A Straw Man of David Allen's Position?

 At least one person reached out to me to suggest that I (in my previous post) misunderstood Dr. Allen, and that Dr. Allen does not teach that 1 John 5:1 teaches that faith precedes regeneration.  This person referenced one of Dr. Allen's papers from a few years ago ("Does Regeneration Precede Faith?" in the Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry, Fall 2014, Vol. 11, No. 2), which more modestly argues only that regeneration preceding faith cannot be proved from the grammar of the text (e.g., "The most that can be said from the Greek present participle and perfect tense verb combination is that the actions are contemporaneous" p. 41).  Indeed, in that paper, Dr. Allen attempted to resort to an argument from the "broader context" ("The broader context of John’s writings indicate he would not teach that regeneration precedes faith and elsewhere teach that faith is a condition for life as he does in John 20:31." p. 41)

Nevertheless, as documented in my various video responses (Original Response Part 1, Original Response Part 2, Response to Flowers' Claim that Allen Addressed James White's argument, and a follow-up regarding Sherman and Tuggy), especially the Original Response (for example, Part 1, from the place where Allen says, 'Well I'm gunna go ahead and raise some eyebrows'), Allen differs from Flowers and says that there are "semantic grounds" for his view of 1 John 5:1; and Part 2, where he reads section 4 of his paper, which argues from the "semantic structure" that faith precedes regeneration). 

Interestingly, the entire challenge posed to Dr. Allen by Dr. White hangs on this point.  If Dr. Allen were to abandon his position for Flowers' position, White's challenge would no longer apply to Allen with the same strength, although Dr. White would still be right to demand a consistent exegesis of 1 John 2:29, 1 John 4:7, and 1 John 5:1.  

Does Grace Sherman rescue David Allen? Or does Allen's Appeal Backfire? What does it mean that 1 John 5:1a is "condition" and 1 John 5:1b is "consequence"

Previously (link), we considered David Allen's putative attempt to respond to James White's challenge regarding providing a consistent exegesis of 1 John 2:29, 1 John 4:7, and 1 John 5:1.  We observed that Allen provided both a written response and a video.  In this post, we consider the most central part of that response that has not been addressed to date.

The following is a transcript from Allen's video (starting around 38 minutes, 47 seconds into the video):

Number four, semantic structural analysis. As linguists Grace Sherman and John Tuggy demonstrate with respect to 1 John 5:1, the semantic structure of the two propositions, proposition one, if anyone believes that Jesus is God's anointed, and proposition two, he is the one whom God has caused to live spiritually, i.e. be regenerated. Now notice this: semantically what is being communicated there -- the communication relationship there is one of condition consequence from a semantic standpoint. The condition is faith and precedes the consequence, which is regeneration. This is the natural way to interpret the verse. 

This closely follows p. 3 of Allen's written response, so closely that we can say he's just reading his written response:

There another place in the video where Allen makes reference to his position on this point. Starting around 21 minutes, 39 seconds into the video, Allen responds to Flowers by saying (transcription, as with the previous transcription, is Youtube's, lightly cleaned up by the present author):

Right. Well, I'm going to go ahead and raise some eyebrows by saying that I'm going to differ with you and Carson a little bit, because I actually think there are good reasons to think that 1 John 5:1 really can't be interpreted to argue for regeneration preceding faith.

But it's not on grammatical grounds. I'm going to get to all this in a minute. I'll just tease this right now. It's rather on semantic grounds. Semantic structure makes it pretty clear that what's happening there is faith preceding regeneration. So I'm a little bit stronger on that. I understand what Carson is saying. I don't disagree with what Carson is saying except to say that I think when you bring in the full orbed -- all of the exegetical material -- looking at it from a semantic perspective, contextually, you don't have a case for regeneration preceding faith, but you can have a case for faith preceding regeneration. So that would sort of be okay be how I might word that. 

