Theology Central

Theology Central exists as a place of conversation and information for faculty and friends of Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Posts include seminary news, information, and opinion pieces about ministry, theology, and scholarship.

The Cup and the Bread

by Kevin Bauder | May 23, 2025 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

One of the oddest mentions of the Lord’s Table in the New Testament occurs in 1 Corinthians 10:15–22. It is unusual because it does not occur in a discussion of church ordinances. Rather, Paul is examining the question of whether Christians may eat meat that has been offered to idols. It is also odd because it reverses the order of the ordinance. Everywhere else, the bread is mentioned first, followed by the cup. Only here does the New Testament put the cup before the bread.

This order is deliberate. It is a necessary step in Paul’s argument. If he were to use the traditional order (bread then cup), his message would be lost.

May Christians eat meat that has been offered to idols? Paul takes three chapters to answer that question, and he answers it in more than one way. In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul notes that an idol is nothing in the world (8:4). One might reason that if an idol is nothing, then meat that has been offered to an idol has been offered to nothing. It is no different than meat that has not been offered at all. It is not polluted; it can do no harm. Therefore, Christians must have the liberty to eat it.

This argument is valid as far as it goes, but it overlooks two factors. The first is that some believers cannot eat idol meat without being conscious of the idol. They would violate their consciences by eating, and violating one’s conscience is never right. To participate against one’s conscience is to defile it (8:7).

Believers who understand their liberty still have a responsibility to believers who do not. They must not embolden their brothers to defile their consciences (8:9–12). To cause a brother to stumble is to sin against him. Paul concludes that, “if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth” (8:13).

This statement seems extreme. A reader might be tempted to take it as hyperbole. It is not. In fact, Paul offers an extended explanation of this precept in 1 Corinthians 9. He makes it clear that he is willing to suspend any liberty that gets in the way of ministry.

Paul returns to the main question in 1 Corinthians 10. He adopts a strange tactic, which he uses to introduce the second overlooked factor in his original argument. He begins talking about Old Testament examples of eating and drinking. The thrust of his message is that eating and drinking can be significant acts. They can carry meaning beyond the mere consumption of food and drink.

A special example of eating and drinking that carries meaning is the Lord’s Supper. Paul wants to argue that participating in the Lord’s Table is a highly significant act. To explain the significance, he begins with the cup.

The cup, he observes, is the “communion of the blood of Christ” (10:12). In other words, the Lord’s Table is more than a memorial, more than a symbol. When we drink the cup, the act of drinking brings us into identification with the blood of Christ. Our drinking is a profession that we hold the blood of Christ in common (koinonia).

Obviously, the blood that Paul is talking about is the blood that Jesus shed on the cross. It is the literal, material blood of Christ. The Lord’s Table identifies us with this blood.

It also identifies us with the body of Christ. Just as the blood was the material blood, so the body must be the material body of Jesus. It is the body that was crucified for us and that died on the cross. The Lord’s Table brings us into participation or identification with this body. We enter a fellowship or communion (koinonia) that involves the body of Christ.

The order in which Paul discusses the elements is what tells us that the body is Christ’s material body. We must be clear on that point, or we will miss the way that Paul trades on an ambiguity. The cup identifies us with the material blood. Therefore, the body with which the bread identifies us must be the material body of Christ.

But Christ also has another body. It is a spiritual body. It is constituted by the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13). This spiritual body of Christ is elsewhere identified as the Church (Eph 1:22–23). Part of Paul’s point is that the Lord’s Table also identifies us with this spiritual body of Christ.

Identification with the spiritual body of Christ is the point of 1 Corinthians 10:17. Many individual kernels of grain go into making up a single loaf. By analogy, many individual believers go into making up Christ’s body.

Notably, Paul must be referencing the local congregation and not the universal Church. The universal Church has never observed a communion service. If you want to participate in the Lord’s Table, you must attend a local congregation. Such a congregation is what Paul has in view. The Lord’s Supper identifies us with the body of Christ that hung on the cross, but it also identifies us with a particular body of believers. It is a reminder of our covenant obligations toward each other.

The immediate application of this teaching is that we must be careful of what we eat and where we eat it. Eating the Lord’s Supper identifies us with the blood and body of Christ. Eating meat offered to idols identifies us with the demons who lurk behind those idols. If we have identified ourselves as belonging to Christ, then we must never identify ourselves with demons. To do so would provoke the Lord to jealousy, and that is hazardous business. As Paul asks, “Are we stronger than He?” (10:22). We must never overlook the principle of identification.

Later, Paul again appeals to this principle of identification. In 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 he offers the most sustained reflection on the Lord’s Table in the New Testament. There he writes about a particular situation. The Corinthian church was attempting to observe the Lord’s Supper. Because of the division within the church, however, Paul tells them that what they were doing was not the Lord’s Table (11:20). They were merely going through the motions.

The fundamental problem is that they were not discerning the Lord’s body (11:29). They were not recognizing that the Lord’s Table identifies them with Christ’s body—in this instance, with the local assembly at Corinth. They were behaving like individuals who are not united in one loaf. This failure of unity at the Lord’s Table brings them under severe temporal judgment (11:30).

The Lord’s Supper is more than a memorial. It is more than a symbol or picture. It identifies us with the physical blood of Jesus. It identifies us with the material body of Jesus. Just as seriously, it identifies us with the spiritual body of Christ in its local expression. We cannot rightly observe the Lord’s Table while we are allying ourselves with Christ’s demonic opponents. Neither can we worthily observe the Lord’s Table while we are behaving divisively toward our brothers and sisters in the local church.

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

That Night, At Table With His Friends

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

That night, at table with his friends,
our Lord took bread, and blest, and broke:
what love through all his actions ran!
What wondrous words of love he spoke!

“This is my body, given for you;
receive, and eat the living food.”
He took the cup and blest the wine:
“This the new covenant in my blood.”

“Do this,” he said, “till time shall end,
in memory of your dying friend;
meet at my table, and record
the presence of your loving Lord.”

Jesus, your feast we celebrate:
we show your death, we sing your name
till you return, that we may eat
the marriage supper of the Lamb.

My Twenty-Sixth

by Kevin Bauder | May 16, 2025 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

Tonight, Friday, May 16, 2025, is commencement at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. This will be the second year when we have held our graduation ceremonies on Friday evening rather than Saturday morning. We’ve moved the date because it presents fewer complications for both students and board, who can complete all end-of-semester activities and graduation festivities in a single day.

The event brings back memories of receiving my own seminary degrees in 1982 (MDiv) and 1983 (ThM). Completing seminary felt like climbing a mountain. Graduation day was like standing at the summit—a truly exhilarating experience. I can well understand the joy that our graduates and their families experience on this day and I rejoice with them.

Our commencement speaker is Dr. R. Bruce Compton. Dr. Compton is retiring from Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary after serving upwards of forty years as a professor there. His presence at graduation also evokes memories for me. He sat on the platform as faculty when I received both of my seminary diplomas. He was the professor who taught me both Greek exegesis and Hebrew grammar and syntax. Amazingly, he hardly seems to have changed, while I have grown old.

This is my twenty-sixth commencement at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. I arrived at the school in January of 1998. Charles Hauser, dean at the time, had been a professor and academic vice president of the seminary where I took my degrees. He was the one who opened the door to a faculty appointment at Central Seminary. Tom Zempel was the Assistant to the President in those days, and he also played a key role in recruiting me for the faculty. Of course, Douglas McLachlan was the president (and pastor of Fourth Baptist Church) who was willing to take a chance on me.

Graduation day is also the day of Central Seminary’s spring board meeting. The board assembles in the morning, breaks briefly for lunch, and finishes its business during the afternoon. Many board members join our graduates for supper and then stay for the commencement.

Central Seminary enjoys the blessing of a stable board that is very involved in the life of the institution. Some board members have served for decades. Since Fourth Baptist Church hosts Central Seminary, several Fourth Baptist members serve on the board. The majority, however, are members of other Baptist churches.

It was our board that first moved Central Seminary in the direction of distance education. That was one of the most timely moves the seminary has ever made. Setting up and testing the infrastructure took a couple of years. We had just gotten the system nicely running when COVID-19 hit. If we had not already made that transition, the seminary likely would not have survived. As it happened, we were able to make a seamless transition, eventually basing all our programs (including our doctoral program) on the Zoom platform.

That move has changed the complexion of the seminary. Twenty years ago, most of our students were recent graduates of Bible colleges. Now, most of our students are older, and they are already engaged in the ministries for which they are training. Before moving to distance education, we had very few foreign students. Now I teach classes in which most of the students reside outside of North America. Twenty years ago we were operating a campus in Eastern Europe. Now that second campus is unnecessary. We can and do reach students almost anywhere in the world. Interestingly, some of our brightest students hail from Africa and Asia.

The international flavor of our student population also complicates our graduations. North American students are required to attend in person, and most of them bring families with them. As the body of foreign students grows, however, an increasing number are graduating virtually rather than in person.

When so many students take their courses through distance education, the campus’s student life also changes. We no longer have events like student cookouts and banquets. We are looking for other ways to build camaraderie among our students. I have been experimenting with alternative ways to do this. For example, I’ve provided a platform through which students can share their notes. We make Zoom rooms available for students who want to conduct study groups, especially to review for exams. I also encourage students to share resources as they write papers. Those who choose to participate in these activities seem to be forming strong bonds of fellowship that reach across oceans and that (I hope) will endure for years to come.

This is my twenty-sixth graduation with Central Seminary, but it is the seminary’s sixty-ninth. Our first commencement was held in 1957. As we close out the present academic year, we begin our seventieth year. That, too, is cause for celebration.

Over the decades we have watched as more than a few of our sister institutions have closed their doors. Most of them were good schools that did a faithful job of training workers and leaders for the Lord’s service. We don’t hold ourselves to be any better than they were. Yet God in His mercy has granted us the privilege of continued prosperity. Today’s academic environment offers few reassurances (just look up the expression “demographic cliff”). Yet by God’s grace we will continue to serve Him as long as He sends us students and supplies our needs.

And Now, My Soul, Another Year

Simon Browne (1680–1732)

And now, my Soul, another Year
Of thy short Life is past;
I cannot long continue here,
And this may be my last.

Much of my dubious Life is gone,
Nor will return again;
And swift my passing Moments run,
And few that yet remain.

Awake, my soul, with utmost Care
Thy true Condition learn;
What are thy Hopes, how sure, how fair,
And what thy great Concern!

Now a new Scene of Time begins,
Set out afresh for Heav’n;
Seek pardon for thy former Sins,
In Christ so freely giv’n.

Devoutly yield thyself to God,
And on his Grace depend;
With Zeal pursue the heav’nly Road,
Nor doubt a happy End.

Seminary Treasure: Found Behind 1 Corinthians

by Micah Tanis | May 16, 2025 | Faculty Life, Humor | 2 Comments

Long-Lost Pancake Money Miraculously Discovered Behind 1 Corinthians Commentary (of All Places!)

There are miracles—and then there are seminary miracles.

Last week, as Dr. Roy Beacham, Senior Professor of Old Testament, was packing boxes of books to donate to the mission field, the long-lost envelope of proceeds from the 2005 Professors’ Pancake Palace was discovered deep in his bookshelves.

Yes, THE envelope—the one that mysteriously vanished twenty years ago after the December faculty flapjack extravaganza known far and wide (or at least as far as the break room) for Aunt Hazel’s Secret Recipe Famous Flapjacks.

For years, legends swirled. Did the envelope walk away? Was it eaten by a hungry seminary student? Did it ascend? Until now, no one knew.

But last week, while packing up books to send to Haven of Grace Seminary in the Philippines, Dr. Beacham and his wife, Jan, unearthed the mystery during a quiet afternoon of literary excavation. Roy, who has faithfully served at Central for nearly 50 years, was sorting and packing books with missionary Dr. Curt Lamansky of Pacific Rim Missions when history was made.

And where do you think the missing envelope was hiding?

It was nestled on the New Testament shelf—behind a commentary on 1 Corinthians, of all places.

