Happy New Year! How exciting it is to know that we’ve been blessed to experience another year. It is because of God’s gracious mercy that we have another chance to live, breathe, and love. I am truly blessed to be alive!
After finishing up this past Fall semester, I took a vacation home with family for about 10 days to relax, kick back, and catch up on some sleep and family time. How I needed it!! I also got to read William Lane Craig’s “Time and Eternity” as well as Gregory Ganssle’s “God and Time: Four Views.” Both books discussed the philosophy of time and philosophy of language. I was intellectually blessed by Craig’s arguments for a dynamic view of time. In addition, it was good to get some time away from my typical theology reading. I love theology with all my heart---but sometimes, a study or two in philosophy always enhances my understanding of God, His Word, and what His Word has to say to those who believe.
Before I get into my first post of 2010 (how exciting!), I would like to take this time to enlighten the readership about what to expect in 2010. This Spring, I will be taking up a theological project in the study of Molinism, a theological/philosophical system advocated by Luis Molina in the Middle Ages. As I’ve learned by reading, Molina was not the first one to advocate such a view, but was the first to produce a formal layout of the theological view itself. One of the books I will be covering on the subject of Molinism this Spring is titled “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach” by Kenneth Donald Keathley, PhD. Interestingly enough, Dr. Keathley teaches Theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. I attend Southeastern Seminary and took Dr. Keathley this past Fall semester for my final theology course in the Master of Divinity degree. Let me just say that I have never met a more humble, gracious, and knowledgeable man than Dr. Keathley...and I count it an honor to have sat under him for an entire semester. I was blessed by every single class lecture I had under him.
I know, I know...you’re thinking that, since Dr. Keathley was my professor, and since I value his work so much, that I must be biased---right? Well, I am a little biased. I suppose that all theologians (including me) should just come out and be honest about our biases. Therefore, I will say it loud and clear--- “I’m biased!”
However, I would like to recommend Dr. Keathley’s book on Molinism to all who are interested in studying more about a view Dr. Keathley so eloquently espouses. I will cover Molinism here or there throughout the Spring semester. I will really dive into it in my posts here this coming summer, when I will have had a chance to also read Molina’s “Concordia, Pt. IV.”
Over Thanksgiving Break, I sat down with Dr. Keathley and inquired about what reading material on Molinism I should acquire. He recommended Luis Molina’s “Concordia, Pt. IV,” “Divine Providence: A Molinist Account” by Thomas Flint, Kirk R. MacGregor’s “A Molinist-Anabaptist Systematic Theology,” and Keathley’s book on “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” I recommend these books to my readership in the hopes that, by the summer, you all may know more than I know (I’m pretty sure of it), and be able to enhance my knowledge as well. My goal is to educate my readers---but I also embrace the possibility that I, too, may be enlightened by the readership.
In today’s post, though, I am gonna deal with Norman Geisler’s discussion of faith and work in his book, “Chosen But Free.” Now, I wanna say that I’ve discussed the idea of faith as a work here at CTS; and I have argued that faith is NOT a work. Whenever the Scripture writers discuss faith and work, they always contrast the two, never equate them. For instance, in Romans 4, Paul shows that Abraham “believed God” (Gen. 15) before he was circumcised; this demonstrates faith (“believing God”) before work (circumcision).
Geisler shows the problem of Calvinists with “faith” and “work”:
“This reasoning, however, involves an equivocation on the word ‘do.’ Faith is something we ‘do’ in the sense that it involves an act of our will prompted by God’s grace. However, faith is not something we ‘do’ in the sense of a meritorious work necessary for God to give us salvation. Rather, it is something we exercise to receive salvation because we could not do anything to obtain salvation” (Norman Geisler, “Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election, Second Edition.” Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2001, 198).
The word “believe” in Scripture is a verb, as the word “repent” is also a verb. And verbs are, by basic definition, “action words.” To repent and believe requires the person to “do” something. However, what is efficacious in the process is Christ’s work, not the faith of the person. Paul writes in Romans 3:26-28 that
“he [Christ] might be JUST AND THE JUSTIFIER of the one who has faith in Jesus. Where is boasting then? IT IS EXCLUDED. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (Romans 3:26-28, NKJV).
While believing is an action, it is not a work of the law. And when Scripture speaks of works, Scripture is referring to the works of the law. By the way, the Mosaic Law was God’s Law given to His people so that they could obey it. However, Paul makes it clear in Romans 3 that no one can keep the entire Law, no matter how hard they try (Rom. 3:23).
However, “the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:3) is “the righteousness of faith” (Rom. 10:5). And the righteousness of faith has always been the message of the Old Testament. In the same chapter of Romans 10, Paul quotes Isaiah 28:16---“For the Scripture says, ‘Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame” (Rom. 10:11, quoting Isaiah 28:16). In Romans 10:13, Paul quotes Joel 2:32---“Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Even the Old Testament proclaimed that faith was required for salvation!
Salvation, however, is not something we “earn.” Salvation in Scripture is labeled as a “gift” (Rom. 6:23), and the works of human beings, labeled “wages of sin” lead to death.
Paul asks the congregation in Romans 4,
“What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, BUT NOT BEFORE GOD” (Rom. 4:1-2, NKJV).
Abraham cannot be justified by works before God; but, if God justified Abraham by “faith,” and “faith” is a work, then God justified Abraham by works. This contradicts Romans 4:2-3!!
Last but not least, look at Romans 4:5---
“But to HIM WHO DOES NOT WORK BUT BELIEVES ON HIM WHO JUSTIFIES THE UNGODLY, his faith is accounted for righteousness” (Rom. 4:5).
It is faith in the one who “justifies,” who did the work of justification (Christ justified us with His blood), that man can ever be saved. Without Jesus’ work on the cross, we would still be yet in our sins--- no matter how great the faith!
The most comforting part of all of this (to me, at least) is that Geisler quotes a Calvinist who affirms what Geisler (and I) affirm here:
“J. Gresham Machen, himself a strong Calvinist, emphatically denied that faith is a kind of good work: ‘the faith of man, rightly conceived, CAN NEVER STAND IN OPPOSITION to the completeness with which salvation depends upon God: IT CAN NEVER MEAN THAT MAN DOES PART WHILE GOD MERELY DOES THE REST; for the simple reason that faith consists not in doing something but in receiving something’” (Norman Geisler, “Appendix Five: Is Faith A Gift Only To The Elect?” from “Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election, Second Edition.” Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2001, page 198).