I previously mentioned that I don't know what difference Allen intends between semantic and grammatical grounds, but at that time I did not have the benefit of having Sherman's work in front of me.  Incidentally, the book is published by "Summer Institute of Linguistics" in 1994 and lists as authors, "Grace E. Sherman and John C. Tuggy." The publisher has bios on a number of their authors (link to bios) but neither Sherman nor Tuggy are on the list.  I was able to locate archives of publications attributed to Tuggy (link), which shows an active interest in linguistics; the archives similarly listed a shorter two other linguistic-related publications associated with Sherman's name (link). Not that credentials are the be-all or end-all, but I was not able to locate any information regarding whether these authors have any specific training.  I only mention this because Allen calls them "linguists," in citing them. 

In order to respond to Allen, it's necessary to consider Sherman's book, of which page 91 is the single cited page.  On the other hand, in view of James White's challenge, it would be good also to consider whether Sherman anticipated the challenge (by more than two decades!) and provided the answer to the problem of applying Allen's (borrowed) analysis(?) at 1 John 5:1 to 1 John 2:29 and 1 John 4:7.

Sherman has a note that is of particular interest at 1 John 2:29 and then nothing at all of interest at 1 John 4:7, except that her silence as to the parallel structure suggests she simply has not considered the issue.  From Sherman's analysis and conclusions for 1 John 2:29 and 1 John 4:7 we can more clearly demonstrate the fundamental inconsistency at 1 John 5:1.

First, pp. 55-56 address 1 John 2:29a:

Notice that in the "Relational Structure" section, Sherman does not break down 2:29b.  However, when analyzing 2:29a, Sherman says that "The Greek grammatical structure indicates a condition-CONSEQUENCE relation. However, we know that the protasis of the condition is true, so that this functions as a reason-RESULT, here encoded as 'since'."  

When it comes to analyzing 2:29b, Sherman says that the Greek "has been begotten" is figurative, and that this signifies spiritual regeneration.  Thus, Sherman translates/interprets the text as "if anyone continues doing what is right, then God has caused him to live spiritually."

Second, pp. 79-81 address 1 John 4:7c:

As can be seen, Sherman does not further divide 1 John 4:7c, but treats the unit as a 'HEAD".  Sherman identifies the first appeal in this section (including 1 John 4:7) as "In a sense, this is the climax of the whole Epistle."  This is reasonable observation.  Note as well that once again Sherman explains "has been born from God" figuratively, in this case translating/interpreting it as "if anyone loves his Christian brothers, he has been caused by God to live spiritually and he knows God experientially" and to explain it thus:

The context shows that physical birth is not in view here; what is referred to is God's causing us to live eternally, that is, to associate properly with God, as a child with a father in a family.

Within the argument John is making, Sherman properly considers that 4:7c fits logically under "Love has its source in God," (i.e., 1 John 4:7b).  This, of course, is behind a right understanding of 1 John 2:29b as well: because God is the source of righteous acts, we know that the one who continues in doing what is righteous got that from God.

The challenge, of course, is to apply this same principle consistently when it comes to 1 John 5:1a-b (according to Sherman's division).  As noted above, p. 91 is the single page of Sherman's work that addresses 1 John 5:1a-b:

Note that on the page, Sherman has divided 1 John 5:1a as "condition" and 1 John 5:1b as "CNQ" (p. vi explains that this abbreviation means "consequent").  Allen asserted that "linguists Grace Sherman and John Tuggy demonstrate" but, as you can see, there is mere assertion, not demonstration.  Incidentally, I have referred to the author as "Sherman" instead of "Sherman and Tuggy" because of the preface of the book, which indicates that the initial work was Sherman's and that Tuggy (to paraphrase) beefed up the justifications of the positions set forth by Sherman.  In cases where there is bare assertion, it seems better to credit Sherman.

Note, however, that the "NOTES" skip right past 1 John 5:1b, and the notes on 1 John 5:1 are focused on the title "Christ."  

Nevertheless, Sherman twice provides the translation/interpretation: "If a person believes that Jesus is God's Anointed One, he is one whom God has caused to live spiritually."  

I should add that the discussion of 1 John 5:1 resurfaces on the next pair of pages, pp. 92-93:

Notice here that the translation/interpretation offered pushed into a chiastic structure.  Sherman argues that "there is no doubt that the whole verse is an aphorism" and again "Verse 1 is a generalized statement in which the actors are unspecified or unidentified ...." (p. 93)

Recall from James White's challenge:

The Provisionist position is that 1 John 5:1 must be understood with the substantive participle in the present, "Everyone who believes (as a result) is born from God."  I believe the natural reading is "everyone believing has been born from God," with the perfect passive action preceding and conditioning the action of the participle. 