We’re not saying it’s ironic that an Old Testament professor hid an envelope behind a New Testament commentary… but we’re also not not saying it.

The Beachams fondly recalled their plans to head to Kansas right after the 2005 Pancake Palace, so Roy had decided to store the money somewhere safe over Christmas vacation.

“I set it on my desk,” Roy remembered, “but I was like, ‘No, I can’t leave it there.’ So I put it in an Old Testament book near my desk … then I moved it from there to an even safer spot — but by the time we returned from Kansas, I totally forgot where I hid it!” As it turned out, it ended up behind the New Testament books.

Jan added, “I pulled the books off the shelf to box them, and something went clunk.”

The clunk heard ’round the seminary caused a stir in the hallway, as Dr. Brett Williams and Dr. Jon Pratt came rushing to investigate.

And yes, the envelope did indeed contain real, actual cash—with prices unchanged from 2005. Apparently, inflation hasn’t touched the economy of the Pancake Palace. It’s comforting to know that even after two decades, flapjacks at Central still cost less than a cup of gas station coffee.

So, what’s next?

Stay tuned for the annual Professors’ Pancake Palace during finals week every December. Who knows what other treasures might be hiding behind Dr. Beacham’s rare book collection?

Where Are Dr. Beacham’s Books Going?

Over 70 boxes of Dr. Beacham’s books are being donated to Pacific Rim Missions. They are designated for use by Haven of Grace Seminary and numerous Baptist churches and pastors on Negros Island in the Philippines.

The library will be located in Bacolod, a city of 600,000 and home to around 250 Baptist and Bible churches. Maranatha Baptist Church, the northernmost of the seminary’s four sites on the island, is a strategic location where these resources will benefit many churches.

Dr. Curt Lamansky shared:

“We at Pacific Rim Missions want to thank Dr. Roy Beacham for this amazing gift! We have about eighty men working on Master of Arts or Master of Divinity degrees on Negros Island. And, since there are approximately 1,000 conservative Baptist or Bible churches just on the western half of the island, there are many people who will be able to access this library regularly or occasionally.”

Plans are in place to build bookshelves at Maranatha Baptist Church, a large facility with an average attendance of 500. Dr. Lamansky and Pastor Jun Oguilla are evaluating two potential locations in the church building to house the library.

Dr. Lamansky concluded:

“As far as we know, there is no other theological library even approaching this size anywhere on Negros Island.”

And to make this donation even more amazing, Hazel’s 2005 proceeds were unearthed! The greatest seminary miracle of all time!

Looking to take a class with Dr. Beacham?

Spirit, Soul, and Body, Part 7: The Human Race

by Kevin Bauder | May 9, 2025 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

If the human soul is procreated along with the human body, then important consequences follow. For one thing, all humans descend from Adam, both body and soul. Thus, only one human race exists, not several. Various theologies of racial superiority have tried to propose an additional ultimate ancestor, or more than one. Some attempt to trace certain bloodlines to non-Adamic ancestors before the flood. Others seek to find a bloodline of “serpent seed” individuals who are at best only partly human. Biblical evidence for these theories is scant to non-existent.

The human race is one: red and yellow, black and white. When speaking of human beings, we should never refer to races. What people have called races are actually humanly devised constructs based on ephemeral qualities such as the presence or absence of melanin, eye pigmentation, hair texture, and bone structure. These classifications have sometimes been used to identify individuals for sinful purposes, but the Bible never treats them as important distinctions.

But we can speak of peoples or people groups. The Bible refers to these people groups as nations, the Greek singular for which is ethnos. A biblical nation or ethnicity descends from a common ancestor (see Gen 10). It may also share a common language, home territory, religion, and culture. The human race includes many such ethnicities, but it is still one race.

At the moment of this writing, the living human race consists of over eight billion individuals. Population growth seems to be flattening out and perhaps even declining. Perhaps a century or so from now, the human race will have grown to nine billion people. Or perhaps it will have shrunk to seven billion. In any event, all presently-living humans will have died. But here’s the thing: the human race will still be one. It will still be the same human race.

The relationship of individual humans to the race is analogous to the relationship of cells to our bodies. Our bodies continue to be the same bodies—they continue to be us—even when the individual cells change. When I was born, my body contained fewer than three percent of the cells that it now has. Most of those have been exchanged during the intervening years. My body has few or none of the cells with which I started. But it is still my body. It is still me. Its continuity does not consist in its individual cells.

This is an important matter for the resurrection. Believers have been burned to death because of their testimony. The particles of their bodies have been scattered to the winds. Other believers have been fed to wild animals that were eaten by still others. The particles of those believers’ bodies temporarily became particles of some lion or bear.

An extreme example is the body of Roger Williams, arguably the first Baptist in America. After he was buried, an apple tree grew near his grave. A root from the tree grew down into the coffin and followed the contours of his legs and feet. Years later, his coffin was exhumed. People believed that the root had drawn nourishment from Williams’s body, consuming his particles. Passersby had eaten apples from the tree, further dispersing the particles. Given the number of people who ate Roger Williams, how can God put him and them back together again in the resurrection?

Reconstituted bodies are only possible if the identity of the body does not depend upon the continuity of its particles. My body is mine today, even if it includes few or none of the cells with which it started. It will be mine in the resurrection, even if none of my present particles go into it. How God puts the resurrection body together is His problem, and He is fully capable of solving it. I am just happy to know that He will raise me again.

Likewise, today’s human race consists of over eight billion people. When I was born, it consisted of fewer than three billion. At the end of the Eighteenth Century, it numbered in the hundreds of millions. It was the same race in 1799 as today. Just as our bodies are the same bodies through growth and shrinkage, the human race is the same race whether population increases and declines.

At some point in the past, the human race was measured in the thousands. At an earlier point it was measured in the hundreds. And at one point, it was measured as a single individual—Adam.

And here is the unique thing about Adam: he was not just the first individual human being. When he was created, he was the entire human race. Even when the woman was made from him, she remained in a special relationship: bone of his bones, flesh of his flesh. Even then, and even at the temptation, Adam constituted the human race. That is why the Fall did not occur when Eve ate the fruit, but when Adam did.

When Adam did eat the fruit, he sinned a sin that no one else has ever been able to duplicate. When Adam sinned, he did not simply commit a personal transgression. When Adam sinned, the entire human race sinned.

This is not to suggest that every single human was personally and consciously present in Adam, willing to sin with him. It is to observe that if the race sinned, then every subsequent naturally-born human has participated in Adam’s sin. None of us comes from anywhere except Adam. None of us has a nature that derives from any other source.

Because we are humans, we participate in the human race. This same race sinned in our first father, and that is why God justly charges us with Adam’s guilt. According to Romans 5:12, “through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned” (NASB). That simple past tense verb speaks volumes. All sinned. When? In Adam. How? Because the race sinned in him.

Indeed, we are not simply charged with Adam’s guilt. If the race sinned, then it is our guilt as well. In fact, because of our identification with Adam, we were constituted sinners (simple past tense of kathistemi) through one man’s disobedience (Rom 5:19). God is not merely righteous to condemn us for Adam’s sin. He could not be righteous if He did not condemn us for Adam’s sin.

There is one and only one human race. It is the race from which we are all born. It is the same race that was Adam when he sinned. Because the race sinned in Adam, we also sinned then, even if we were not personally and individually present.

Beneath Our Feet and O’er Our Head

Reginald Heber (1783–1826)

Beneath our feet and o’er our head
Is equal warning given;
Beneath us lie the countless dead,
Above us is the heaven!
Death rides on every passing breeze,
And lurks in every flower;
Each season hath its own disease,
Its peril every hour!

Our eyes have seen the rosy light
Of youth’s soft cheek decay;
And fate descend in sudden night
On manhood’s middle day.
Our eyes have seen the steps of age
Halt feebly to the tomb;
And yet shall earth our hearts engage,
And dreams of days to come?

Then, mortal, turn! thy danger know;
Where’er thy foot can tread,
The earth rings hollow from below,
And warns thee of her dead!
Turn, mortal, turn! thy soul apply
To truths divinely given:
The dead, who underneath thee lie,
Shall live for hell or heaven!

Freedom of the Will?

by Kevin Bauder | May 2, 2025 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

[This essay was originally published on February 23, 2018.]

Imagine a man who has, somewhere deep within his cranium, a pair of dice. Every time he has to make a decision, a spasm in his brain casts these dice. How the dice roll is what determines the choice. In other words, every decision is pure, random chance.

Would it make sense to say that such a person was free?

Let’s put a label on those dice. Let’s call them his will. This man’s will is completely contingent. It is free from all interference from anything outside itself. Nothing can determine the will. The will is free, but the man is a slave. He is imprisoned by the caprice of arbitrary, random accident. His choices reflect nothing rational and nothing sensible, for however much rationality and sensibility may influence his will, neither is allowed to determine it. In fact, we probably shouldn’t even talk about the will being influenced; that word is virtually meaningless as long as the will is fully free.

Under these circumstances, we cannot rightly speak of the man making a choice. The choice is being made for him, because his naked will is not him. The choosing will is itself nothing more than a random throw of the dice. The decision is made by this contingent will, unshaped and unsupported by either his thought or his feeling. Consequently, only the will is free. The man himself is just along for the ride.

It does not help to object that the decision must be his because the dice are his dice, i.e., the will is his will. By its very contingency the will has been cut off from everything that makes him him. His rationality—what he knows or thinks he knows—must be factored out of the equation. His sensibilities—what he loves and hates—must also be factored out of the equation. If his will is truly free, that is, if his will is genuinely contingent, then neither his knowledge nor his loves can ever be sufficient to determine the will. When everything else has been factored away, only the naked will remains, like dice being cast, choosing randomly for the man.

Nor does it help to object that the will is generating its own choices. These words, “generating its own choices,” are merely a more verbose way of saying “throwing the dice”—and the dice are still thrown by a mere spasm, unreasoning and unfeeling. If there were more than this to the will generating its own choices, then the will would have to possess some reason or sensibility of its own, separately from the reason and sensibility of the person for whom it is choosing. In other words, the will would become a little, choosing person within the person for whom it chooses. It would become a daemon. Then we would discover that this daemon was making its choices when a spasm in its brain cast the dice.

The suggestion that the will somehow generates its own choices does not free the enslaved person. If the will is a daemon, choosing arbitrarily for the person whom it inhabits, then the person has no freedom. We would rightly consider such a person to be mad. If I were such a person, I would insist upon being locked up in an asylum for the protection of those whom I loved. After all, I could never know when my will might randomly determine that I was to commit some horror, some heinous act, contrary to all that I believed and treasured. I would be better off imprisoned externally as long as my daemonically free will already holds me prisoner internally.

There is no escaping an important conclusion. Whenever the will is truly free (that is, ultimately free to choose contrary to all knowledge and love), then the person is a slave. The will itself is utterly undetermined, but it utterly determines the actions of the person. Otherwise we end up with the contradiction of a man who chooses against his will; in other words, he chooses what he does not choose.

Whenever the will is truly free, then the person is a slave. On the other hand, for the person to be truly free, then the will itself must be subject to determination. Genuinely free persons choose (i.e., will) on the basis of some combination of what they know or think they know and what they love or hate. In other words, for free persons, some combination of rationality and sensibility must always determine the will—and if the will is determined, then it is not free.

Furthermore, only if the will is determined can we say that the person is making the choice. Persons are more than their wills. Personhood includes both rationality and sensibility. When wills make decisions contingently (without determination by rationality and sensibility), then they are choosing for persons. When rationality and sensibility determine wills, then the persons themselves are making the choices. In this case, the will is not a separate thing from the deciding persons; rather, the will is simply whatever choice the deciding persons make.

I do not intend here to trace the balance of rationality and sensibility in genuinely free choices. Rather, I simply wish to note that a person who chooses on the basis of rationality and sensibility is truly free, even though that person’s will is determined. A person whose will is truly free (contingent or self-determining) is always enslaved.

In sum, freedom can be viewed in two ways: either as freedom of the will, or else as freedom of the person. Whichever definition of freedom you think is best, you are going to end up with some form of determinism. The freedom of the will results in the slavery of the person. The freedom of the person demands the determination of the will.