According to Machen, “faith consists...in receiving something,” that is, “the gift of God,” which is “eternal life” (Rom. 6:23).
Think about Christmas, the holiday that just passed us. At Christmas, we received gifts from family and friends; but did we “earn” any of those gifts? Did we “deserve” those gifts? Were the gifts we received really “IOUs” in disguise? If they were, then they were wages (what jobs pay for work done). If they were not “IOUs,” then the gifts were not given according to merit. They were not “earned,” but freely given. Therefore, we did nothing to earn those gifts. And when you and I extended our hands to take those gifts we were given, did we do any “work” to receive those gifts? No, we did not! If we “earned” those gifts, then Calvinists should uphold their theology in practice and give their gifts back!!
Everyone knows that no one person “earned” their gifts when they took them from the hands of family and friends this Christmas. And if we didn’t do any “work” to receive gifts, then what would make Calvinists think that professing faith is a work, and that repenting and believing the gospel is a form of “works-righteousness”?
I think it’s a nice touch to have Calvinists like J. Gresham Machen admit that faith is not a work. It just places one more “seal of approval” on Classical Arminian theology...
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Saturday, December 26, 2009
"The Fact That Not All Are Saved"
“The God of Scripture is able to save perfectly and completely all He desires to save: the fact that not all are saved leads inexorably to the truth of divine election. Therefore, CBF [“Chosen But Free” by Norman Geisler] denies this divine truth and instead replaces it with the idea of ‘determinately knowing’ already reviewed in chapter two" (James White, “The Potter’s Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal of Norman Geisler’s ‘Chosen But Free’”. Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2000, pages 99-100).
There are two problems with White’s quote that I desire to tackle. The first involves his quote regarding God: “The God of Scripture is able to save...all He desire to save.” Is God able to save everyone He wants to save? YES. The Bible is unwavering in its view of God as the Almighty Sovereign...
However, the Bible tells us something different about WHO God actually saves (than White and other Calvinists). While God desires ‘all’ (everyone) to be saved, He does not save everyone. Why? According to White, God doesn’t want to save everyone. To the contrary, Scripture has something different to say:
“Therefore, He is also able to save to the uttermost (completely) THOSE WHO COME TO GOD THROUGH HIM, since He always lives to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25, NKJV).
God will save, but He will save under ONE CONDITION: that we come to God by grace through faith in Christ. This is the way God has, in His Sovereignty, chosen to save some and not others.
In Hebrews 5:9, we are told that those who receive eternal salvation are “all who obey Him.” Obedience is the condition by which some are saved and others are not. In addition, Paul calls faith “the obedience” in Romans 1:5 (NKJV calls it “obedience to the faith”), demonstrating that to obey Christ is to have faith in Him. Jesus’ words in John chapters 3 and 5 testify to belief as the condition for eternal life:
John 3:15---“whoever believes”
John 3:16---“whoever believes”
John 3:18---“he who believes...is not condemned”
John 5:24---“he who hears My word and believes”
John 5:40---“you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life”
Further chapters in John show the same thing:
John 6:29---“this is the work of God, that you BELIEVE in Him whom He sent.”
John 6:40---“everyone who sees the Son and BELIEVES IN HIM...”
John 6:47---“he who BELIEVES in Me”
John the Baptist tells of belief in Christ (3:36), and even John’s prologue talks about those who believe being “as many as received Him...those who believe in His name” (1:12). Last but not least, John challenges his audience in chapter 20:
“But these [things] are written that you may BELIEVE that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that BELIEVING you may have life in His name” (20:31).
I picked John’s Gospel as justification because the Gospel itself tends to be the favorite of Calvinists. And yet, there is so much Scripture pertaining to hearing His Word and believing in Him. I wonder what Calvinists say about these Scriptures? Hmmm...
Next, White claims that, because all do not come to Christ, Christ does not desire everyone to be saved. According to White, general revelation shows us truth about God: that God does not desire the salvation of everyone. However, Scripture also gives us truth about ourselves as human beings (Rom. 1:18-32), and the fact that many do not come to Christ is not because Christ doesn’t want them...but rather, they do not want Christ:
“because, although THEY KNEW GOD, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful...” (Rom. 1:18ff)
The heart of the matter is that, while man knows the truth, he refuses to live according to it. Instead, he “suppresses the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18). He chooses to live his life as though he were ignorant. As a result, God gives him over to his desire---if he wants to live as though he is depraved (1:28) in mind, then so be it; he will act as such.
James White and fellow Calvinists desire to place responsibility on God. But if God truly does desire the gospel to be preached to “every creature” (Mark 16:15), not just a select few, then doesn’t this imply universal opportunity for salvation? Surely it does! And it is this, coupled with the world-wide voice of creation (Rom. 10:17-18, Ps. 19:4) that testifies to a God who calls all people, every person, to Himself---while refusing to make them come...
There are two problems with White’s quote that I desire to tackle. The first involves his quote regarding God: “The God of Scripture is able to save...all He desire to save.” Is God able to save everyone He wants to save? YES. The Bible is unwavering in its view of God as the Almighty Sovereign...
However, the Bible tells us something different about WHO God actually saves (than White and other Calvinists). While God desires ‘all’ (everyone) to be saved, He does not save everyone. Why? According to White, God doesn’t want to save everyone. To the contrary, Scripture has something different to say:
“Therefore, He is also able to save to the uttermost (completely) THOSE WHO COME TO GOD THROUGH HIM, since He always lives to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25, NKJV).
God will save, but He will save under ONE CONDITION: that we come to God by grace through faith in Christ. This is the way God has, in His Sovereignty, chosen to save some and not others.