Based on the interpretation/translations offered by Sherman, it seems that notwithstanding the "condition/consequence" labelling, Sherman supports White more than Allen.  Specifically note:

• 1 John 2:29b "if anyone continues doing what is right, then God has caused him to live spiritually."
• 1 John 4:7c "if anyone loves his Christian brothers, he has been caused by God to live spiritually and he knows God experientially" 
• 1 John 5:1b "If a person believes that Jesus is God's Anointed One, he is one whom God has caused to live spiritually."

This (of course) agrees with White's analysis as to the relative time issue.

What then of the condition/consequence point?  Recall that Sherman had identified something as being condition/consequence based on Greek grammar, but based on knowledge that the protasis is true, Sherman recategorized as reason-result, at 1 John 2:29a.

So, what are some other examples of condition/consequence and reason/result offered by Sherman?  At p. 24 we see multiple examples:

What we can glean from these examples is that if we assume that Sherman has common sense, we see that she is not using "condition/consequence" to mean that the condition is the cause of the consequence.  Rather, Sherman is using "condition" and "consequence" to express the fact that the truth of the condition statement guarantees the truth of the consequence statement. 

I wish there were a better explanation, but it seems that Allen may have mistakenly assumed that Sherman's "condition/consequence" meant something like "cause/effect," when it plainly does not (see multiple instances on p. 24 that cannot reasonably be thought to be cause/effect).  As a result, it seems that Allen has quoted Sherman as supportive of his position, when Sherman does not address the specific conclusion of the relative timing of initial faith and being born of God and her proposed interpretation/translation most closely aligns with James White's.

Sherman does not say that the condition is faith or that this precedes the consequence, nor that the consequence is regeneration.  Instead, Sherman says that the condition is the statement (the portion following the if, of course) "If anyone believes that Jesus is God's Anointed One" and the consequence is the statement "he is one whom God has caused to live spiritually."  Notice that Sherman uses the the present tense for the condition statement and the perfect tense for the consequent statement.  The meaning of condition/consequence in this analysis is that if the condition is true, then the consequence is true.  In other words, if A is 5:1a is true, then 5:1b is true.  That's all that "condition" and "consequence" means here.  Moreover, given that Sherman has maintained the present/perfect distinction, the most natural read of the text is parallel to that of 1 John 2:29b and 1 John 4:7c.

Finally, for the same reason that 1 John 2:29a is grammatically a condition-consequence statement, so also is 1 John 2:29b and 1 John 4:7c.  And Sherman does not offer any reason or explanation (or even assertion) to handle these three parallel texts differently from one another.

James White's 1 John 5:1 Challenge - Some Key Points

Recently, James White issued a challenge (link to challenge) to Dr. David L. Allen regarding Dr. Allen's interpretation of 1 John 5:1.  Dr. Allen responded, putatively "accepting" the challenge (link to written response - link to video response).  However, I have provided a detailed response explaining why the response does not address the challenge that was offered (part 1 - part 2 - and short summary).

According to Allen, the "semantic structure" of 1 John 5:1 indicates that the text means that faith produces regeneration.  However, White's challenge was to apply the same methodology to parallel passages at 1 John 2:29 and 1 John 4:7.  If one were to apply the same methodology, those passages would teach that doing righteousness produces regeneration and loving God produces regeneration, respectively.  As those are absurd results, Allen's methodology must be wrong.  However, even despite allegedly "accepting" Dr. White's challenge, Dr. Allen has not addressed how his methodology can be consistently applied to 1 John 2:29 and 1 John 4:7 without producing absurdity.

There is more, but that's the core of the issue.

