all and end -all of all things.

Actually, there's nothing new in it, but it is troubling because it basically wants to put forth a position, and I'm noticing that especially these days,

Southern Baptists who are fighting against Reformed theology are doing so not by putting forth a coherent, consistent, compelling, systematic theology for themselves.

You want to use that term, biblical theology, as if you can somehow make some type of a differentiation in a meaningful fashion at the end of the day.

But anyway, instead, they just want to try to push certain elements as if that's enough to hold together the cobbled, synergistic system that they're trying to present, and it just doesn't make a lot of sense.

I'm concerned. For example, on the screen right now, now for my thesis, the

Gospel of Jesus Christ is a message for every person because, by the way, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a message for every person, because God commands that it be proclaimed to every person.

That's why it's for every person. But God loves every person. Christ died for every person, and God wants to save every person.

So this is the Arminian synergistic, no particularity, no specific purpose, no differentiation in God's love.

There can't be a special love for His people. You can't see a richness or fullness in God's love.

Even though we have that kind of love, and even though we have special love for certain people that is not for anybody else, and relationship, covenant, all that stuff, no, no, no, no, no.

We just need to have peanut butter love. Peanut butter love. It's all God's love. We should call it, instead of omnibenevolence, we should call it monobenevolence.

Just one kind. God only has one kind. There can't be any more. Christ died for every person. So, I would argue, in light of what the

Scriptures teach, the result of the atonement is, that's the issue, intention, result, that leads to universalism, and God wants to save every person.

Well, that's going to lead at the bottom of the discussion of the denial on their part, on the professor's part here, of the clear biblical conclusion that in God's law, we have revealed

His character, and that therefore you have God's prescriptive will, and that God commands men everywhere to repent.

And that that is inarguable, but you can't stop there, because the

Bible didn't stop there. There is a drive for simplicity here that is very unbiblical.

It results in a very simplified message, but it's not a biblical message.

And my experience has been over the years now, when you limit your people to that kind of simplicity, and yet you tell them to read this thing, to actually take it seriously, and work through it, well, they're going to discover there's all sorts of stuff in there that doesn't fit into a simplistic way of looking at things.

Well, we'll look at that. So here's the outline. I was also concerned about this.

I've marked a few things up here. There's a quotation of D .A. Carson in regards to the love of God, and looking at John 3 .16,

and again, they give simplistic citations. Ever since I responded to Norman Geisler on John 3 .16,

and Dave Hunt on John 3 .16, and so on and so forth, I've noticed that they don't really want to talk about kosmos in Johannine usage.

They don't want to talk about 1 John 2, love not the world, or the things of the world. They don't want to talk about John 17, where the disciples are taken out of the world.

They don't want to recognize the richness of John's use of this particular term.

They want, again, it's much better to be very simplistic. But here, this is just misrepresenting

Carson. I'm sorry, that's all there is to it. Notice the quote as it's in the manuscript. I know that some try, this is quoting

Carson, from his difficult doctrine of the love of God. Remember when Peter Lemkins had to edit my video, had to change the audio, because I was talking about Carson, and I was talking about his book, and how talking about the love of God is very dangerous because of all the traditions of men, stuff like that?

Well, same book, same situation. I know that some try to take kosmos, world, here to refer to the elect, but that really will not do.

All the evidence of the usage of the word in John's gospel is against the suggestion, and then you've got ellipses.

God's love of the world cannot be collapsed into his love for the elect. I sort of wanted to,

I've read that book. I sort of wanted to see what it actually said. So, here it is in my

Kindle program. It's right here. God's salvific stance toward his fallen world is where it starts.

God's love of the world that he gave his son, John 3, 16. I know that some try to take kosmos, world, here to refer to the elect, but that really will not do.

All the evidence of the usage of the word in John's gospel is against the suggestion.

True, world in John does not so much refer to bigness as to badness.

In John's vocabulary, world is primarily the moral order in willful and culpable rebellion against God.

In John 3, 16, God's love in sending the Lord Jesus to be admired, not because it is extended to so big a thing as the world, but to so bad a thing, not to so many people as to such wicked people.

Nevertheless, elsewhere, John can speak of the whole world, 1 John 2, 2, thus bringing bigness and badness together. More importantly, in Johannine theology, the disciples themselves once belonged to the world, but were drawn out of it.

On this axis, God's love for the world cannot be collapsed into his love for the elect. On this axis. Wow, there is a lot in that ellipsis that goes way beyond the simplistic perspective of this manuscript and this presentation at Truett McConnell.

And not only that, the very next part of discussion in Carson is number four,

God's particular effect of selecting love toward his elect. The elect may be the entire nation of Israel, the church of the body, or individuals.

Wow, that's the very next section, that's the very next type of God's love that is mentioned by D .A.