In Hebrews 5:9, we are told that those who receive eternal salvation are “all who obey Him.” Obedience is the condition by which some are saved and others are not. In addition, Paul calls faith “the obedience” in Romans 1:5 (NKJV calls it “obedience to the faith”), demonstrating that to obey Christ is to have faith in Him. Jesus’ words in John chapters 3 and 5 testify to belief as the condition for eternal life:
John 3:15---“whoever believes”
John 3:16---“whoever believes”
John 3:18---“he who believes...is not condemned”
John 5:24---“he who hears My word and believes”
John 5:40---“you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life”
Further chapters in John show the same thing:
John 6:29---“this is the work of God, that you BELIEVE in Him whom He sent.”
John 6:40---“everyone who sees the Son and BELIEVES IN HIM...”
John 6:47---“he who BELIEVES in Me”
John the Baptist tells of belief in Christ (3:36), and even John’s prologue talks about those who believe being “as many as received Him...those who believe in His name” (1:12). Last but not least, John challenges his audience in chapter 20:
“But these [things] are written that you may BELIEVE that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that BELIEVING you may have life in His name” (20:31).
I picked John’s Gospel as justification because the Gospel itself tends to be the favorite of Calvinists. And yet, there is so much Scripture pertaining to hearing His Word and believing in Him. I wonder what Calvinists say about these Scriptures? Hmmm...
Next, White claims that, because all do not come to Christ, Christ does not desire everyone to be saved. According to White, general revelation shows us truth about God: that God does not desire the salvation of everyone. However, Scripture also gives us truth about ourselves as human beings (Rom. 1:18-32), and the fact that many do not come to Christ is not because Christ doesn’t want them...but rather, they do not want Christ:
“because, although THEY KNEW GOD, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful...” (Rom. 1:18ff)
The heart of the matter is that, while man knows the truth, he refuses to live according to it. Instead, he “suppresses the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18). He chooses to live his life as though he were ignorant. As a result, God gives him over to his desire---if he wants to live as though he is depraved (1:28) in mind, then so be it; he will act as such.
James White and fellow Calvinists desire to place responsibility on God. But if God truly does desire the gospel to be preached to “every creature” (Mark 16:15), not just a select few, then doesn’t this imply universal opportunity for salvation? Surely it does! And it is this, coupled with the world-wide voice of creation (Rom. 10:17-18, Ps. 19:4) that testifies to a God who calls all people, every person, to Himself---while refusing to make them come...
Friday, December 25, 2009
God's Freedom
“It seems that Dr. Geisler’s position leads inevitably to the latter: that in the final analysis, man is the one that actively, willfully, freely determines what takes place in the human realm. God’s ‘sovereignty,’ if we can use the term, is limited to giving the gift of freedom...God’s “responsibility” is limited to giving men freedom: NOWHERE IN THESE DISCUSSIONS DO WE SEE ANY EMPHASIS AT ALL UPON GOD’S FREEDOM. While it is definitional in Geisler’s view that man be free, it does not seemingly follow that when it comes to actions in time, it is definitional that God be free as well” (James White, “The Potter’s Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal of Norman Geisler’s ‘Chosen But Free’”. Amityville, NY: Calvary Press Publishing, 2000, pages 60-61).
According to James White, Geisler’s discussion of man and free will does not involve God’s freedom whatsoever. However, how was man given the freedom he has? He was given his freedom from God. And why did God give it? Well, as Calvinists are quick to state, God did it unconditionally---He was not bound to anyone or anything OUTSIDE OF HIMSELF that forced His hand or obligated Him to give man free will. The Lord decided to do this because He wanted to!
I do want to pause here for a moment and say that I think White is right: I think God’s freedom should be discussed. Don’t get me wrong---I’m not siding with White in regards to Calvinist theology; I think that Calvinism deprives man of his God-given dignity and privilege. However, he is right to require theologians to account for God’s freedom in man’s responsibility. If theologians do not start to address this, man’s freedom will begin to look like self-proclaimed autonomy and cultural accommodation!
Although I think James White is right in his point about God’s freedom, I still think his view of man’s responsibility is wrong. There is biblical evidence of God’s freedom in bestowing freedom and responsibility upon man. In Genesis 1:26, God said, “Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; LET THEM HAVE DOMINION...over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth” (Gen. 1:26, NKJV).
In verse 29, God tells the couple (Adam and Eve), “See, I HAVE GIVEN YOU every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; TO YOU IT SHALL BE FOR FOOD” (Gen. 1:29, NKJV). God gave the plants to the animals for food as well---but God first talks to the human couple and mentions what He has done for them. And why did God do it? Because He wanted to. He was not forced to do it.
Here we see a consensus of all three Trinitarian persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in the granting of privileges to God’s human creation. God is not coerced into doing this, hence, God’s freedom is present within the first chapter of Genesis.
In Genesis 1:28, God gives the couple explicit instructions: “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Gen. 1:28, NKJV).
The word here for “subdue” is “katakurieusate.” This Greek word is a compound word consisting of two words, “kata” (over) and “kurieusate” (to be lord, an imperative). Adam and Eve were “lords” over the earth; and what “lord” exists that does not have power? This is why wives are told in Scripture to “submit to your own husbands, AS TO THE LORD” (Eph. 5:22). While husbands are not “God,” they are “lord” of the home (Gen. 3:16, 1 Peter 3:6) and are to be respected as such. Because husbands are “lord” of the home, they have power in the home that the wife or the children do not have.
God’s freedom consists in His decisions to grant His image as well as certain privileges to His human creation. Not only is this the case with responsibility in the Garden, but also our responsibility to repent and believe the gospel (see my work on Romans 9-11).
I agree with White in the sense that more theologians need to discuss God’s freedom. However, I don’t think that God’s freedom NECESSITATES Him choosing some and damning others. While Arminians believe in the freedom of God (both Classical and “Open Theists”), they differ with Calvinists in the nature of God’s freedom; Arminians stress that God’s freedom resulted in Him granting salvation to all who believe, while Calvinists believe that God picks and chooses some for salvation and others for reprobation. Regardless of which side we fall on, we must be willing to assess the beliefs of the other side and match them up with the Scriptures.
According to James White, Geisler’s discussion of man and free will does not involve God’s freedom whatsoever. However, how was man given the freedom he has? He was given his freedom from God. And why did God give it? Well, as Calvinists are quick to state, God did it unconditionally---He was not bound to anyone or anything OUTSIDE OF HIMSELF that forced His hand or obligated Him to give man free will. The Lord decided to do this because He wanted to!