Finally, I wish to observe that there are accepted labels for each of these visions or theories of the will. On the one hand, the notion that wills choose contingently and that they generate their own choices is called libertarianism. As we have seen, if libertarian freedom is true, then the will is free but the person is a slave. On the other hand, the notion that persons choose on the basis of some combination of what they know or think they know and what they love or hate is called compatibilism. If compatibilism is true, then the genuine freedom of persons is fully compatible with determination of the will—indeed, for persons to be fully free, wills must be determined.

Each of us must choose one of these theories. The question is, how will we choose? Will we choose on the basis of what seems reasonable and sensible? Or will we insist that rationality and sensibility be factored out of the equation so that our wills are left naked to choose contingently for themselves?

What Strange Perplexities Arise

Samuel Davies (1723–1761)

What strange perplexities arise?
What anxious fears and jealousies?
What crowds in doubtful light appear?
How few, alas, approv’d and clear?

And what am I?—My soul, awake,
And an impartial survey take;
Does no dark sign, no ground of fear,
In practice or in heart appear?

What image does my spirit bear?
Is Jesus form’d and living there?
Say, do his lineaments divine
In thought, and word, and action shine?

Searcher of hearts, O search me still;
The secrets of my soul reveal;
My fears remove; let me appear
To God, and my own conscience clear.

Scatter the clouds, that o’er my head
Thick glooms of dubious terrors spread;
Lead me into celestial day,
And, to myself, myself display.

May I at that bless’d world arrive,
Where Christ thro’ all my soul shall live,
And give full proof that he is there,
Without one gloomy doubt or fear.

Spirit, Soul, and Body, Part Six: Origins

by Kevin Bauder | Apr 25, 2025 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

The first human being was the direct creation of God (Gen 1:26–28). When making the first man, God shaped him from the dust of the ground and then breathed into him the breath of life (Gen 2:7). At that point, the man became a living soul.

The second human being was the first woman. God did not shape her from the dust of the ground. He fashioned her from a rib of the man (Gen 2:21–22). Scripture records no second inbreathing. While her life came ultimately from God, it transmitted directly from the man. He recognized the likeness and kinship between them. He expressed this recognition by calling her bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh. Since she was taken out of a male (Hebrew ’ish), the man named her ’ishah (the feminine form of the same word, Gen 2:23).

Since the creation of these first humans, all people have been procreated. In one case (the virgin birth of Christ), this was a miraculous event that involved a human mother but no human father. All other humans come from both a mother and a father.

The question is how much of the person is procreated. Another way of phrasing this question is to ask where the soul comes from. This question has been answered in three main ways.

Some have claimed that souls already exist. For example, Plato believed that souls are eternal. They migrate from one body to another after death. Mormons assert that God created souls first, and that these souls agreed to be joined later to human bodies. Neither of these theories is compatible with biblical teaching. The Bible never even hints at preëxistent souls. Also, preëxistence violates the integrity of the person. In Scripture we are not only our souls, we are also our bodies.

Another theory is that God creates each soul at conception, birth, or somewhere between. On this view, each soul is a unique creation of God. The theory is called creationism. This label can be confusing. It does not address whether or how God made the world. It is about the origin of each human soul.

Some good theologians have taught creationism. Charles Hodge is an example. A common proof text for this view is Ecclesiastes 12:7. This verse describes human death. It says, “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it” (KJV). The argument is that bodies come from earth and souls come from God. Ergo, God must have made each soul (spirit) individually.

This is hardly a clear proof text. It concludes a metaphorical description of aging and death. It does not intend to address the question of where the soul comes from, but of where it goes. It states that the spirit comes from God, but it never specifies how that happens.

The creationist view runs into significant difficulties. One problem is that God finished His work of creation on the sixth day (Gen 2:1–2). But if creationism is true, then God continues to create. He must create a soul whenever a man and woman procreate. At the moment, that would be upwards of 364,000 unique acts of creation out of nothing every day.

Creationism also violates the biblical teaching that the body is the person. If creationism is correct, then the soul is the real human being. The body is merely its warehouse. On this view, why do humans even need bodies?

Worse, creationism fails to explain the actual sinfulness of every human soul. David asserted that he was a sinner from the moment of conception (Psalm 51:5). How? Did God create a sinful soul? Or did God create a pure soul and knowingly join it to a sinful body that would surely corrupt it? If that is the answer, then how can we avoid the Gnostic teaching that evil resides in the body? A satisfying answer to this question has not yet appeared.

The better theory is that humans procreate soul and body together. This theory is called traducianism. The word traduce means to transfer or hand down. On this view, humans procreate other humans and not merely bodies. Like the body, the soul comes from the natural union of male and female.

In other words, God does not have to breathe the breath of life into each successive human being. At first, Eve’s soul must have come from Adam. Since then, each soul comes from Adam and Eve by natural descent. Thus, Paul said that God made all the nations of humanity from one (Acts 17:26). If creationism were true, then God would create the souls of all the nations one by one. They would be from Him, even if their bodies were from Adam.

Traducianism offers the best explanation for the unity of the human person. Body and soul—inner person and outer person—go together. Individual personhood comprises both together. The separation of body and soul damages full personhood. The disembodied person is “found naked” (2 Cor 5:3–4). But creationism has body and soul coming from widely different sources. Creationism leaves no basis for the intimate bond between material and immaterial.

In short, traducianism is the best explanation for the origin of the soul. It avoids making God the author of sin. It best explains the reality of depravity for newly-conceived souls. It locates depravity in the whole person, not in just the body or soul. It best supports the unity of the human race. It best vindicates the unity of the human person.

This conclusion does not mean that the soul originates in some sequence of DNA in the human genome. Our genetics have to do with the procreation of our outer persons, our bodies. We do not know what mechanism God employs for the procreation of our inner persons. We do not know how the soul is begotten or conceived.

But we can be confident that it is. Your mother and father did not just give you your body. They became parents of the whole you. In the same way, your children are genuinely yours, both body and soul. Our spirit comes ultimately from God, who breathed into our first father the breath of life. Between him and us, though, it is traduced through the natural process of procreation.

People of the Living God

James Montgomery (1771–1854)

People of the living God,
I have sought the world around,
Paths of sin and sorrow trod,
Peace and comfort nowhere found.
Now to you my spirit turns,
Turns, a fugitive unbless’d;
Brethren, where your altar burns,
O receive me into rest!

Lonely I no longer roam,
Like the cloud, the wind, the wave;
Where you dwell shall be my home,
Where you die shall be my grave;
Mine the God whom you adore,
Your Redeemer shall be mine;
Earth can fill my heart no more,
Every idol I resign.

Tell me not of gain or loss,
Ease, enjoyment, pomp, and power,
Welcome poverty and cross,
Shame, reproach, affliction’s hour:
“Follow me!”—I know the voice;
Jesus, Lord, Thy steps I see;
Now I take Thy yoke by choice,
Light Thy burden now to me.

Spirit, Soul, and Body, Part 5: Implications

by Kevin Bauder | Apr 18, 2025 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

Scripture is clear that humans are not simply souls that inhabit bodies. Still less are they souls without bodies. The Bible teaches that the body is as much the person as the soul is. Body and soul are the inner and outer person. So important is the body to personal identity that God will raise it from the dead.

This biblical teaching raises certain questions. One is about the relationship of body to soul. According to the biblical vision, we must treat people as unities. Under normal circumstances, neither the outer nor inner person acts apart from the other. Soul affects body and body affects soul.

Hard monism reduces all inner activity to the fluctuations of matter. The Bible contradicts this theory. Christians insist that the mind is more than the cells of the brain. The Bible depicts the human spirit as the center of cognition. Yet the spirit—the inner person—is affected by the body. The mind does not usually operate detached from the brain. Fatigue and hunger can affect both thinking and feeling. When Elijah ran from Jezebel, God gave him food and rest before giving him answers or instruction (1 Kings 19).

What happens at death? Do we receive an intermediate body? Does God give us a temporary body between death and the resurrection? Some have argued from 2 Corinthians 5:1–8 that He does. But both body and soul are essential to human identity. Hence, the existence of an intermediate body is unlikely. 2 Corinthians 5 contrasts our present body with our resurrection body. It says nothing about an in-between, temporary body. If we are our body, we could hardly be ourselves while inhabiting some other body. We would not be us. The text promises resurrection after a temporary, disembodied existence. As disembodied souls, we are “found naked” and “unclothed” until the resurrection. Without our bodies, we lack an element of our identity. God will restore this element when He raises us.

Because humans are bodies as well as souls, we must never treat human bodies with contempt. Those who kill the body kill the image of God (Gen 9:6). Even after death, our bodies are still us. We must treat bodies with respect. Deliberate mutilation of a corpse is desecration. Moab burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime (Amos 2:1). God pronounced judgment upon Moab for this desecration. Moab intended to show extreme contempt for an enemy. The contemptuous nature of the act elicited God’s condemnation.

Does this text also forbid cremation? Here we must distinguish the act from the attitude that leads us to do it. Moab burned the king of Edom as an act of contempt. Yet not all burning of bodies is necessarily contemptuous. We find an analogy in the treatment of living bodies, which we must also treat with respect. To sever a healthy body part is mutilation, but to sever a gangrenous member is surgery. Mutilations are desecration, but surgeries are attempts at healing.

God intends the deceased to return to dust (Gen 3:19). Buried bodies usually return to dust rather slowly. Burned bodies also return to dust, but more rapidly. Incineration only speeds up the process. The resurrection will restore bodies that have decayed in the earth. It will also restore those consumed by fire. Otherwise, martyrs burned at the stake would have no hope. We bury some bodies in earth. We entomb some in mausolea. We submerge some in the sea. We incinerate some in flames. If the attitude is respectful, then the method of interment is indifferent.

We must also treat living bodies with respect. Our bodies are us. Whoever treats our bodies contemptuously desecrates them. Unnecessary removal of healthy organs is mutilation. People who cut themselves in self-loathing are desecrating their bodies.

Interestingly, Scripture does not view piercings as mutilations. Earrings and probably nose rings were prominent in the Old Testament. Both sexes wore these ornaments (Gen 24:22, 30, 47; Exod 32:2–3; 35:22; Prov 25:12; Ezek 16:12). Whether one should get a piercing depends on other considerations.

The fall has affected our bodies, sometimes disfiguring them. Infants are born with cleft palates and lips. Victims of fire or other mishaps may endure severe scars. Scoliosis twists the spine and hunches the shoulders. Repairing disfigurements to the body is right and good.

But we must never see our bodies as disfigurements in themselves. If our bodies are us, then we must accept them as gifts from God. Some bodies are short and others tall. Some are female and others male. Some are dark and others fair. Some are delicately framed and others are big boned. These are all givens in our lives (Matt 6:27). They are part of who we are. These realities must shape our inner sense of identity because they are our identity.

Sex is an aspect of embodiment. In sexed beings, gender connects directly to sex. Your sex identifies both you and your gender. It is part of who you are, and it is unchangeable. You can modify your body to resemble the opposite sex, but you cannot change your sex. Such alterations are always mutilations. If your sense of who you are does not align with your body, you do not need chemical or surgical treatment. You need counsel.

Your body is not an illusion. It is a reality. It is your identity. It is you. You must treat it with respect, and you must insist that others do the same.

Jehovah Hear Thee in Thy Grief (Psalm 20)

The Psalter, 1912

Jehovah hear thee in thy grief,
our fathers’ God defend thee still,
send from His holy place relief,
and strengthen thee from Zion’s hill.

Thy sacrifice may He regard,
and all thine off’rings bear in mind;
thy heart’s desire to thee accord,
fulfilling all thou hast designed.

In thy salvation we rejoice,
and in God’s name our banners raise;
Jehovah hearken to thy voice,
fulfill thy prayers through all thy days.

Salvation will the LORD command,
and His anointed will defend;
yea, with the strength of His right hand
from heav’n He will an answer send.

How vain their every confidence
who on mere human help rely;
but we remember for defense
the name of God, the LORD Most High.