Carson, but you wouldn't know that unless you went back and read the book. That's why

I say that's just misrepresenting things. I'm sorry, but, and I, you know,

Dr. Harwood is Associate Professor of Theology, McFarland Chair of Theology, Director of Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry, Editor, Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

You shouldn't misuse sources like that. Not when you've got those positions. Sorry. Not good, not good.

Okay, let's look at some other things. Notice the current, and David Allen's the leader of this, but other people are sort of following in his train.

There is a real push, it's a fairly recent push, I mean,

Allen admits he's only been studying this issue for a couple years now, but back to about 2009 -ish.

But a real push to attack the concept of the perfection,

I'm a Calvinist, I don't have to play games here, the perfection of the work of Jesus Christ for a particular people.

Now, I don't play politics with this particular issue.

I have spent too much time dealing with Roman Catholicism, too much time dealing with transubstantiation, the mass and the propitiatory sacrifice of the mass, and too much time dealing with Muslims who deny the finished work of Christ.

And so I don't make any apologies for the fact that I believe in particular redemption, and I believe that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ actually perfects those for whom it is made, and that it's made for specific people.

The only choices you have is Reformed Theology, Universalism, and everything else is sub -biblical and incoherent.

Just that simple. I'm not going to apologize for that, and I'll defend that. That's just the way it is.

So, when you look at this presentation, they mention the new book, you know,

From Heaven He Came and Sought Her, and it says it includes chapters written by nearly two dozen professors and pastors, including three professors who teach in one of our

SBC seminaries, Tom Schreiner, Stephen Whelan, and Michael Hagen. Why not just say Southern? Everybody knows where it is.

They claim that Christ died only for the elect. The view is known as definite atonement, limited atonement, or particular atonement.

In reply, no Bible verse states that Jesus died only for the elect. Now, again, as I've criticized

Alan, as I'll criticize this gentleman here, what you have is a fundamental problem on these guys' parts.

They start backwards. You cannot discuss extent until you discuss intention.

You cannot discuss extent until you discuss effect. If we talk about what

God intended to do in the cross, if we talk about what is actually accomplished within the cross, then we can talk about the extent.

They want to do it backwards. They have to, because if you actually go with the biblical teaching on this, it's not going to really lead you to their position.

And so that's the problem. So notice, no Bible verse states that Jesus died only for the elect.

There are references in New Testament to Jesus' death for some people. Consider, Jesus came to save his people from their sins.

Now, please note, he's not going to deal with this, because I don't believe they can.

Did he do it? Intention to save his people.

Effect, being saved from their sins. Therefore, extent is only to those who actually will be saved from their sins.

If they're going to be in heaven, that's one thing. If they're going to be in hell, separated from God, punished for their sins for eternity, then they were never his people, were they?

And it wasn't his intention by his death to bring about their salvation. So, limiting it, again, approaching it simplistically, not just simplifying, but simplistically, so as to not take into consideration what the biblical text itself takes into consideration here, and that is the intention and effect, which then determines the extent, leads to a very sub -biblical perspective.

So notice it says, but none of these verses say Jesus died only for some, and none of these statements invalidate the other declarations that Christ died for the sins of the world.

The only way you can make this kind, again, of simplistic argument is to ignore that all these before don't just talk about extent.

They're not just talking about a specific group. They are also saying that there is an intention and there is an effect.

Only by ignoring that can you get around this stuff, and that's what he does. And so, you know, there's just so many of these texts that are thrown away.

Let's say, lay of God takes away the sins of the world. The sin of the world. Okay? So if the sin's taken away, then there's no grounds for condemnation, right?

Would the original audience of those words, of John, behold the lay of God takes away the sin of the world, would they have gone, wow, every person, every single individual, their sins would be taken away by this one.

That's not how they would have understood it. That's not how the Jews thought. Sin of the world was an amazing thing, but what it meant was

Jews and Gentiles. This type of individualism is a Western projection onto an ancient text that, as that book demonstrated, is not good.

So he says, Christ died for the world, which includes a smaller group, some. This relationship between all and some is not contradictory.

Christ died for all, which includes some. Affirming that Christ died for all is not a denial that Christ died for some. The sheep the elect and the church of God is a denial that Christ died only for some.

Okay, but once again, all of this, which they are trying to really put into the minds of their students, ignores what we've said before.

That you can't look at the atonement backwards from extent and ignore intention and effect.

That's the only way this type of stuff can work. I was supposed to keep this short. This sentence blew me away.

Southern Baptists can believe whatever they want regarding the doctrine of atonement? Now this is into a section where, by the way,

Southern Baptist Seminary professors are bound to teach in accordance with and not contrary to the Baptist faith and message. Now David Allen is saying that the

Baptist faith and message precludes particular redemption. Tell that to, you know, the people that founded

Southern Seminary maybe? I mean that is, now we're getting into historical revisionism, but anyways, but I'm still taken aback.