I do want to pause here for a moment and say that I think White is right: I think God’s freedom should be discussed. Don’t get me wrong---I’m not siding with White in regards to Calvinist theology; I think that Calvinism deprives man of his God-given dignity and privilege. However, he is right to require theologians to account for God’s freedom in man’s responsibility. If theologians do not start to address this, man’s freedom will begin to look like self-proclaimed autonomy and cultural accommodation!
Although I think James White is right in his point about God’s freedom, I still think his view of man’s responsibility is wrong. There is biblical evidence of God’s freedom in bestowing freedom and responsibility upon man. In Genesis 1:26, God said, “Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; LET THEM HAVE DOMINION...over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth” (Gen. 1:26, NKJV).
In verse 29, God tells the couple (Adam and Eve), “See, I HAVE GIVEN YOU every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; TO YOU IT SHALL BE FOR FOOD” (Gen. 1:29, NKJV). God gave the plants to the animals for food as well---but God first talks to the human couple and mentions what He has done for them. And why did God do it? Because He wanted to. He was not forced to do it.
Here we see a consensus of all three Trinitarian persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in the granting of privileges to God’s human creation. God is not coerced into doing this, hence, God’s freedom is present within the first chapter of Genesis.
In Genesis 1:28, God gives the couple explicit instructions: “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Gen. 1:28, NKJV).
The word here for “subdue” is “katakurieusate.” This Greek word is a compound word consisting of two words, “kata” (over) and “kurieusate” (to be lord, an imperative). Adam and Eve were “lords” over the earth; and what “lord” exists that does not have power? This is why wives are told in Scripture to “submit to your own husbands, AS TO THE LORD” (Eph. 5:22). While husbands are not “God,” they are “lord” of the home (Gen. 3:16, 1 Peter 3:6) and are to be respected as such. Because husbands are “lord” of the home, they have power in the home that the wife or the children do not have.
God’s freedom consists in His decisions to grant His image as well as certain privileges to His human creation. Not only is this the case with responsibility in the Garden, but also our responsibility to repent and believe the gospel (see my work on Romans 9-11).
I agree with White in the sense that more theologians need to discuss God’s freedom. However, I don’t think that God’s freedom NECESSITATES Him choosing some and damning others. While Arminians believe in the freedom of God (both Classical and “Open Theists”), they differ with Calvinists in the nature of God’s freedom; Arminians stress that God’s freedom resulted in Him granting salvation to all who believe, while Calvinists believe that God picks and chooses some for salvation and others for reprobation. Regardless of which side we fall on, we must be willing to assess the beliefs of the other side and match them up with the Scriptures.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
On Losing Salvation, Part I: Trashy Theology or Cherished Concept?
I am finished reading Norman Geisler’s work “Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election.” After finishing the book, my curiosity drove me to read through some of the appendices. And one of the sections I wanted to read was titled “Appendix Four: Answering Objections to Free Will.” I noticed a statement Calvinists use in their attacks on self-determinism (free will allows man to make his own choices of his own choosing):
“Salvation is not dependent on man but on God, and so it cannot be lost by man. Salvation cannot be gained by man’s will (John 1:13; Rom. 9:16); therefore it cannot be lost by it” (Norman L. Geisler, “Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election,” Second Edition. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2001, page 185).
I think it’s safe to say that most of the evangelical world believes that salvation comes by faith in Christ alone. While God is solely responsible for salvation’s existence, God does not select human beings for faith--- rather, He allows all who desire to be saved to come to Him by faith. Our faith, like Abraham’s, is what God counts as righteousness, not our works (Romans 4).
So “salvation is not dependent on man but God,” if by this statement Calvinists mean that God did the work of salvation. I would disagree with them when they say that God chooses people to be saved and damns others. In the words of Norman Geisler, “There are no conditions for God’s GIVING of salvation; it is wholly of grace. But THERE IS ONE (AND ONLY ONE) CONDITION FOR RECEIVING THIS GIFT---TRUE SAVING FAITH” (Chosen But Free, 185).
While God gives salvation of His own desire to do so, He bestows it upon those who come to Him by faith in Christ. The Lord gives salvation of Himself, and we receive salvation by faith in Him. There is nothing contradictory about the “give-and-take” relationship regarding salvation between God and man.
However, Calvinists do not stop there in their assessment of salvation. They go further:
“Salvation is not dependent on man but on God, and so it cannot be lost by man. Salvation cannot be gained by man’s will (John 1:13; Rom. 9:16); therefore it cannot be lost by it” (185).
Since salvation is dependent on God (who gives it), it cannot be lost by man (who receives it). There is a problem here, though, regarding giving and receiving the gift of salvation. If a person gives a gift and I receive it, once I receive the gift, it is MY responsibility to guard the gift. The giver of the gift no longer has the right to “guard” the gift for me. The giver no longer has responsibility for the gift. No matter what happens to the gift, I am now responsible for it (since the gift is now in my possession). The giver of the gift cannot give me the gift and keep the gift at the same time, guard the gift for me, etc. Once the gift has been given to me, I am to keep the gift and put it to good use.
This is no different with salvation and the Christian life. Peter tells us that we are “stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Peter 4:10)and that we are to work out our own salvation (Philippians 2:12). If this is true, then we are supposed to guard the grace that we have been given, whether it be spiritual gifts or the gift of salvation. God is not responsible for guarding that gift for us. We are responsible to Him and accountable in the end for what we have done with what God has given us.
Matthew 25 is probably the most outstanding chapter in all of Scripture that addresses this truth. Starting in verse 14, Jesus tells the parable of a man who goes into a country far away, and leaves his money in the hands of his servants. He gives to one five talents, to another two talents, and to another one talent. After a time, the master returns and calls each of the servants to come report on what they’ve done with the money. The first one gives a good report---he takes his five talents and makes five more. The second one also does well---he takes his two talents and makes two more. Both of these servants receive a “well done” (vv.21, 23).
What about the third servant? Well, he hid his master’s money in the ground. When he came before the master, he had an excuse:
“Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours” (vv.24, 25; NKJV).