Now we arise and upright stand,
while they, subdued and helpless fall;
Jehovah, save us by Thy hand,
the King give answer when we call.

2025 Commencement Exercises

by Micah Tanis | Apr 16, 2025 | Notices, Our Alumni, Our Students | 0 Comments

Central Baptist Theological Seminary is pleased to announce that Dr. Bruce Compton will be the featured speaker at our 2025 Commencement Exercises. The ceremony will be held on Friday, May 16, at 7:00 PM in the auditorium of Fourth Baptist Church. Degrees will be conferred for the Master of Arts in Biblical Counseling, Master of Arts in Theology (Biblical Studies), and Master of Divinity.

Dr. Compton has served as a Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary since 1984. A respected theologian and committed churchman, he has devoted over four decades to teaching the original languages of Scripture and training students for faithful gospel ministry. He earned his AB in Political Science from UCLA, his MDiv and ThM from Denver Baptist Theological Seminary, and his ThD in Greek and New Testament with a minor in Hebrew and Old Testament from Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana.

In addition to his teaching ministry in Detroit, Dr. Compton has served as an assistant professor at Denver Baptist Theological Seminary and lectured at Central Seminary, Maranatha Baptist University, and Grace Baptist Theological Seminary (Coimbatore, India). He has been a featured speaker at events such as the Mid-American Conference on Preaching and the Bob Jones University Bible Conference. Dr. Compton also served as a military chaplain in the Air National Guard until his retirement in 2002, following earlier service as an active-duty pilot in the U. S. Air Force from 1968 to 1974. He was ordained by Inter-City Baptist Church in Allen Park, Michigan, where he continues to serve in various teaching and preaching roles.

He and his wife Mari have two married sons.

Recently, Dr. Compton co-edited “Dispensationalism Revisited: A Twenty-First Century Restatement” with Dr. Kevin Bauder, published by Central Seminary Press.

We look forward to welcoming Dr. Compton as we celebrate God’s faithfulness in the lives of our graduates and commission them to serve Christ and His church around the world.

Further details about commencement will be posted at centralseminary.edu in the coming weeks.

Body, Soul, and Spirit, Part 4: The Body

by Kevin Bauder | Apr 11, 2025 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

God planned to create the human race in His own image (Gen 1:26). He accomplished His plan in two steps. First, He fashioned the first human from the dust of the ground (Gen 2:7). Second, He breathed the breath of life into that first man. This inbreathing resulted in the man becoming a living soul.

The text does not say that God fashioned the man’s body from the dust of the ground. According to Genesis, what God formed was not merely a body, but a man—a human being. The man did not become a human when God breathed into him. He was already a human being before God’s breath made him a living soul.

In other words, human identity is tied to the body. We should not say that the body is human, as if humanity were merely a quality or property that the body possesses. The body is not just human; rather, each body is a human, a human being, a human person. Human identity and human nature are tied directly to the body.

This biblical understanding of the body directly contradicts the ancient Greek vision of human nature. The Greeks thought that the soul is the real person, immaterial and immortal. The soul only lives temporarily in the body. When the body dies, the soul is freed for its immortal existence.

One form of this Greek vision, Gnosticism, was particularly vicious. In the gnostic vision, spirit is good and matter is evil. Specifically, the human body is evil. Most versions of Gnosticism teach contempt for the body. They emphasize that bodily appetites are corrupt and must be resisted. People who suppress bodily desires may eventually free their real selves (their spirits) from the body.

The Bible rejects these theories. According to the Bible, your body is as much you as your soul or spirit is. Your soul or spirit is your inner person. Your body is your outer person. Both are you, and you are not fully you without both.

To be sure, the outer person can be separated from the inner person. When that happens, the outer person dies (James 2:26). Even when your body dies, however, it is still you. When God instituted the curse of human death, He made this clear. God did not say that Adam’s body would die. He told Adam that he would return to the ground, “since you were taken from it. For you are dust, and you will return to dust” (Gen 3:19, CSB). These words could not be spoken about a soul. They are statements about a person, but the body is clearly in view. Only the body is made of dust and returns to dust. The necessary conclusion is that the body is the person.

Personal identity remains tied to the body even after the body has been entombed and has decayed. Peter remarks about David that, “He is dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day” (Acts 2:29, CSB). According to Peter, when the body of David was buried, David himself was buried.

The Bible uses this language regularly. Abraham buried Sarah (Gen 23:19). Isaac and Ishmael buried Abraham (Gen 25:9). Rachel was buried on the way to Ephrath (Gen 35:19). Esau and Jacob buried Isaac (Gen 35:29). Jacob’s sons buried him (Gen 50:13). Miriam was buried at Kadesh (Num 20:1). Aaron was buried at Mosera (Deut 10:6).

This list could be extended, but one more instance is particularly striking. After Jesus died on the cross, Joseph of Arimathea approached Pilate to ask for Jesus’ body (John 19:38). With Pilate’s permission, he took the body of Jesus away. He and Nicodemus oversaw the embalming of the body with spices and linen cloth (19:39–40). All these verses talk about the body of Jesus. When the text narrates the burial in the tomb, however, it says that, “There they laid Jesus” (19:42). They did not just bury Jesus’ body. They buried Him.

The bodies of the dead are still bound to their identity. A deceased body is still the same person it was when alive. That is the reason we must not treat dead bodies with contempt. Human embodiment is part of being created in the image of God (Gen 1:26–27). To treat a corpse brutally is an act of desecration.

Of course, the inner person survives the death of the outer person. When Jesus was laid in the tomb, His inner person was in paradise (Luke 23:43). When believers die, their inner person is absent from the body but present with the Lord (2 Cor 5:8). Even so, something is missing in this kind of disembodied existence. We are at home in the body (2 Cor 5:6). When we are out of the body, we are naked and unclothed (5:3–4). Even though we are present with the Lord, we are literally not all there. A vital element of our personhood, a significant aspect of our identity, is missing.

This missing element is restored only in the resurrection. The resurrection of the body is not a footnote to the Christian faith. It is the heart of biblical hope. We long to be clothed in the resurrection body (2 Cor 5:2, 4). It will have gloriously different qualities from our present body, but it will be numerically identical to the body we now are (1 Cor 15:35–44). When our bodies are redeemed by the resurrection, we shall be revealed as the sons of God (Rom 8:19). This will be the moment when our adoption as God’s sons becomes complete (8:23).

The body is not incidental. It is not an afterthought. It is not a temporary home for the real us. It is as much the real us as our soul or spirit. It is our outer person, corresponding to an immaterial inner person. It is inseparable from our identity and selfhood. Our body is us.

And Must This Body Die?

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

And must this body die,
This well-wrought frame decay?
And must these active limbs of mine
Lie mould’ring in the clay?

Corruption, earth, and worms
Shall but refine this flesh,
‘Till my triumphant spirit comes
To put it on afresh.

God my Redeemer lives,
And often from the skies
Looks down, and watches all my dust,
Till he shall bid it rise.

Array’d in glorious grace
Shall these vile bodies shine,
And ev’ry shape, and ev’ry face
Be heavenly and divine.

These lively hopes we owe,
Lord, to thy dying love;
O may we bless thy grace below,
And sing thy grace above.

Saviour, accept the praise
Of these our humble songs,
Till tunes of nobler sounds we raise
With our immortal tongues.

Providence

by Kevin Bauder | Apr 4, 2025 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

On the one hand, a driver runs a red light and speeds toward you; he misses you at the last instant. You know you are unable to pay a bill, but an unexpected check arrives in the mail. A long-standing affliction is suddenly healed and you experience relief. A distant friend calls you during a difficult time with words of encouragement.

On the other hand, you experience a sudden illness and endure an unexpected surgery. An unforeseen complication arises as you are preparing to file your taxes. Your car develops serious problems, but the dealership claims that it is “in spec” and doesn’t qualify for warranty coverage. A loved one nears life’s end.

All the situations in the two previous paragraphs are true to life. You have experienced them or something like them. They represent the unanticipated blessings and calamities that fall upon God’s children.

They all occur under God’s Providence. When these circumstances favor us, as they do in the first paragraph, we recognize the hand of God and thank Him. But what if they do not favor us? What if they are like the second paragraph? Do these events somehow reflect less of God’s care in our lives? Are they no longer providential?

No, Providence is at work in everything that happens to us. Whether good or bad, God oversees all the events of our lives. Nothing, no matter how small, is outside the scope of His attention and direction.

That includes the events that we never even notice. We walk beside a tall building and no piano falls on us. We eat a dinner without choking to death. We put our key in the ignition and the car starts; we drive it without reflection. These ordinary events are governed by Providence, too.

What is Providence? It is God’s work in the world through secondary causes. When God operates directly in the world, we call it a miracle. No natural explanations are possible for miracles. Bread and fishes never multiply naturally. Stormy seas never go suddenly calm naturally. Dead people do not return to life naturally. When Jesus did these things, they were demonstrations of His kingdom power working directly upon the world. They were supernatural events. They were miracles, not providential occurrences.

On the other hand, providential events always have naturalistic explanations, even if those explanations are somewhat unlikely. Think of the farmer with a parched field. He prays, and a sudden thundershower saves the crop. The farmer rightly thanks God for the rain. But the meteorologist has another explanation, having tracked the storm front for a week.

Who is right, the farmer or the meteorologist? Was the rain a gift from God or was it a natural event? The doctrine of Providence says that both explanations are true. God was working through the storm to achieve His purpose for the farmer.

At the same time, God was using that storm front to achieve other purposes. God is infinitely wise. He is immeasurably powerful. He is capable of planning natural events to accomplish many ends at once. The same event may be greeted by some as a blessing and lamented by others as a burden. The storm that saved the crop also cancelled the ball game. The rain slowed traffic on the highway, where reduced visibility led to a crash. The runoff helped to fill the city’s reservoir. All these results were planned and intended by a sovereign God.

Here is the marvel of Providence. None of these effects lies outside God’s awareness. None of them is merely accidental or coincidental. God intends them all. Providence encompasses each one, and many more besides.

We experience many events as evils. Some of them really are. But if we are God’s children, then we should know that God intends them all for our good. Providence may seem to frown, but it is never hostile to us.

Joseph experienced his brothers’ betrayal as an evil, and the evil was real. When he eventually confronted his brothers, however, he offered a different perspective. What they intended for evil, God intended for good (Gen 50:20). Thus it is for all God’s children at all times and in all places. The worst things that happen to us are still moving us toward the best possible results.

We naturally welcome Providence when it results in obvious and immediate blessing. We rejoice and thank God. We are right to do so. These events are certainly displays of God’s benevolence and care.

But so are events that bring calamity. God is no less at work in the evils of our lives than He is in the blessings. And those evils, no less than the blessings, He intends for our good. While we may not thank Him for the evil itself, we can and should thank Him for the good that He will bring out of it.

These things are easy to say and write. They are much harder to remember when evil befalls. We are stunned when things turn sour. We lament when we are stricken with pestilence. We grieve when we stand beside the grave of a loved one. We feel torn when a relationship ruptures. But even then, we should remain steadfast in our trust of the God who governs through Providence.

High in the Heavens, Eternal God

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

High in the heavens, eternal God,
Thy goodness in full glory shines;
Thy truth shall break thro’ ev’ry cloud
Which veils and darkens thy designs.

Forever firm thy justice stands,
As mountains their foundations keep;
Wise are the wonders of thy hands,
Thy judgments are a mighty deep!

Thy mercy makes the earth thy care,
Thy providence is kind and large;
Angels and men thy bounty share,
The whole creation is thy charge.

Since of thy goodness all partake,
With what assurance may the just
Thy shelt’ring wings their refuge make,
And saints to thy protection trust.

Such guest shall to thy courts be led,
And there enjoy a rich repast;
There drink, as from a fountain head,
Of joys which shall forever last.

With thee the springs of life remain,
Thy presence is eternal day;
O let thy saints thy favour gain,
To upright hearts thy truth display.