Southern Baptists can believe whatever they want regarding the doctrine of atonement? Really? That's, hmm, let me put it this way. Reformed Baptists can't.

Reformed Baptists can't believe whatever they want about the doctrine of atonement. You couldn't have any Sassinians in a

Reformed Baptist church. I think that's good. I think that's a very good thing. I need to get some other things here.

Let's talk about the love of God. He talks about Bruce Ware, who recognizes that since the topic of how man loves is complex and not simplistic, that, for example, just, you know, the greatest commandment.

What's the greatest commandment? You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. That's not just an emotion.

It includes the emotions, but there are times, there are times in the life of the believer when the command to love

God goes against the emotions. At the bedside of a loved one who has just passed away, a child that has passed away, the command to love remains valid even when the emotions say no.

So, if that's true of man, how much truer is it of God? And so,

Bruce Ware recognizes this, and Bruce Ware recognizes that it is not even arguable that there is so plainly and so clearly a redemptive love of God that is not extended to every single individual in the

Bible. You can't read the Bible and not see that. Let me point something out to you here.

Notice Genesis 15 -16. Then in the fourth generation, they will return here.

For the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete. That last little line there, the iniquity the

Septuagint uses, the sins of the Amorites, have not come to completion.

There's a period of time before God brings his people back from Egypt.

And he does so because there is a filling up of the iniquities of the

Amorites. Now, may I suggest something to you? If you don't think this through, you're going to end up with an extremely simplistic theodicy, explanation for the actions of God in regards to evil.

And this is an apologetic issue because how many people want to say, oh, look at that evil God in the

Old Testament. He killed those poor Amorites, and he drove people out of the land, and man, woman, and child, and beast.

Oh, it's terrible. If you don't think this through, you're not going to have an answer for that. And here's the answer. The iniquity of the

Amorite is not yet complete. The Amorites were filling up the iniquity that would make the absolute judgment of God upon them completely just.

Let me ask you a simple question. I've asked this question on the dividing line many times before. Where are the prophets that God sent to the

Amorites? Who were they? What was their message? There weren't any.

There weren't any. You say there are? Prove it. There weren't any. Now think about what

God does with the stiff -necked Israelites, many of whom were going to fall in the desert, but he still delivered them from the death of the firstborn through the

Red Sea, provide them manna, provide them water. You're telling me that the love that God shows to the

Amorite high priest is the same that he shows to Moses, or even that he showed to the unbelieving

Israelites who would fall in the wilderness but experienced all that grace beforehand? That's the same love, same kind, peanut butter benevolence?

I'm sorry, that's absurd. That's ridiculous. That doesn't make a lick of sense.

And yet that's what we're being told. And people are telling us, if you don't believe that, you don't really believe what the

Bible says. So, where it suggests that God's love should be understood in five senses, including a general love for all people and a particular love for his own people that moves him to save them, where it provides examples of God's particular love for his people, such as the love of a husband for his wife, where it writes just as husbandly love is destroyed altogether if a man were only capable of loving all women, including his wife, equally and exactly in the same way, so here

God's love for his own people is lost and the distinctiveness of this greatest of God's loves is denied. A man, as obvious as it can be, where his analogy accounts for husband's love for his wife, but fails to describe the sense of love for the non -chosen.

Now remember, these guys just have such a mono benevolence view that they can't see that what they're demanding is that grace be extended to everyone.

Grace cannot be free. Cannot be. God has no choice. If God's loving,

God has to be equally gracious to every single person on this planet. There can be no choice. God has no choice.

There is no freedom in grace. I say that destroys grace. Destroys it.

It's indefensible, biblically. Indefensible. Exactly what kind of love leads God to exclude some people from the atoning work of Christ and to withhold a special calling which necessarily seals their judgment.

The special calling and the inclusion of atonement is grace. Grace cannot be demanded.

That's what these men are doing. They're demanding that God's grace be given to every single person. God has no freedom.

If he's going to provide salvation for one, he has to do it equally for every single one. That's what you've got right here. That's what you've got right here.

He says, the Bible does not teach that God loves in five different senses. Instead, the Bible calls the cross of Christ an explanation of God's love for the world and for mankind.

When asked, does God love the world? Where it seems to reply, yes, but. So, if you actually enter into the fullness of biblical revelation, and you want people to actually be able to read this, and they're going to read those stories, they're going to read about the

Amorites, they're going to read about the Babylonians, and they're going to read about the Egyptians, and they're going to go, well, that seems that God treated one people differently than another people, but I was told by my professor from New Orleans that God's love is the same for everybody, and there's no distinction, and they're going to go, wow,

I'm confused. Because the biblical revelation of the nature of God's love,

God's freedom, God's grace is so much deeper, and it cannot be turned into a simplistic mantra, which is what you have here.