The master was so outraged with the servant that he not only took the talent the servant had (v.28), but he also cast the lazy servant into “outer darkness” (v.30).
The parable itself is about the Lord, who is our Master. We are His servants, and the money represents the “talents” and abilities He has given us. For those of us who use our talents, we will be rewarded; but for those who abuse our talents and throw them away, we will suffer eternal punishment (v. 46).
Someone may very well say, “That’s all fine and good...but how does the parable of the talents connect with salvation?” Salvation itself is also a gift (Rom. 6:23), and we are charged not to neglect it (Hebrews 2:1-4). If we do, we will have to answer to God for how we wasted His grace. This is why the writer of Hebrews wrote,
“Therefore DO NOT CAST AWAY YOUR CONFIDENCE, which has great reward. For YOU HAVE NEED OF ENDURANCE, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise” (Heb. 10:35-36, NKJV).
The word for “cast away” (NKJV translation) in the Greek is “apoballo,” which means “to throw away, to take off, to lose.” The writer is saying that we should not throw away our assurance. And how can we do that? By not enduring: “for you HAVE NEED OF ENDURANCE.” Our assurance comes with our endurance. Without endurance, we have no assurance of our faith in the end.
Losing salvation is viewed by many to be the most ridiculous teaching ever passed on in the church. However, I think there is more biblical evidence for it than has been previously believed. The early church fathers certainly believed that one could only have PRESENT assurance of salvation (not final or future) and Calvin himself argued that God does not always bestow grace forever upon a person: “Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure forever” (Book 3, Chapter 2, Paragraph 11). In addition, he believed that God only gives “present mercy” to some (Book 3, Chap. 2, par. 11).
I will cover more on “losing salvation” in my next post.
“Salvation is not dependent on man but on God, and so it cannot be lost by man. Salvation cannot be gained by man’s will (John 1:13; Rom. 9:16); therefore it cannot be lost by it” (Norman L. Geisler, “Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election,” Second Edition. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2001, page 185).
I think it’s safe to say that most of the evangelical world believes that salvation comes by faith in Christ alone. While God is solely responsible for salvation’s existence, God does not select human beings for faith--- rather, He allows all who desire to be saved to come to Him by faith. Our faith, like Abraham’s, is what God counts as righteousness, not our works (Romans 4).
So “salvation is not dependent on man but God,” if by this statement Calvinists mean that God did the work of salvation. I would disagree with them when they say that God chooses people to be saved and damns others. In the words of Norman Geisler, “There are no conditions for God’s GIVING of salvation; it is wholly of grace. But THERE IS ONE (AND ONLY ONE) CONDITION FOR RECEIVING THIS GIFT---TRUE SAVING FAITH” (Chosen But Free, 185).
While God gives salvation of His own desire to do so, He bestows it upon those who come to Him by faith in Christ. The Lord gives salvation of Himself, and we receive salvation by faith in Him. There is nothing contradictory about the “give-and-take” relationship regarding salvation between God and man.
However, Calvinists do not stop there in their assessment of salvation. They go further:
“Salvation is not dependent on man but on God, and so it cannot be lost by man. Salvation cannot be gained by man’s will (John 1:13; Rom. 9:16); therefore it cannot be lost by it” (185).
Since salvation is dependent on God (who gives it), it cannot be lost by man (who receives it). There is a problem here, though, regarding giving and receiving the gift of salvation. If a person gives a gift and I receive it, once I receive the gift, it is MY responsibility to guard the gift. The giver of the gift no longer has the right to “guard” the gift for me. The giver no longer has responsibility for the gift. No matter what happens to the gift, I am now responsible for it (since the gift is now in my possession). The giver of the gift cannot give me the gift and keep the gift at the same time, guard the gift for me, etc. Once the gift has been given to me, I am to keep the gift and put it to good use.
This is no different with salvation and the Christian life. Peter tells us that we are “stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Peter 4:10)and that we are to work out our own salvation (Philippians 2:12). If this is true, then we are supposed to guard the grace that we have been given, whether it be spiritual gifts or the gift of salvation. God is not responsible for guarding that gift for us. We are responsible to Him and accountable in the end for what we have done with what God has given us.
Matthew 25 is probably the most outstanding chapter in all of Scripture that addresses this truth. Starting in verse 14, Jesus tells the parable of a man who goes into a country far away, and leaves his money in the hands of his servants. He gives to one five talents, to another two talents, and to another one talent. After a time, the master returns and calls each of the servants to come report on what they’ve done with the money. The first one gives a good report---he takes his five talents and makes five more. The second one also does well---he takes his two talents and makes two more. Both of these servants receive a “well done” (vv.21, 23).
What about the third servant? Well, he hid his master’s money in the ground. When he came before the master, he had an excuse:
“Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours” (vv.24, 25; NKJV).
The master was so outraged with the servant that he not only took the talent the servant had (v.28), but he also cast the lazy servant into “outer darkness” (v.30).
The parable itself is about the Lord, who is our Master. We are His servants, and the money represents the “talents” and abilities He has given us. For those of us who use our talents, we will be rewarded; but for those who abuse our talents and throw them away, we will suffer eternal punishment (v. 46).
Someone may very well say, “That’s all fine and good...but how does the parable of the talents connect with salvation?” Salvation itself is also a gift (Rom. 6:23), and we are charged not to neglect it (Hebrews 2:1-4). If we do, we will have to answer to God for how we wasted His grace. This is why the writer of Hebrews wrote,
“Therefore DO NOT CAST AWAY YOUR CONFIDENCE, which has great reward. For YOU HAVE NEED OF ENDURANCE, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise” (Heb. 10:35-36, NKJV).
The word for “cast away” (NKJV translation) in the Greek is “apoballo,” which means “to throw away, to take off, to lose.” The writer is saying that we should not throw away our assurance. And how can we do that? By not enduring: “for you HAVE NEED OF ENDURANCE.” Our assurance comes with our endurance. Without endurance, we have no assurance of our faith in the end.
Losing salvation is viewed by many to be the most ridiculous teaching ever passed on in the church. However, I think there is more biblical evidence for it than has been previously believed. The early church fathers certainly believed that one could only have PRESENT assurance of salvation (not final or future) and Calvin himself argued that God does not always bestow grace forever upon a person: “Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure forever” (Book 3, Chapter 2, Paragraph 11). In addition, he believed that God only gives “present mercy” to some (Book 3, Chap. 2, par. 11).