Equipped for Ministry

by Micah Tanis | Apr 4, 2025 | Our Students | 0 Comments

Senior Doctrinal Defense 2025

Theological training isn’t just about acquiring knowledge—it’s about preparing for a lifetime of faithful ministry. For Master of Divinity students at Central Seminary, one of the final steps in that preparation is the Senior Doctrinal Defense, where they articulate and defend their theological convictions before the faculty.

The Senior Seminar course prepares the student for their oral doctrinal defense. This week, three seniors—Brandon Carmichael, Justin Gilbert, and Brent Marshall—successfully completed this rigorous process. Each of these men is serving faithfully in their local church and have the opportunity to apply their studies every week.

A Training Ground for Faithful Shepherds

At Central Seminary, the Master of Divinity program provides the biblical and theological foundation necessary for effective ministry. Through intensive study of Greek and Hebrew, systematic and historical theology, biblical counseling, and pastoral leadership, students are equipped to handle God’s Word with precision and shepherd with wisdom and grace.

Are you ready to dive deeper into Scripture and prepare for a lifetime of ministry? Explore the Master of Divinity at Central Seminary.

Spirit. Soul, and Body, Part 3: The Human Spirit

by Kevin Bauder | Mar 28, 2025 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

The Bible describes the human spirit much as it describes the soul. Still, some differences do appear. Comparing these descriptions will help us grasp the relationship between the two.

The Hebrew term for spirit is ruach. This word is also used for breath and wind. The same is true of the Greek term, which is pneuma. These terms also designate the Holy Spirit. For example, John 3:8 uses pneuma for both the wind and the Holy Spirit. Then again, 1 Corinthians 2:11 uses pneuma for both the human spirit and the Holy Spirit. Most of the time, the context indicates how the words are being used.

The first thing to know about the human spirit is that it gives life to the body. The body dies without the spirit. According to James 2:26, the body without the spirit is dead. When Jesus raised Jairus’s daughter from the dead, her spirit entered into her. That is when she returned to life (Luke 8:54–55). When the Bible depicts the death of Jesus, it says that He dismissed (Matt 27:50) or handed over (John 8:30) His spirit.

The New Testament also hints that the spirit does not need to be in a body to be alive. Hebrews 12:23 speaks of the spirits of the righteous who have been made perfect. These appear to be dead saints whose spirits are now living in the heavenly Jerusalem. This is the same place where Jesus is now (12:24). Their bodies are dead and buried, but their spirits are living and perfected.

Used figuratively, the word spirit can become a metonymy for the whole person. Paul writes about three men: Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1 Cor 16:17). He says that they “have refreshed my spirit and yours.” He later writes that the Corinthians refreshed Titus’s spirit (2 Cor 7:13). Speaking to the Galatians, Paul wishes that the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ might be “with your spirit” (Gal 6:18). In a parallel wish to the Philippians, Paul wishes that the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ might be “with you all” (Phil 4:23). “You all” and “your spirit” function as equivalent expressions. In all these cases, the spirit is simply the person.

Other times, the word spirit designates the immaterial part of human nature. It contrasts with the material part, the body. Paul urges his readers to cleanse themselves from all defilement of the flesh and spirit (2 Cor 7:1). While flesh does not always mean body, it probably does here. In another place, Paul contrasts married and unmarried women. The unmarried can devote themselves to holiness in both body and spirit. Marital obligations can hinder the freedom of this devotion (1 Cor 7:34). Neither of these passages suggest any contrast between soul and spirit. Both contrast the spirit with the body.

The spirit can experience affections. Jesus “sighed deeply” in His spirit (Mark 8:12). This expression denotes emotional distress. Mary’s spirit rejoiced in God her Savior (Luke 1:47). At the grave of Lazarus, Jesus was “deeply moved” in His spirit (John 11:33). When, in the upper room, Jesus announced His betrayer, He became disturbed or unsettled in His spirit (John 13:23).

The spirit also forms volitions. According to Jesus, the spirit is willing or ready (the word means eager) to do certain things (Matt 26:41; Mark 14:38). Leaving Ephesus, Paul purposed or resolved in his spirit to go to Jerusalem (Acts 19:21). Both desires and determinations take shape in the spirit.

The spirit also has a special connection with the mind. In Ephesians 4:23, the apostle Paul instructs believers to be renewed in “the spirit of your mind.” At minimum, this phrase links the mind with the spirit. Specific mental operations are attributed to the spirit. For example, Jesus perceived in His spirit (Mark 2:8). The human spirit is also the faculty of self-awareness. It corresponds to the Holy Spirit’s awareness of God (1 Cor 2:11).

A special problem arises with Romans 8:16. The text says that the [Holy] Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are children of God. This verse is notorious for interpretive difficulties. Does the Holy Spirit testify to our spirit? Or do the Holy Spirit and the human spirit testify together as greater and lesser witnesses? Is the conclusion (that we are children of God) inferential? Or is it intuitive? However one interprets the verse, the human spirit must be the locus of some form of inner perception.

Both soul and spirit experience desires. Both experience feelings. But only the spirit is said to reason and to perceive. Therefore, I am reluctant to identify the soul completely with the spirit. The descriptions of soul and spirit show slight but real functional differences.

Nevertheless, soul and spirit overlap in many ways. Both are used of the life principle or of life itself. Both can stand as figures of speech of the whole individual. Both can feel and want. Under most circumstances the two are difficult or impossible to distinguish. The line between them is a dotted line, not a solid one. Only the razor-sharp Word of God can differentiate them. Normally, they function together as a single thing. Scripture gives no reason to claim that they differ in substance.

Scripture draws a functional distinction between soul and spirit. Yet it emphasizes their similarity and even unity. Some have suggested that the soul is the center of self-consciousness. They claim that the spirit is the center of God-consciousness. Scripture does not support this theory very well. The passages we have studied show the spirit as a center of self-consciousness. They also indicate that God is the one who shepherds the soul.

What about the body? Clearly, the body is a distinct substance from the soul and spirit. It is material, while they are immaterial. Can we say more about the relationship between body and soul? That must be the subject of a future discussion.

Awake, My Soul!

Anne Steele (1717–1778)

Awake, my soul! Awake, my tongue!
My God demands the grateful song;
Let all my inmost pow’rs record
The wond’rous goodness of the Lord!

Divinely free his mercy flows,
Forgives my sins, allays my woes;
And bids approaching death remove,
And crowns me with a Father’s love.

My youth, decay’d, his pow’r repairs;
His hand sustains my growing years;
He satisfies my mouth with food,
And feeds my soul with heav’nly good.

His mercy with unchanging rays
Forever shines, while time decays;
And children’s children shall record
The truth and goodness of the Lord.

While all his works his praise proclaim,
And men and angels bless his name,
O let my heart, my life, my tongue,
Attend, and join the sacred song!

Spirit, Soul, and Body, Part Two: What Is The Soul

by Kevin Bauder | Mar 21, 2025 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

What is the soul? The Hebrew word is nephesh; the Greek term is psuchē. The Hebrew word is first used for animals. In Genesis 1:21-22, God creates every living creature (nephesh hayah) that moves or swarms in the sea. In 1:24 the cattle bring forth living creatures (nephesh hayah) according to their kind. In 1:30 the land animals, the birds, and the moving things are said to have nephesh hayah—the soul of life—in them. In all these uses, nephesh appears to mean life itself. For animals to have nephesh hayah means simply that they have life in them. They are living beings. For animals, soul is not a part of their being. It is simply their life.

God created the animals already alive, but he made the first human in two stages. First, He fashioned the man’s body from the dust of the ground. Then He breathed life into that body. At that point, the man became nephesh hayah (Gen 2:7). The animals experienced no inbreathing. Their life is not separable from their bodies. For humans, life (soul) and body are distinct. Still, the main point is that humans became living beings.

The words for soul often refer to the animating principle. In this sense, the soul (life) is in the blood (Deu 12:23). The connection between life and blood may be why Scripture views animal death differently than plant death. While plants grow and reproduce, and thus possess a kind of life, they have no blood and hence no “soul.” God told the sons of Israel not to eat blood because the nephesh was in the blood. This means that when an animal loses enough blood, it dies.

Probably this usage of soul is behind the Messianic prophecy of Psalm 16:10. Peter quotes this verse about Christ in Acts 2:27. The verse says that God would not abandon Messiah’s soul in sheol or hades (the realm of the dead). God also would not permit Christ’s flesh to experience corruption. Peter applies this verse at the resurrection (2:31) when God raised Christ alive from the dead. The fact that the psuche of Christ entered hades provides evidence that the soul is distinct from the body.

Sometimes the connection between soul and life is so pronounced that life is the better translation. Examples abound. Herod, wishing to kill the Christ child, was seeking His psuche (Matt 2:29). The Son of Man came to give His psuche a ransom for many (Matt 20:28). The good shepherd gives His psuche for the sheep (John 10:11). Epaphroditus risked his psuche and was near death (Phil 2:30).

Numbers 11:6 contains an interesting metaphorical use. The Israelites in the wilderness grew tired of eating manna. They found God’s provision tiresome. They complained, “Now our soul (nephesh) has dried away.” Here, soul functions in the sense of whatever makes life worth living. Their diet was tedious, so their lives felt intolerable.

Jesus uses psuche in this sense in Matthew 16:25. He challenges His followers that they must not try to keep their psuche. This means that they must not cling to whatever they think makes life worth living. If they try to, they will lose it. But if they lose their psuche for Jesus’ sake, then they will find it. In other words, by giving one’s self up for Christ, one finds what truly makes life worth living.

In both testaments, the soul experiences desires and emotions. In the prelude to the fiery serpents, the children of Israel declared that their nephesh loathed or detested the manna (Num 21:5). Job’s nephesh grieved for the poor (Job 30:25). The rich fool told his psuche to eat, drink, and be merry (Luke 12:19). The psuche of fallen Babylon craved fruits (Rev 18:14).

Perhaps in these instances the word soul is simply being used to designate the self. The term is even used of God in this sense. God promises that His nephesh will not abhor His obedient people (Lev 26:11). On the other hand, if anyone draws back, God’s psuche will have no pleasure in him (Heb 10:38).

An important truth is that the soul can be saved or lost. Peter writes that the goal of faith is “the salvation of your souls” (1 Pet 1:9). This salvation is not directly connected to the fate of the body. One can kill the body without harming the soul (Matt 10:28). But in Gehenna God destroys soul and body together.

The soul can be tempted and led astray. Peter warns against fleshly lusts that war against the soul (1 Pet 2:11). He says that believers were once like wandering sheep. Now they have returned to the shepherd and overseer of their souls (1 Pet. 2:25). Also, apostate teachers lure or entice unstable souls (2 Pet 2:14).

The good news is that even a polluted soul can be purified. Peter addressed those who have purified their souls (1 Pet 1:21). This purification takes the form of “obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren.”

James contrasts good wisdom, which is from God, with a kind of bad wisdom. This bad wisdom leads to jealousy and selfish ambition. According to James, this wisdom is earthly, “soulish,” and demonic (James 3:15). To say that it is soulish is to suggest that it appeals most strongly to the soul.

Why would that be? Perhaps because the soulish person does not welcome the things of the Spirit of God. The things of God are spiritually discerned. Hence, the soulish person sees them as foolishness (1 Cor 2:14).

The words for soul are common in both testaments. Certainly, this summary has not examined every use. Even so, a picture of the soul is beginning to emerge.

The soul is the life principle. All animate creatures, including humans, either are or have souls. In the case of humans, the soul is integrally tied to personal identity. Indeed, soul and self are nearly indistinguishable. The soul is distinct from the body and survives its destruction. It can be tempted. It can wander and return. It can be saved or lost. Evidently, it is also a center of human desire and feeling.

Soulish people do not welcome truth that is spiritually discerned. This suggests a possible distinction between soul and spirit. Does the Bible provide other reasons for distinguishing soul from spirit? We can only answer that question when we examine the biblical uses of the term spirit. That task comes next.

Father, Whate’er of Earthly Bliss

Anne Steele (1717–1778)

Father, whate’er of earthly bliss
Thy sov’reign will denies,
Accepted at thy throne of grace,
Let this petition rise:

“Give me a calm, a thankful heart,
From ev’ry murmur free:
The blessings of thy grace impart,
And make me live to thee.