Did I mark anything down here? There was stuff about the two wills, but that's basically the exact same thing here.

I noticed Ken Keithley going by there, so maybe we've got a little Molinism being thrown in there.

But notice this one. I forgot to mark it, but notice what's said right here. Concerns about the revealed secret wills.

Now, what's this about? Real quickly, because I've gone a lot longer than I intended to here. What's this about?

Well, very simple. God's revealed will is what's found in his word, specifically in his law, but in his word.

God's revealed will as to how we're to live, that's all we're held accountable to.

God says do not murder, therefore we are held accountable not to murder. That's what we're judged by.

But clearly, obviously, there is a decretive will. There is a will that comes from God's decree.

Why do I say clearly and obviously? Well, let's take a look at another text. Let's look at the big one, because we want to be quick here.

Notice Acts 4 .27 .28. The early church prays, for truly in this city they were gathered together against your holy servant

Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

This is about the crucifixion. The crucifixion was the single most heinous evil act of mankind ever, because it was truly the only time that an innocent man has been murdered.

And what you have are all these different people. Herod, Pontius Pilate, Gentiles, Romans, the

Jewish leaders. All of them have very different motivations. All of them will be judged on the basis of the motivations of their hearts.

But the fact of the matter is, even though every one of them violated the prescriptive will of God that says do not kill, do not betray, do not lie, there's all sorts of things they did.

Verse 28 says, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

There's God's decretive will. The issue is not that there are two separate wills in God, it is that we as finite creatures, because of our ignorance, discern these two aspects of the one will of God.

So, there it is. There's no way around it. You can't even get through Genesis without dealing with this, because you've got to deal with Joseph and his brothers.

And you just can't get through the Bible. You can't meaningfully deal with the overarching themes of the

Bible and not see these things. So, it's fascinating then that we have, I have learned and benefited greatly from the writings of Calvinist brothers.

I am thankful for the contribution of gospel ministry, but they are not infallible. This view that God has both a hidden will and a revealed will is deeply flawed, because these wills affirm contradictory claims.

The implications of the present topic are God says he loves all people and says he wants to save all people, but secretly he doesn't.

This revealed secret will undermines any confidence we can have in the truthfulness and authority of the Bible. What if we applied this method of dividing

God's will to other teachings of the Bible? Consider, for example, the return of Christ. Would we say that God's revealed will is that Christ will return, but his secret will is that Christ will not return?

We would consider such a claim to be absurd. Rather, we say we can only know with certainty about God what he has revealed in the

Bible. Nevertheless, a similar claim is made which contradicts clear statements of Scripture that God loves all people and desires all to be saved.

Now, that is not even a semi -meaningful analogy, is it?

Hopefully you all can see why. We are not saying there are two contradictory wills in God.

They are making that based upon their assertion, and one that we've demonstrated to be false over and over again, that God's love bears no distinguishing marks of a redemptive love or anything like that.

That's obviously untrue. And that this God desires to save every single person is something other than the prescriptive will of God, and that therefore they are creating a contradiction that we say does not exist.

So they're creating a contradiction saying therefore we can't trust the Bible because of these things. Now obviously

I'd like to go into the text where they try to drive these things. I want to go into the text where they try to prove their position.

That's where they cannot survive cross -examination. But that's what you've got here, is that when we look at all that the

Bible teaches, and we allow for all that the Bible teaches, you can't do that because that's going to undermine your confidence in the truthfulness and authority of the

Bible. I suggest to you, when you try to simplistically make the message of this book fit into this type of simplistic pan -benevolence, mono -benevolence, peanut butter,

God doesn't have any freedom and grace, God doesn't have any choice type situation that results in this synergistic

Arminianism, you are destroying the consistency of Scripture. And it's simply indefensible.

And if you put your people in that situation, that's why people say, ah, you know, you could have such a much broader ministry if you just didn't worry about all this

Calvinism stuff. As an apologist, I have to be reformed.

I have to be consistent. And if you lead people to look at the

Bible as the Word of God, then you've got to look at all that it has to say. I did not expect to go this long.

I was going to be real brief. But there's so much in there. And it's disturbing to see this kind of thing being presented.

I just have to wonder if this type of presentation would be made knowing that people, you know, would

Dr. Harwood make that kind of presentation at Southern? Why do it at Truett McConnell?

Because Georgia is the epicenter for anti -Calvinism. So you can get away with it there. You've got a friendly audience.

I imagine some people sitting there going, boy, it sure would have been nice if that debate had ever taken place in 2006.

Yeah, it would have been. It would have been. Anyway, thanks for listening. Hope it was useful to you.