I will cover more on “losing salvation” in my next post.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility in the Death of Christ
“Sometimes the twin truths of divine sovereignty and human responsibility are expressed in the same passage. In one of the texts just mentioned [Acts 2:23], both God’s predetermination and man’s wicked free choice are present: ‘This man [Jesus] was handed over to you by God’s SET PURPOSE AND FOREKNOWLEDGE, and YOU...PUT HIM TO DEATH by nailing him to the cross’ (Acts 2:23). As before, while GOD DETERMINED THEIR ACTIONS FROM ALL ETERNITY, nevertheless, those who carried out the crucifying of Jesus were free to perform these actions---and were morally responsible for them. Here again, it is not either sovereignty or free choice; it is both sovereignty and free choice” (Dr. Norman L. Geisler, “Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election,” Second Edition. Bloomington, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2001, page 39).
I’ve started a bit of new reading regarding divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Let’s just say that, every now and then, it’s good to have some material that helps you review the things you’ve studied. I’ve been blessed this year (2009) to study the issue of divine sovereignty and human responsibility in massive detail. After over 40 books on the subject, let me admit with humility that there’s still so much I don’t know! What I have learned, however, I share with God’s people. And it is with this attitude that I approach Geisler’s book.
The above quoted Bible verse, Acts 2:23, is used in discussions of sovereignty and responsibility all the time! Notice that Geisler believes that “God determined their [the men] actions from all eternity.” First, though, I want to say that this contradicts what Geisler wrote several pages earlier in his work:
“God is morally accountable for giving the good thing called free will, but HE IS NOT MORALLY RESPONSIBLE for all the evil we do with our freedom. Solomon said it well: ‘This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes’ (Eccl. 7:29). In brief, God made the FACT of freedom; we are responsible for the ACTS of freedom. The fact of freedom is good, even though some acts of freedom are evil. God is the cause of the former, and we are the cause of the latter” (Geisler, “Chosen But Free,” page 23).
If men are the cause of their own evil actions, then what makes Geisler believe that the actions of the men in Jesus’ Crucifixion were PREDETERMINED BEFORE TIME with God? Which is it? Either the acts are determined or they are not.
Next, there is the philosophical error with Geisler’s claim. A choice can be “limited,” but not “determined.” There is no such thing as a “determined choice” in reality. The phrase “determined choice” is a logical impossibility, and the Lord Himself is able to do anything EXCEPT logical impossibilities (such as a square circle and round square, etc.). A determined choice is no choice at all!
Then, look at the text itself: Jesus was crucified “by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God...” (Acts 2:23, NKJV) When we look at the verse, we see God’s plan and God’s foreknowledge mentioned.
I have a question: why did Jesus die on the cross? Did He die because the Father felt like sending Him? Did He die because the Father got bored in heaven and needed a little excitement? No---He died because of the FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE SINS OF MANKIND! Jesus died because of the foreknowledge of sin in the Garden of Eden as well as all the sins that would follow. Hebrews records the following:
“...but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (Hebrews 9:26b, NKJV).
Jesus gave Himself for the sins of man. It was the foreknowledge of man’s sin that put Jesus on the cross (not just the Father’s spontaneous declaration of Jesus’ Crucifixion).
The question now becomes, “well, if Jesus died for the sins of the world, then why did man sin?” How was man allowed to sin? Man was allowed to sin because God gave man a free will by which man was to make true, genuine choices. I ask Calvinists here: if man does not have a free will and can make choices, then how do we explain man’s sin producing such an effect that Jesus had to be offered up for it? Man’s sin is of such spiritual significance that even Christ, God’s ONLY Son, must pay the price for it! Man’s choice, although wrong, was pretty powerful. Why then, do Calvinists seek to weaken man’s choice today? It still remains potent---even if all we have a tendency to do with our freedom is sin.
Because God allows man to make decisions (like Adam naming the animals in the Garden, for example), God PREDETERMINED man’s ability to make choices. He PREDETERMINED MAN’S FREE WILL! However, I agree with Geisler here in that, while man has been predetermined to make choices (and given the power to do so), God is not responsible for what man does with his free will. Only man is responsible for that.
If we can see why Jesus was sent to the cross in the first place, it would help us understand the actions of the men involved in Jesus’ trial and crucifixion. In God’s exhaustive foreknowledge, He knew that the men involved would do what they did. God allowed these things to happen in that, while He predetermined their ability to do what they did, He did not CAUSE them to do what they did (Pilate, for instance, did not have to hand over Jesus; after all, he did believe that Jesus was an innocent man). Rather, God incorporated the evil actions of these men into His Sovereign Plan to redeem the world through His Son.
I think foreknowledge is listed in Peter’s sermon to offset God being identified with evil. While God actively decreed the death of His Son (because of His righteous judgment), He did not decree the individual actions of the sinful men involved (He only decreed their POTENTIAL or ABILITY to perform such evil deeds). Rather, the deeds of the wicked men involved were deeds of their own choosing.
I’ve started a bit of new reading regarding divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Let’s just say that, every now and then, it’s good to have some material that helps you review the things you’ve studied. I’ve been blessed this year (2009) to study the issue of divine sovereignty and human responsibility in massive detail. After over 40 books on the subject, let me admit with humility that there’s still so much I don’t know! What I have learned, however, I share with God’s people. And it is with this attitude that I approach Geisler’s book.
The above quoted Bible verse, Acts 2:23, is used in discussions of sovereignty and responsibility all the time! Notice that Geisler believes that “God determined their [the men] actions from all eternity.” First, though, I want to say that this contradicts what Geisler wrote several pages earlier in his work:
“God is morally accountable for giving the good thing called free will, but HE IS NOT MORALLY RESPONSIBLE for all the evil we do with our freedom. Solomon said it well: ‘This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes’ (Eccl. 7:29). In brief, God made the FACT of freedom; we are responsible for the ACTS of freedom. The fact of freedom is good, even though some acts of freedom are evil. God is the cause of the former, and we are the cause of the latter” (Geisler, “Chosen But Free,” page 23).