Let the sweet hope that I am thine,
My life and death attend;
Thy presence thro’ my journey shine,
And crown my journey’s end.”

Spirit, Soul, and Body, Part One: Assessing the Problem

by Kevin Bauder | Mar 14, 2025 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

Doctrinal controversies go in and out of style. Students of the Bible may debate an issue at one time but find it boring at some later point. Sometimes disputes cool off for a while. They flare up again when someone works out a new potential implication of the argument.

One of these recurring controversies concerns our basic nature. What are we, and what makes us human? Is our material being our real self? Or is the immaterial the real us? Do our true selves live in our bodies, or do our bodies somehow define self-hood? If we are immaterial, how many immaterial parts do we have? Are soul and spirit distinguishable, or are they identical? What about other features such as the heart? How are all these questions related to our creation in God’s image?

Much of this debate went out of style a generation or two ago. Recent perspectives are bringing it to the front again. For example, transgenderism forces us to ask how our bodies relate to our identities. Christian counselors are disputing how souls influence bodies and vice versa. Some theories of sanctification assume that spirit and soul are different. Other theories insist they are the same.

Two views used to be popular. We usually called one dichotomy and the other trichotomy. Sometimes we called them the dipartite and tripartite theories. Trichotomists argue that humans consist of three substances (body, soul, and spirit). Dichotomists see only two elements (body and soul/spirit).

Trichotomists advanced several scriptural evidences to support their position. One text, 1 Thessalonians 5:23, names spirit, soul, and body in parallel. Trichotomists view this parallelism as proof for three equal parts of human nature. They also point to Hebrews 4:12, which says that the Word of God can separate soul and spirit. Then they turn to Mary’s Magnificat. Mary states that her soul magnifies the Lord and that her spirit has rejoiced in God her savior (Luke 1:46–47). Trichotomists see this as another proof that soul is not the same as spirit. They admit that soul and spirit are both immaterial. Yet they insist that soul and spirit are separate aspects of human being.

Dichotomists respond to such arguments point by point. They note that the Magnificat follows Hebrew poetical forms. It employs synonymous parallelism, implying that soul and spirit are identical. Hebrews 4:12 also implies that soul and spirit cannot normally be separated. They note that 1 Thessalonians 5:23 is not the only text to employ a parallelism of human parts. Deuteronomy 4:29 lists heart and soul. Ezekiel 36:26 includes heart and spirit. 1 Corinthians 7:34 points to body and spirit. Matthew 22:37 includes heart, soul, and mind. Mark 12:30 lists four elements: heart, soul, mind, and strength.

It is worth noting that one passage (1 Cor 2:14–3:3) does contrast the soulish or natural human with one who is spiritual. But in this case the reference is to the Holy Spirit, not to a separate part of human nature. The passage also includes references to a “fleshly” or carnal person. The word flesh here refers to the sin nature, not the body. Hence, this passage contributes little to the debate.

Some take all the parallelisms equally. They reason that human nature consists of many elements. These include spirit, soul, body, heart, mind, and others. The problem with this view is that parallelism can mean many things. Sometimes it distinguishes things. Sometimes it makes them the same. Sometimes it indicates other sorts of relationships. The evidence for this view is weak at best.

Others move in the opposite direction. They emphasize the unity of human nature. They see a close connection between the soul and the body. Some even deny that the soul can survive when the body dies. They talk about “soul sleep.” What they really mean is that nothing remains of us after death. We cease to exist, at least for a while. Some even deny the existence of a soul.

Advocates of these views look for biblical evidence. They also introduce philosophical categories. They talk about the difference between substance, accident, and function. This discussion can become complicated. These categories do not always help people think more clearly. The problem is not that the categories are bad. It lies in deciding how to apply them to this discussion.

I would like to take a more fruitful approach. I wish to discover how each individual term is used throughout Scripture. The terms spirit, soul, and body will be most important. The Bible often uses words in a variety of related senses. Perhaps these words will be like that. Once we discover the pool of uses for each term, we will understand how those uses overlap—and where they do not. We can look especially for ways in which the terms relate to each other. Thus, we can gain an inductive impression of what human nature looks like and how it functions.

Stand Up, My Soul

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

Stand up, my soul; shake off your fears,
and gird the gospel armor on;
march to the gates of endless joy,
where your great Captain Savior’s gone.

Hell and your sins resist your course;
but hell and sin are vanquished foes:
your Jesus nailed them to the cross,
and sang the triumph when he rose.

Then let my soul march boldly on,
press forward to the heav’nly gate;
there peace and joy eternal reign,
and glitt’ring robes for conqu’rors wait.

There shall I wear a starry crown,
and triumph in almighty grace;
while all the armies of the skies
join in my glorious Leader’s praise.

Not How It Used to Be

by Kevin Bauder | Mar 7, 2025 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

The first two days of March were mild, with temperatures into the 50s Fahrenheit but strong winds. The next day brought changes, and then on Tuesday the snow began to fall. Snow was still coming down Wednesday morning, and the winds had picked up to blizzard velocity. The total snowfall was not great, but it drifted enough to make travel difficult. When the time came for me to go to work, the streets around my home were still impassible.

In the old days, this kind of weather would have closed the seminary or at least made us start late. Knowing about it would have kept some potential students from even considering Central Seminary as an option. Who would want to endure ice and snow when they could have the sunny beaches of Virginia or the Carolinas?

But things have changed. Virtually everything we do, we now do virtually. All our classes meet on Zoom, though local students are still welcome to sit in classrooms. Even our chapel service meets on Zoom (again, faculty and some students attend the physical chapel in Minnesota).

For me, our online presence was great news today. All semester I’ve been scheduled to preach in chapel. I’ve been looking forward to it. And the snow today didn’t slow me down one bit.

I have a little studio in my basement. I use it for teaching online. Today, I used it for preaching the chapel service. I believe that this is the first time I’ve preached a sermon over Zoom. It felt a little odd, and the pacing was difficult, but I was able to complete the sermon.

Usually, I’m sitting in the physical chapel with the faculty. The distance education students are not visible to me. I only see the other professors and a couple of students who are present in the room. It always feels a bit empty.

Today, I preached to a screen full of faces. In fact, I’m pretty sure that all the faces didn’t fit on my screen. What I could see, though, represented a crowd. There was a student in Michigan. There was another in New England. Then several from African nations. At least one from South America—maybe more. And some from Asia. For the first time, I found myself ministering the Word of God by preaching to an audience that spanned the globe.

This is the glory of the brave new world in which we find ourselves. As recently as ten years ago, some of these students would have opted to attend a seminary in a warmer place. Many of them could not have enrolled at any credible seminary because none was available locally. Now the temperature doesn’t matter. God has opened our doors and enlarged our borders in amazing ways.

Twenty years ago, Central Seminary operated a campus in Arad, Romania. We spent years there, eventually training about twenty percent of all the Baptist pastors in that country. We also trained a generation of Romanian professors. That ministry cost us much in terms of time, labor, and treasure. When we had to leave Romania, the experience was wrenching. For me, it was like abandoning a cherished friend.

Now our span goes far beyond one nation. We reach into Zambia, Kenya, and the Congo. We are in South Africa, Brazil, India, and Peru. We visit those places without leaving our own campus and homes. More importantly, our students gain an education without leaving their ministries or countries of residence.

Of course, we do give up some things. Our relationships with our students tend to be less close than they once were. Our ability to respond to hallway conversations or lunch-table questions has shrunk dramatically. These things are a genuine loss. We cannot disciple students in the way we once did.

Yet, our students also gain something. They stay in their home churches, where they are already being nourished and fostered spiritually. If they are pastors, they have an ongoing laboratory in which to implement their classroom learnings. If they are not pastors, then their discipleship comes from the shepherds of their flocks. This is something to rejoice in, because the local church is the center and focus of God’s program on earth.

As a seminary, we have always said that we exist to help local churches. Never has that kind of local-church centered ministry been more important to us than it is now. We happily grant that making disciples is the business of the church, and we rejoice in the subordinate role that God permits us to play.

God has given us around 150 students to equip at different levels. Some are preparing for academic ministry. Some aim to do biblical counseling. Some just want to be better church members, deacons, and Sunday School teachers. But the heart of what we do is still training Christian leaders. We rejoice that God is still sending us pastors and missionaries who are doing His work. We are doing our best to assist their churches in equipping spiritual leaders for Christ-exalting, biblical ministry. We wish—we hope—to keep doing that until Jesus returns.

O All Ye Nations, Praise the Lord

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

O all ye nations, praise the Lord,
Each with a diff’rent tongue:
In ev’ry language learn his word,
And let his name be sung.

His mercy reigns thro’ ev’ry land;
Proclaim his grace abroad;
For ever firm his truth shall stand,
Praise ye the faithful God.

White House Faith Office

by Kevin Bauder | Feb 28, 2025 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

On February 7, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order creating a White House Faith Office. The purpose of the office is to empower “faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship to serve families and communities.” This service includes “protecting women and children; strengthening marriage and family; lifting up individuals through work and self-sufficiency, defending religious liberty; combatting anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and additional forms of anti-religious bias; promoting foster care and adoption programs in partnership with faith-based entities; providing wholesome and effective education; preventing and reducing crime and facilitating prisoner reentry; promoting recovery from substance use disorder; and fostering flourishing minds.” The office is also supposed to advise the President on matters related to these faith-based organizations.

The president means well. The order is a gesture of support toward people of faith. The Biden administration wanted to force us to violate our biblical commitments. This is better. We welcome the attempt to protect religious people from state interference.

But the order also poses problems. One problem is the notion that the government has any business “empowering” faith-based efforts. As a Baptist, I do not look for empowerment to any government at any level. The church’s authority to make disciples comes directly from Jesus Christ. He has received all authority (Matt 28:19–20). He promises that His followers will receive power from His Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8). Churches have all the power they need to fulfill their mission. No government has the right to restrict or oppose them as they pursue it. Any government that tries to will answer to Christ (2 Thess 1:4–10).

We do not ask the government to empower us. We simply ask that it get out of our way. We do not deny that we are subject to every rightful law. We insist, however, that no just law can oppose or restrict our obedience to Christ. If we violate rightful laws, then we accept the penalty. Otherwise, we demand in the name of God that the state recognize our liberty to do His work (Acts 27:13). President Trump’s job is to stop the government from interfering with us.

Furthermore, we fear that accepting state support risks government interference. What the government pays for, even if indirectly, it tries to control. Government largess always comes with strings attached. We perceive any offer of state assistance as a poisoned chalice.

We deny, however, that tax exemptions constitute state support. Religious organizations should not pay taxes, except where they work for profit. A rightly ordered church gets its support from the freewill gifts of God’s people. Their resources have already been taxed. Furthermore, taxation is an exertion of authority. It is a form of control. Chief Justice John Marshall noted that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Churches ought to be exempt from taxation because they are exempt from the power of the state to control and destroy.

When the state empowers faith-based organizations, it must make choices between them. President Trump’s executive order certainly does. It says that it will empower faith-based efforts to combat anti-Semitism. But some forms of anti-Semitism are based in faith. In other words, President Trump intends to empower one faith at the expense of another. This is contrary to the role of governments under the New Testament. Far better that our president should echo Gallio: “If it be a question of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters” (Acts 18:15). When faiths are wrong, they should be opposed by sound argument and not by state coercion. Governments should only interfere when people use faith as an excuse to transgress just laws that protect all people. This side of the Millennium, governments cannot rightly enforce one religion over another.

The president must appoint someone to lead the White House Faith Office. That choice necessarily divides. It inevitably gives one faith greater access than another to the president. And President Trump has made a bad choice. He has appointed a Seven-Mountain-Mandate charismatic. She is a leader in the New Apostolic Reformation. She advocates the Prosperity Gospel. She considers herself an apostle. She makes her religion up as she goes. She believes that she has God’s approval for what she makes up. One shudders to think what counsel she might offer the president.

The problem is not just with the president’s selection. He could not select any person to lead this office who would be acceptable. The only acceptable person is one who would refuse the office. The state should keep out of religion. If the state is going to poke its nose into religion, then crazies and hucksters should not be in charge.