Part 2 of a Critique of "Calvinism: a Biblical and Theological Critique"

"Calvinism: a Biblical and Theological Critique" (CABTC) has an introduction by the editors, Drs. Allen and Lemke (A&L).  The eleven page introduction is broken into the following sections: 

• The Debate over Calvinism (pp. 1-3)
• Are all Non-Calvinists Accurately Described as Pelagians or Semi-Pelagians? (pp. 3-4)
• Which Calvinism? (pp. 4-7)
• Presuppositions and Presumptions (p. 7)
• Why this Volume? (pp. 8-10)
• Differing Views, Unified Spirit (pp. 10-11)

I'm reviewing this book as I go, so I'm not yet prepared to say whether the introduction adequately captures the spirit and thrust of the book.  If appropriate, I may revisit this post at a later time to update.

I'll address each section of the introduction in turn.  

The Debate over Calvinism

The bulk of this section is recounting the Synod of Dort, which provided a Calvinist response to the Remonstrants.  Oddly, A&L repeatedly characterize the Remonstrants as "Calvinists," apparently based on the Remonstrants' affirmation of human depravity.     

On the positive side, A&L state that "Calvinism appears to be on the rise at this time" (p. 1). I find it hard to measure such things, but I certainly hope that is true.  In that small portion of the section, A&L seem to have a clearer concept of Calvinism, identifying Together for the Gospel, 9Marks, and Sovereign Grace Ministries as Calvinist, but not the John 3:16 Conference.  Curious in their omission are the G3 conference and the Founders conference, not to mention any of the NAPARC churches or mainstream "Reformed" churches (the focus of A&L is plainly on Baptists and other baptistic evangelicals).

Considering that the first section of the introduction is characterized in terms of "debate," you might expect that the book will offer debate with Calvinists such as the unidentified "seasoned scholars" that they say "fervently believe in and teach Calvinism." 

The conclusion of the "debate" section is worded to smoothly flow into the next section...

Are All Non-Calvinists Accurately Described as Pelagians or Semi-Pelagians

A&L point the reader to their appendix on the same subject.  The gist of the argument is that there are non-Calvinistic positions that are not Pelagian, and that calling such positions "Semi-Pelagian" amounts to a slur or caricature.  A&L attempt to link the use of this term to the Dortian suppression of the Remonstrants, which they allege included persecutions up to and including a beheading.

Which Calvinism?

A&L state: "The articles address Calvinism broadly, as opposed to any particular Calvinist thinker ...." This is further justification of my overall point from part 1 of this review, that the book provides little scholarly interaction with Calvinist arguments (link to part 1).

The section includes a lengthy portion asserting that according to Richard Muller, a Baptist who holds to the five points is not a Calvinist.  Oddly enough, Baptist preacher John Piper seems to be the most often quoted "Calvinist." The one time Norman Geisler is cited (in a footnote at p. 50), it is to attack John Piper's alleged errors, although Geisler's claim to be a "moderate Calvinist" is not acknowledged.

At one side, S&L seem to act as though Calvinism is so amorphous that it can't be easily defined (so that it can be said that various Calvinists disagree about various points and any representation of "Calvinism" is valid if they can find someone broadly within the Calvinist camp that holds the position), at another side S&L would like to define Calvinism to make it unpalatable to their baptistic readership (for example, suggesting that Calvinism is associated with infant baptism), and at yet another side S&L seem to be able to identify "Calvinists" not only so that they can assert that both Remonstrants and Amyraldians are Calvinists but also that various preachers and other theologians are Calvinists.  In supporting Richard Muller's Calvinistic credentials they say he is someone "who has indisputable Calvinist credentials."   

Presuppositions and Presumptions

A&L begin this section by claiming, "Calvinists presume that concepts like total inability, irresistible grace, and regeneration preceding faith are matters of fact" (p. 7).  Actually, of course, Calvinists argue that Scripture teaches total depravity, irresistible grace, and effectual calling, they don't just "presume" them.  Similarly, A&L assert "Presuppositions like 'original sin entails original guilt' are taken as fact" (p. 7).  Once again, this seems to be a fundamental category error between an exegetical conclusion and a presupposition.

The remainder of this brief section reminds the reader that there are Confessional Lutherans who are neither Calvinist nor Arminian.  For the second edition (if one is made), the editors may want to correct the grammar of one sentence here, which ends: "informs us that Lutheranism is . . . Lutherans." (p. 7)

Why This Volume?