If men are the cause of their own evil actions, then what makes Geisler believe that the actions of the men in Jesus’ Crucifixion were PREDETERMINED BEFORE TIME with God? Which is it? Either the acts are determined or they are not.
Next, there is the philosophical error with Geisler’s claim. A choice can be “limited,” but not “determined.” There is no such thing as a “determined choice” in reality. The phrase “determined choice” is a logical impossibility, and the Lord Himself is able to do anything EXCEPT logical impossibilities (such as a square circle and round square, etc.). A determined choice is no choice at all!
Then, look at the text itself: Jesus was crucified “by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God...” (Acts 2:23, NKJV) When we look at the verse, we see God’s plan and God’s foreknowledge mentioned.
I have a question: why did Jesus die on the cross? Did He die because the Father felt like sending Him? Did He die because the Father got bored in heaven and needed a little excitement? No---He died because of the FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE SINS OF MANKIND! Jesus died because of the foreknowledge of sin in the Garden of Eden as well as all the sins that would follow. Hebrews records the following:
“...but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (Hebrews 9:26b, NKJV).
Jesus gave Himself for the sins of man. It was the foreknowledge of man’s sin that put Jesus on the cross (not just the Father’s spontaneous declaration of Jesus’ Crucifixion).
The question now becomes, “well, if Jesus died for the sins of the world, then why did man sin?” How was man allowed to sin? Man was allowed to sin because God gave man a free will by which man was to make true, genuine choices. I ask Calvinists here: if man does not have a free will and can make choices, then how do we explain man’s sin producing such an effect that Jesus had to be offered up for it? Man’s sin is of such spiritual significance that even Christ, God’s ONLY Son, must pay the price for it! Man’s choice, although wrong, was pretty powerful. Why then, do Calvinists seek to weaken man’s choice today? It still remains potent---even if all we have a tendency to do with our freedom is sin.
Because God allows man to make decisions (like Adam naming the animals in the Garden, for example), God PREDETERMINED man’s ability to make choices. He PREDETERMINED MAN’S FREE WILL! However, I agree with Geisler here in that, while man has been predetermined to make choices (and given the power to do so), God is not responsible for what man does with his free will. Only man is responsible for that.
If we can see why Jesus was sent to the cross in the first place, it would help us understand the actions of the men involved in Jesus’ trial and crucifixion. In God’s exhaustive foreknowledge, He knew that the men involved would do what they did. God allowed these things to happen in that, while He predetermined their ability to do what they did, He did not CAUSE them to do what they did (Pilate, for instance, did not have to hand over Jesus; after all, he did believe that Jesus was an innocent man). Rather, God incorporated the evil actions of these men into His Sovereign Plan to redeem the world through His Son.
I think foreknowledge is listed in Peter’s sermon to offset God being identified with evil. While God actively decreed the death of His Son (because of His righteous judgment), He did not decree the individual actions of the sinful men involved (He only decreed their POTENTIAL or ABILITY to perform such evil deeds). Rather, the deeds of the wicked men involved were deeds of their own choosing.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
"Actually Escaped"
In the numerous books on Calvinism out in stores and on the internet, many will discuss the text of 2 Peter 2:20-22. And in many cases, there will be exposition on the false teachers--- how they left the faith and were never saved to begin with.
And I’m not going to disagree with that statement. It’s one thing to fall away from the faith...and another entirely to go on a campaign against the faith. To campaign and strategize “against” the faith is to declare oneself an enemy of the cross. Those who do so hate Christ and want His truth eradicated at all costs. They will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to bring Christ’s kingdom down (and to demolish His will being done in the lives of His people).
Robert Peterson is no different in his attack on the false teachers. He writes:
“I hold this view [false teachers as unregenerate] for three reasons. First, Lucas and Green correctly point to verse 22 as aiding in the interpretation of the false teachers’ identity. In the proverb, the dog and pig do not change nature---they remain unclean animals. Similarly, though the false teachers experience outward changes, they are never regenerated.
Second, as Lucas and Green mention, Jesus refers to unbelievers as ‘dogs’ and ‘pigs’ in Matthew 7:6, and Peter likely uses these terms in the same way in 2 Peter 2:22. Therefore, Peter’s comparison of the false teachers to the same animals makes it more likely that he regards them as unbelievers than as apostate Christians. Third, we noted that Peter quotes Proverbs 26:11 in verse 22. And the ‘fool’ of Proverbs 26:1-12 is better understood as a person never saved than as a believer who later repudiated his faith. Peter’s description of the false teachers in 2 Peter 2:20-21, then, when considered in light of verse 22, the Old Testament background of that verse’s first proverb, and Jesus’ saying in Matthew 7:6, leads me to regard the teachers as unregenerate persons affected for a time by Christian morality” (Robert A. Peterson, “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2009, pages 184-185).
I will not disagree with Peterson regarding false teachers. However, I think Calvinists should engage Arminians not on the false teachers, but those who are enticed by the false teachers:
“For when they [false teachers] they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, THE ONES WHO ACTUALLY ESCAPED FROM THOSE WHO LIVE IN ERROR” (2 Peter 2:18, NKJV).
The word here for “actually” in the Greek is “oligos,” meaning “scarcely, barely.” The word “oligos” is a Greek word from which our English word “oligarchy” comes. An oligarchy refers to a few people in control over a territory. So those who “scarcely” or “barely” escape leave the corruption of the world by “small” increments. While they have come to Christ, they have made the right decision but still yearn in some sense for the things of the world. These people, then, are those who, like the soil that falls away in Jesus’ parable of the Sower, “have no root” (Lk. 8:13). However, according to Peter, they have still escaped the world. They are saved, even if they are “barely” saved!
My question to Peterson and all Calvinists would be, “What about those who have ‘actually escaped’? What about those who are saved, but are “barely” saved? What about this group? I think it’s easy to sit and debate about the false teachers...but it’s a lot harder to talk about this group that, while believing, is still very much in love with the things of the world (still lusts for the things of the world). These people, then, the “barely-escapers,” have begun to listen to the words of the false teachers. Are the followers saved?