If the president wants to create a religious office, it should be an office of religious liberty. That office should hunt down every instance of governmental religious discrimination. It should ensure both non-establishment and free exercise. Such an office would be welcome.

The White House Faith Office is superfluous. It is more likely to become an avenue of state interference than it is to be a help. The best help that the government can give people of faith is to take its hands off all questions of religion. It should protect all its citizens from religious force or coercion. Otherwise, it should get out of the way.

Absurd and Vain Attempt

Thomas Scott (1705–1775)

Absurd and vain attempt! to bind
With iron chains the free-born mind,
To force conviction, and reclaim
The wand’ring by destructive flame.

Bold arrogance! to snatch from heaven
Dominion not to mortals given;
O’er conscience to usurp the throne,
Accountable to God alone.

Jesus! thy gentle law of love
Does no such cruelties approve;
Mild as thy self, thy doctrine wields
No arms but what persuasion yields.

By proofs divine, and reason strong,
It draws the willing soul along;
And conquests to thy church acquires
By eloquence which heaven inspires.

O happy, who are thus compell’d
To the rich feast, by Jesus held!
May we this blessing know, and prize
The light which liberty supplies.

The Normal Christian Life

by Kevin Bauder | Feb 21, 2025 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

Recently, I wrote about a pivotal moment that changed my Christian journey. One of the responses that I received asked this question: “I was just wondering if you’d call your ‘change’ a surrendering to Christ’s Lordship over your whole life and letting Him live through you?” This question implies more than it overtly asks, and I’d like to respond to it.

Let me preface my remarks with an admission. I have no coherent theory of the Christian life. I’ve studied several, including the Reformed, Wesleyan, Keswick, Free-Grace, and Old Dallas views. Each has strengths, but none of them satisfies the biblical requirements. Each gets something right, but each also gets something wrong.

Let’s start with this question: what does it mean to trust Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior? I reject the suggestion that we can trust Jesus as Savior without trusting Him as Lord (Rom 10:10–13). We have no right to trust a Jesus who is not Lord. He has no right to save us unless He has earned that authority. And He does have authority to save us. He earned it through His obedient life, substitutionary death, and bodily resurrection. So when I trusted Christ to save me, I was relying upon His authority to save.

If Christ has authority to save, then what other authority does He hold? Part of the answer is that our bodies no longer belong to us. We have been bought with a price, and we belong to Christ (1 Cor 6:19–20). Implicit in every act of saving faith is the reality that Christ now owns us.

Yet what is implicit may not always be explicitly recognized. Had the Corinthians recognized their change of ownership, then Paul would not have explained it to them. They were not acting like people whom Christ owned. They were not behaving like temples of the Holy Spirit. In fact, they were carnal—dominated by the flesh (1 Cor 3:1–4). They needed to recognize and act upon the reality of Christ’s ownership.

That does not happen all at once. It is not done by a simple decision, though some decisions certainly move it forward. I trusted Christ as Savior when I was seven years old. I consciously placed my whole life at His disposal when I was eleven. That was my point of conscious yieldedness, of deliberate submission to the will of God in every area of my life. That is when I let go and let God.

Except I didn’t. Nobody does. Ever. We can, so to speak, sign over the title to our lives. We can consciously recognize that Christ has a right to us and to dispose our lives. Whether we do that at our conversion or at some later point, though, it is never complete in practice. We keep our hands on the steering wheel—and we ought to. Christ’s purpose (again, so to speak) is not to drive our car for us. His purpose is for us to become skilled drivers who steer our lives where He wants them to go.

This is the paradox of the Christian life. We are the ones who must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Yet we can do that only because God is the one who works in us both the willing and the doing of His good pleasure. We dare not detract from either side of that paradox.

In practice, our submission to Christ is always less than complete. We meet new challenges, or we meet old ones again, in which His ownership must be worked out. That is a constant struggle, and it is one in which we often fail. Because of our failures, we need to keep on confessing our sins. When we do, we receive relational forgiveness and cleansing. If we claim that we have not sinned in ways that need ongoing confession, then we call Christ a liar and His word is not in us. (1 John 1:9–10).

This is the process that leads to increasing sanctification. Through it all, Christ is living out His life in us. The Christ-life does not begin with deliberate yieldedness. The Christ-life begins when we trust Him as Savior. It begins when His Spirit baptizes us and comes to live in us (Rom 8:9; 1 Cor 12:13). The indwelling Spirit mediates the indwelling life of Christ from the moment of our conversion (Rom 8:10). The baptizing Spirit joins us to Christ so that our members become His (1 Cor 6:15–16). The indwelling life of Christ is not a separate or special experience or enablement. If we are believers, then Christ is living out His life through us all the time.

Some theories of the Christian life make me suspicious. One is the theory that God has to scare His children into perseverance. He frightens them by threatening them with loss of salvation. Of course, He can’t actually deny them salvation if they have trusted Christ. He doesn’t really mean it. He just wants to shake their confidence enough that they shape up.

Another is the Keswick theory that leads people to profess sinlessness in this life. No version of Keswick erects adequate safeguards against this danger. The theory scares me because I’ve seen how it leads people to deceive themselves. I’ll give an example.

A few years ago I was cycling with a Keswick friend who claimed that, because he was resting in Christ, he no longer sinned. As we pedaled down the trail, a cyclist was veering from side to side toward us. Since I was riding in front, I crowded as far to the right as the trail would allow. Then the approaching cyclist veered to our left and passed. I pulled over and stopped. I commented, “I never know what to do when I see something like that coming at me.”

“Oh,” he pronounced in other-worldly tones, “I don’t even notice when women dress that way anymore.”

I had to back up mentally and replay the episode in my own mind. I eventually recalled two things. First, the approaching cyclist had been female. Second, she was wearing a revealing jersey. That made sense of my friend’s remarks. Then I realized the implications.

First, my friend assumed that I was commenting on the woman’s clothing. Second, by denying that he noticed her revealing clothing, he was admitting that he had noticed it. Third, he was implying that if my sanctification were as advanced as his, then I wouldn’t have noticed, either. So his reply tacitly admitted that he had looked, then lied about it, then accused me of having done what he had actually done. That’s an interesting way to live the deeper life.

I do not claim that my understanding of the Christian life is fully coherent. But it is at least as coherent as the other views I’ve encountered. I don’t know of a systematic theory of the Christian life that doesn’t give up something the Bible teaches. I’m just glad that God sanctifies us in spite of our theories.

O for a Closer Walk with God

William Cowper (1730–1800)

O for a closer walk with God,
a calm and heav’nly frame,
a light to shine upon the road
that leads me to the Lamb!

Where is the blessedness I knew
when first I sought the Lord?
Where is the soul refreshing view
of Jesus and His Word?

What peaceful hours I then enjoyed!
How sweet their mem’ry still!
But they have left an aching void
the world can never fill.

Return, O holy Dove, return,
sweet messenger of rest;
I hate the sins that made Thee mourn,
and drove Thee from my breast.

The dearest idol I have known,
whate’er that idol be,
help me to tear it from Thy throne
and worship only Thee.

So shall my walk be close with God,
calm and serene my frame;
so purer light shall mark the road
that leads me to the Lamb.

Turning Point

by Kevin Bauder | Feb 14, 2025 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

One of the most important turning points in my life came fifty years ago this month. I had professed faith as a child. I had tried, off and on, to live for the Lord during young adolescence. During my later teen years, however, I ceased to be interested in His will for my life. My heart drew far from Him, and it was still far away when I enrolled in Bible college at 17.

After a semester of living at home, I moved into the dorms. Odd as it may seem, one can find plenty of worldly influences even in an institution dedicated to teaching the Scriptures. I embraced those influences, making a series of bad choices. Oh, I wasn’t doing stuff that would have seemed scandalous, but I was selfish, angry, and proud.

The beginning of my sophomore year was even worse. It was like I’d dropped off a spiritual ledge. I missed required events. My grades plummeted. Life seemed black. I was surly and defiant. A mandatory visit to the dean’s office resulted in a threat of suspension, which only increased my resentment.

Then a residence adviser took me aside and pointed to specific instances where my behavior was affecting other people. For the first time, it struck me that my ideas and conduct had consequences for others. This was not a game. It was a spiritual battle.

Once my eyes were opened, I began to see other damage that I was doing. It was the first time I had examined myself from God’s point of view, and I didn’t much care for what I saw. I knew that something had to change.

By February of 1975, I had come to a point of decision. I understood that living my life selfishly would end badly. I would bring misery upon myself, pain into the lives of others, and reproach upon the name of the Lord. If I did not change, things would only get worse.

The only alternative was to begin living my life for God. In a night of prayer, I told Him that I wanted to do that, but I didn’t know how. He was going to have to show me what it meant to live for Him.

One idea occurred to me immediately. I knew that I had to stop defying those who held authority in my life. Consequently, I told God that I would submit to the institutional rules of my college, even where they seemed inane. After all, who was I to judge what was a worthwhile discipline? I also determined that I would respond instantly and obediently whenever I was rebuked or even counseled by an authority figure. How strange that commitment seemed.

The next day in chapel, an announcement went out that the school’s traveling theater troupe needed an actor to pick up a part. I’d done plenty of theater in high school, so it felt like this was a way I could serve the Lord. The opportunity seemed like my first answer to prayer.

I volunteered for the play, and I was given the part immediately. Within a couple of weeks, I found myself touring around the Midwest, and then eventually the Rocky Mountain West. One challenge that I hadn’t expected was that our faculty director seemed determined to test my resolve. I was sincerely trying to keep all the rules I knew about, but it seemed like he would make up new rules on the spot, and they would apply only to me. To my own surprise as much as to his, I didn’t argue or balk. I just did whatever he said, whether I thought it was necessary or not.

What I discovered was that walking with God was neither helped nor hindered by the number of rules I kept, but it was tremendously influenced by my reasons for keeping them. I didn’t believe then, and I don’t believe now, that either playing or not playing a game like Rook brings one closer to God. But when the faculty director told me to “put those cards away and don’t let me see them again,” I obeyed meekly, for the sake of the commitment I’d made. For the first time, I felt like I was making a choice motivated purely by love for God.

There was a young woman traveling with the crew for the play. She would iron costumes and act as a prompter (I thought that having a prompter was insufferably amateurish, but I never told the director). We had met before, but now we saw each other almost daily. I enjoyed our banter, and I began to look forward to our conversations.

Then, after one performance, a fellow actor asked me, “What do you think of Debbie Wright?”

“She’s a really nice girl,” I said.

Melvin replied, “I think she likes you.”

Those five words redefined my life. I realized that I liked her, too. Really, really liked her.

Debbie and I were too busy to do any dating, but we didn’t have to. Our work in the play brought us together almost every day. As we traveled and worked and talked, my feelings for her warmed. By late April, I knew that this was the woman I wanted to marry.

I started to ask the Lord to let me marry her. I prayed this prayer every day, multiple times a day. As the season ended and we no longer traveled, I found ways to keep seeing her.

Our first date was to our college’s spring banquet. She wore a formal. I wore a tux, cape, and opera hat. The haberdasher forgot to include dress shoes with the tux, so I borrowed a pair from the guy across the hall. I wore size 13. He wore size 10. My feet will never forget that first date.

Debbie graduated that spring. She went home for the summer to her parents’ farm. I made that drive nearly every weekend so that I could keep seeing her. Eventually she landed a job at the college and moved back. That August I asked her to marry me, and she agreed. I still can’t believe it.

People give her credit for straightening me out. She deserves lots of that credit. But the truth is that God was working in my heart before Debbie and I became serious about each other. The Lord had used chastening to get my attention. Now He was showing me how gracious He could be.

Fifty years have passed since that turning point in February of 1975. Debbie and I wed in December of that year, and we have walked together through life’s challenges ever since. She is still really nice. More than that, she is still the principal, human instrument of God’s grace in my life.

Happy the Man Who Feareth God

Martin Luther (1483–1546); tr. Richard Massie (1800–1887)

Happy the man who feareth God,
Whose feet His holy ways have trod;
Thine own good hand shall nourish thee,
And well and happy shalt thou be.