A&L point out that their previous book, "Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism" sold over 15,000 copies including a Spanish translation.  A&L also acknowledged the existence of the responsive book, "Whomever He Will: A Surprising Display of Sovereign Mercy." The authors of that work, Barrett and Nettles, are mentioned multiple times in CABTC.

A&L acknowledge that four of the "articles" in this work are updates of corresponding "articles" from the previous work, while the remaining eleven are new.  As I didn't address the previous work, this should not have a significant impact on this review.

A&L note that they have broadened their field of authors from Baptists to Baptists, Methodists, and Arminians: "This new work includes authors from the Baptist, Methodist, and Arminian traditions." (p. 9)

A&L state that what unifies the authors of this tome is a desire to articulate concerns about the doctrines of Calvinism as they pertain to soteriology.

Differing Views, Unified Spirit

A&L assert that the authors entered this discussion with "reluctance" because of their desire for unity among evangelical Christians.  It is a bit odd to list reluctance in a book that has the earmarks of a sequel, and one of the contributors has a podcast that seems to focus nearly exclusively on this subject.

According to A&L, the contributors are not "anti-Calvinist," and that they are "interested in dialogue, not diatribe."  We have observed that there is limited interaction with Calvinist scholars in this particular work, but we will see the extent to which they engage in the dialog they indicate they desire.

Part 1 of a Critique of "Calvinism: a Biblical and Theological Critique"

"Calvinism: a Biblical and Theological Critique" (CABTC) was published by B&H Academic.  The book has a relatively low level of engagement with Calvinist scholars and other proponents of Calvinism.  

It's not absolutely zero interaction.  For example, they mention my friend, James White, twice: once in Kenneth Wilson's section in a footnote, where an episode of Dr. White's podcast is mentioned together with a ten minute segment of Dr. Wilson appearing on Leighton Flowers' podcast, in which Dr. White is allegedly "rebutted," for the idea that "Some Calvinists claim to have found Calvinistic theology in the early church fathers" and once in David Allen's section as a footnote to the sentence, "One of [Robert Some's] texts was Rom 8:33-34." The footnote in David Allen's section points to a website where David Allen's "full treatment of Rom 8:32" allegedly can be found, in a page that has Dr. White's name in the title.

On the other hand, considering that the editors of and credited contributors to the work have at least one doctorate and are professors, one might have expected that their targets would be the work of Calvinist professors.  Instead, their go-to target is retired pastor and celebrated author, John Piper.  Piper, we should acknowledge, received a doctorate and taught in a university for a few years before becoming pastor of Bethlehem Baptist and writing his now famous book, "Desiring God." 

CABTC lacks a bibliography, which seems odd for an "academic" publication, but is apparently normal for the publisher, B&H Academic (based on a perusal of several other of their recent books).  Admittedly, I'm less familiar with the standards of Baptist academia, so perhaps this is totally normal in those circles.

The fifteen contributors are mostly professors at Baptist seminaries or men who received their doctorates from Baptist seminaries (9/15).  The exceptions are Brian Abasciano (Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary), William Klein (Denver Seminary), Roger Olson (Baylor University), J. Matthew Pinson (Welch College), Ken Wilson (Grace School of Theology), and Ben Witherington III (Asbury Theological Seminary).  

The list includes respectable names in academia, but if what you are looking for is scholarly interaction with Calvinism and Calvinist arguments, this book is probably not for you.

Thankfully, we are able to provide a reasoned response to the arguments provided in this critique, and we plan to do so, Lord willing, in future posts.

UPDATE:

A few people commented on the odd title "Biblical and Theological Critique" as though any Protestant Critique that was theological could fail to be Biblical or vice versa.  

Compounding that problem, "A Biblical and Theological Critique" is also the section title of Section one of the book (occupying about the first third of the pages).  Section two is "Historical Issues with Calvinism" and section three is "Crucial Theological, Biblical, and Ecclesiological Issues with Calvinism."  There's an "Epilogue" that has the title: "Calvinists and Non-Calvinists Together for the Gospel," as well as an appendix titled, "Semi-Pelagianism: the Theological Catchall."