Thy wife shall, like a fruitful vine,
Fill all thy house with clusters fine;
Thy children all be fresh and sound,
Like olive-plants thy table round.

Lo! to the man these blessings cleave
Who in God’s holy fear doth live;
From him the ancient curse hath fled
By Adam’s race inherited.

Out of Mount Zion God shall send,
And crown with joy thy latter end;
That thou Jerusalem mayst see,
In favor and prosperity.

He shall be with thee in thy ways,
And give thee health and length of days;
Yea, thou shalt children’s children see,
And peace on Israel shall be.

Justice, Wrath, and Propitiation

by Kevin Bauder | Feb 7, 2025 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

[This essay was originally published on August 2, 2013.]

The gospel reveals many aspects of God’s character. It certainly reveals His love, mercy, grace, goodness, and kindness. If we want to know whether the true and living God is a God of love, all we have to do is to look at the cross. Yet the gospel reveals more than God’s love: it also reveals God’s justice (Rom. 1:17).

Many English translators use the word righteousness for the Greek term dikaiosunēs. Unfortunately, the contemporary word righteous, like the word sin, has lost much of its denotation and most of its connotation. The alternative term justice, however, strikes exactly the right note. Even people who claim to reject moral absolutes still retain a sense of justice. If you want to see their sense of justice at work, just step in front of them in the queue at the supermarket. Everybody believes in justice. Everybody wants justice, at least for themselves.

Paul says that the gospel (Rom. 1:16) reveals God’s justice (Rom. 1:17). He then draws a direct line from this revelation of justice to the revelation of God’s wrath (Rom. 1:18). He states that God’s wrath is revealed against all the impiety and injustice of humans who suppress the truth in injustice. In other words, the rejection of God’s standard of justice brings with it a moral opprobrium that demands retribution. As a just judge, God must visit retribution upon all injustice (so Paul says) without exception.

The condition of having committed injustice and consequently of meriting retribution is what Scripture calls guilt. In the Bible, guilt is not a feeling but a condition. Guilt is the moral opprobrium that attaches to injustice and demands retribution. When God visits retribution upon the guilty, He is exhibiting what Scripture calls wrath. In other words, divine wrath is not irritability or peevishness. God is not One to pitch a fit like a petulant teenager. God’s wrath is simply His justice directed against guilt in retribution.

God’s justice is at stake in every sinful deed, as we should recognize intuitively. We despise even human judges who knowingly clear the guilty, but at least when human judges become corrupt we can retain some hope that a final judgment is pending. If, however, the final judge, the judge of all flesh and the moral arbiter of the universe, were to clear the guilty—if He were to leave injustices unavenged—then Justice itself would fail. That would be a condition even worse than hell.

But God does not overlook sin. Instead, He reveals His wrath (His determination to visit retribution) upon all human injustice. He reveals His wrath against the injustices of the pagans (Rom. 1:19-32), the injustices of the seemingly (at least to themselves) moral (Rom. 2:1-16), and the injustices of the religious—even when their religion is of God’s own revelation (Rom. 2:17-3:8).

There is no justice without retribution. Retribution means that God will repay each of us according to our individual deeds (Rom. 2:6). More specifically, retribution means that to those who obey injustice, God will repay wrath, anger, affliction, and distress (Rom. 2:8-9). This is exactly what God owes to all humans, for absolutely all humans are “under sin,” which means that all humans bear guilt and merit retribution (Rom. 3:9). Without exception, no one is just (Rom. 3:10).

The fundamental barrier between God and humans is guilt. No matter how much God might love people (and let us grant that He does), He cannot overlook their guilt. He must visit retribution upon them. He must recompense their injustice with wrath.

This is the point at which the cross really matters. To be sure, the cross is an example. It is a moral influence. It is a paid-up ransom. It is the occasion of Jesus’ victory over principalities and powers. It is an illustration of the gravity with which God views infractions of His moral government. It is all these things, but if it were only these things, it could not save us. None of these effects of the cross manages to address the fundamental problem, and that problem is our guilt. Somehow at Calvary God had to remove our guilt, or we would be forever condemned.

Salvation confronts us with a massive paradox. On the one hand, we all sinned and have fallen short of God’s glorious standard, i.e., His justice (Rom. 3:23). On the other hand, God pronounces at least some sinners to be just (i.e., He justifies them), and He does this completely without cost to them (Rom. 3:24). Does not such a declaration of justice constitute a moral contradiction? Does it not implicate God in the unspeakable injustice of clearing the guilty (Ex. 34:7)?

It would, except for the cross. By His cross-work and through His blood, Jesus presented Himself as a propitiatory sacrifice, i.e., a sacrifice that made satisfaction (Rom. 3:25). What did His death satisfy? The entire context gives the answer to this question. By dying on the cross, the Lord Jesus Christ satisfied justice, which is to say that He satisfied God’s wrath. The only way to satisfy justice is through retribution. Guilt must be visited with anger, wrath, affliction, and distress. This retribution was visited upon Jesus Christ, not because He Himself was in any way displeasing to God, but because we were. Our guilt was charged against Him, and He bore God’s wrath as He occupied our place.

God never overlooks guilt. If He could overlook guilt, He would no longer be God because He would no longer be just. True forgiveness does not merely ignore or wink at transgressions. God can forgive sin because He has actually already judged the guilt of every sin at the cross of Christ. Our guilt has received its just retribution in the person of Christ, who has suffered for us the equivalent penalty of wrath, anger, affliction, and distress. God caused our iniquity to fall upon Him (Isa. 53:6).

That is why it is not wrong for God to say that we are just, provided only that we have trusted in the provision of Jesus and that it has accordingly been applied to us. God can pronounce us just because that is how He now sees us. God can remove (expiate) our sins because justice has been satisfied (propitiated). In the cross, God shows Himself to be both just and the justifier of each one who believes on Jesus (Rom. 3:26).

The glory of the cross is that it gives full play to God’s justice (Rom. 3:26) while also giving full play to His mercy and grace. That means that the gospel is not only a revelation of God’s love, but also a revelation of God’s justice. If we want to see the love of God clearly demonstrated, all we have to do is to look at the cross. But that is not all. If we want to see the wrath of God fully demonstrated, we must also look at the cross. The gospel shines the dazzling light of God’s glory upon both.

How Long Wilt Thou Conceal Thy Face

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

How long wilt thou conceal thy face?
My God, how long delay?
When shall I feel those heavenly rays
That chase my fears away?

See how the Prince of darkness tries
All his malicious arts;
He spreads a mist around my eyes,
And throws his fiery darts.

Be thou my sun, and thou my shield,
My soul in safety keep;
Make haste before mine eyes are seal’d
In death’s eternal sleep.

How would the tempter boast aloud,
Should I become his prey!
Behold the sons of hell grow proud
To see thy long delay.

But they shall fly at thy rebuke,
And Satan hide his head;
He knows the terrors of thy look,
And hears thy voice with dread.

Thou wilt display that sovereign grace,
Whence all my comforts spring;
I shall employ my lips in praise,
And thy salvation sing.

Age Brings Choices

by Kevin Bauder | Jan 31, 2025 | In the Nick of Time, Uncategorized | 0 Comments

Late this summer I will turn 70 years old. I’ve always said that I wanted to work at least until I was 70. Now I’m knocking on that door, but I’m not ready to retire yet. In fact, I want to work harder than ever. Granted, I’m slower at some things, and neither my memory nor my vision is what it used to be. Writing longhand has become difficult. But experience counts for something, and I feel like I can still do a decent job.

It is a bit challenging to try to teach at the seminary while pastoring a church. In theory, my pastorate is part-time, but anyone who has tried knows that part-time pastoring is a myth. From the beginning, however, I determined not to pastor at the expense of my seminary students. So far, I love pouring myself into both responsibilities.

The distance between the seminary and the church poses the biggest challenge. To spend more time at the church, I purchased a second, much smaller home, near its vicinity. The second home has not worked out as well as I hoped. Much of the extra time that I have gained goes into maintenance. Still, I now have a presence in the community, if a small one.

My prayer is that the Lord will grow the church enough to call a full-time pastor. I would love to turn this work over to a qualified, gifted man. Barring a full-time pastor, someone with an outside source of income could be an option.

When that happens, my wife and I expect to remain in the community, though we plan not to attend the church. I want the new pastor to be able to lead without having to compete with me for the hearts of the people. The area is large enough for us to live there without a new pastor tripping over us. At some point we’ll sell our current home and move completely.

When we do, we’ll have to downsize. Our church home is much smaller than our seminary home. We’ve lived in our present home for over a quarter of a century. During that time, we’ve accumulated a lot of stuff. Now we’re selling it, giving it away, or hauling it to the thrift store. In a few cases, we’re tossing it. Nobody wanted my old instruments for adjusting the points in a car’s ignition.

My library presents a problem. I started buying theological books in about 1973. By the 2010s I had accumulated around ten thousand print volumes. Then my students introduced me to two electronic library formats: Logos and Kindle. Since then, I have purchased electronic books whenever I could. I have also given away my print copies when I had the same book in digital format. I tried taking some duplicates to Half Price Books, but what they paid didn’t cover the cost of my gasoline.

I still have five or six thousand print books. If I surrender my study at the seminary, I will have too many books to move. I must make choices about what I will keep and what I will give away.

Losing these books will be a disappointment. Every book I purchase represents an aspiration. I only buy books that I want to read. When I give away a book without reading it, that aspiration has failed. But at some point, realism sets in. I will never get to read that ornate three-volume collection of Van Gogh’s complete letters. I can see it on the shelf as I write. If you want it, you can stop by my study and pick it up.

Not all books are written to be read. Some of them are reference tools. For several years I have been replacing my reference tools with Kindle or Logos editions. These include grammars and lexica for the biblical languages. Greek and Hebrew tools were among the most expensive books I had to buy. Their electronic replacements are a fraction of the cost. The old books are almost impossible to dispose of now. Used bookstores just don’t want them. Most pastors already have electronic copies.

The internet has made some reference tools obsolete. Obviously, printed encyclopedias are a thing of the past. I still have a couple dictionaries of quotations that I never use. Rhyming dictionaries have been replaced by online equivalents. I hate to throw books away, but who would want tools like these?

For that matter, most older books are available as PDF files. I download them regularly from Internet Archive and Google Books. I have tens of thousands of volumes in PDF format, including (e.g.) the whole Migne Patrologiae. These books take up no physical space. I don’t have to worry about disposing of them. Anybody who wants them can get them from the same sources I did.

I know that I must downsize. Still, I would like to take as many real books into retirement with me as I can. But which ones? Age brings choices.

God of My Childhood, and My Youth

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

God of my childhood, and my youth,
The Guide of all my days,
I have declar’d Thy heav’nly truth,
And told Thy wond’rous ways.

Wilt Thou forsake my hoary hairs,
And leave my fainting heart?
Who shall sustain my sinking years,
If God my Strength depart?

Let me Thy pow’r and truth proclaim
To the rising age,
And leave a savour of Thy name
When I shall quit the stage.

By long experience I have known
Thy sov’reign pow’r to save;
At Thy command I venture down
Securely to the grave.

When I lie buried deep in dust,
My flesh shall be Thy care;
These wither’d limbs with Thee I trust
To raise them strong and fair.

« Older Entries

Theology Central

That Night, At Table With His Friends

And Now, My Soul, Another Year

Beneath Our Feet and O’er Our Head

What Strange Perplexities Arise

People of the Living God

Jehovah Hear Thee in Thy Grief (Psalm 20)

And Must This Body Die?

High in the Heavens, Eternal God

Senior Doctrinal Defense 2025

A Training Ground for Faithful Shepherds

Awake, My Soul!

Father, Whate’er of Earthly Bliss

Stand Up, My Soul

O All Ye Nations, Praise the Lord

Absurd and Vain Attempt

O for a Closer Walk with God

Happy the Man Who Feareth God

How Long Wilt Thou Conceal Thy Face

God of My Childhood, and My Youth

Recent Posts