I want Peterson and all other Calvinists to tackle this little thorny problem in 2 Peter 2:18. If the followers of 2 Peter 2:18 are saved, can they return to the world? And if so, does this mean that they were saved?
If we are faithful to the biblical text, we have to admit that the followers are saved. However, they are “barely” saved...and what does this mean? That, unless they continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18), they too can become entangled with the world again. This doesn’t mean that they were never saved---it just means that they fell away because of temptation.
And I’m not going to disagree with that statement. It’s one thing to fall away from the faith...and another entirely to go on a campaign against the faith. To campaign and strategize “against” the faith is to declare oneself an enemy of the cross. Those who do so hate Christ and want His truth eradicated at all costs. They will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to bring Christ’s kingdom down (and to demolish His will being done in the lives of His people).
Robert Peterson is no different in his attack on the false teachers. He writes:
“I hold this view [false teachers as unregenerate] for three reasons. First, Lucas and Green correctly point to verse 22 as aiding in the interpretation of the false teachers’ identity. In the proverb, the dog and pig do not change nature---they remain unclean animals. Similarly, though the false teachers experience outward changes, they are never regenerated.
Second, as Lucas and Green mention, Jesus refers to unbelievers as ‘dogs’ and ‘pigs’ in Matthew 7:6, and Peter likely uses these terms in the same way in 2 Peter 2:22. Therefore, Peter’s comparison of the false teachers to the same animals makes it more likely that he regards them as unbelievers than as apostate Christians. Third, we noted that Peter quotes Proverbs 26:11 in verse 22. And the ‘fool’ of Proverbs 26:1-12 is better understood as a person never saved than as a believer who later repudiated his faith. Peter’s description of the false teachers in 2 Peter 2:20-21, then, when considered in light of verse 22, the Old Testament background of that verse’s first proverb, and Jesus’ saying in Matthew 7:6, leads me to regard the teachers as unregenerate persons affected for a time by Christian morality” (Robert A. Peterson, “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2009, pages 184-185).
I will not disagree with Peterson regarding false teachers. However, I think Calvinists should engage Arminians not on the false teachers, but those who are enticed by the false teachers:
“For when they [false teachers] they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, THE ONES WHO ACTUALLY ESCAPED FROM THOSE WHO LIVE IN ERROR” (2 Peter 2:18, NKJV).
The word here for “actually” in the Greek is “oligos,” meaning “scarcely, barely.” The word “oligos” is a Greek word from which our English word “oligarchy” comes. An oligarchy refers to a few people in control over a territory. So those who “scarcely” or “barely” escape leave the corruption of the world by “small” increments. While they have come to Christ, they have made the right decision but still yearn in some sense for the things of the world. These people, then, are those who, like the soil that falls away in Jesus’ parable of the Sower, “have no root” (Lk. 8:13). However, according to Peter, they have still escaped the world. They are saved, even if they are “barely” saved!
My question to Peterson and all Calvinists would be, “What about those who have ‘actually escaped’? What about those who are saved, but are “barely” saved? What about this group? I think it’s easy to sit and debate about the false teachers...but it’s a lot harder to talk about this group that, while believing, is still very much in love with the things of the world (still lusts for the things of the world). These people, then, the “barely-escapers,” have begun to listen to the words of the false teachers. Are the followers saved?
I want Peterson and all other Calvinists to tackle this little thorny problem in 2 Peter 2:18. If the followers of 2 Peter 2:18 are saved, can they return to the world? And if so, does this mean that they were saved?
If we are faithful to the biblical text, we have to admit that the followers are saved. However, they are “barely” saved...and what does this mean? That, unless they continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18), they too can become entangled with the world again. This doesn’t mean that they were never saved---it just means that they fell away because of temptation.
Monday, December 21, 2009
God's Fault?
“Fruitfulness, therefore, is evidence of salvation and preservation, and fruitfulness is evidence of the opposite. So, ‘every branch that does not bear fruit’ is cut off, discarded, ‘thrown into the fire, and burned’ (John 15:2, 6). Fruitlessness reveals no eternal life, because God’s salvation is real and shows up in fruit (Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:7-8). This is the problem in passage after passage in Paul’s condemnation of the false teachers in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. In a word, ‘they profess to know God, but deny him by their works’ (Titus 1:16). If professed Christians do not persevere, this is a very bad sign. IT MAY POINT TO THE FACT THAT GOD HAS NOT SAVED AND PRESERVED THEM” (Robert A. Peterson, “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2009, page 203).
The sentence in the above quote (capitalized) is probably the most shocking statement I’ve read in any book in regards to the Calvinist-Arminian debate (second to the idea that God reprobates men and women to hell from before the foundation of the world). I think what is most shocking about the quote is that it blames God for the fact that some believers do not persevere.
Most Calvinists that I know will argue that God picks people; but they will then turn around and blame the person for not persevering. In fact, I engaged in a conversation with a Calvinist friend of mine once. She told me that if a person does not persevere, that they were not sincere about their faith. What I told her is, that if the person was saved at some point, and God chose the person to be saved (which is the Calvinist presupposition), then it is “God’s fault” that the person did not persevere. According to the Calvinist perspective, God “let the rug out from under” the person, and so stole their perseverance. Augustine argues in a work called “The Gift of Perseverance” that EVEN SOME OF THE ELECT do not get perseverance! In Augustine’s view, there are the non-elect, the elect with perseverance, and the elect without perseverance. So even if you’re part of the “elect,” you can still not be sure that you will finally reach eternal life.
Calvin follows this same train of thought in his “Institutes of the Christian Religion”:
“Perseverance is the gift of God, which he does not lavish promiscuously on all, but imparts to whom he pleases. If it is asked how the difference arises---why some steadily persevere, and others prove deficient in steadfastness, we can give no other reason than that the Lord, by his mighty power, strengthens and sustains the former, so that they perish not, while he does not furnish the same assistance to the latter, but leaves them to be monuments of instability” (Book 2, Chap. 5, Paragraph 3).
In another place, Calvin distinguishes the “superior grace” of the elect from the “inferior grace” of the non-elect:
“Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only forever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an INFERIOR OPERATION OF THE SPIRIT from taking its course in the reprobate...the reprobate NEVER HAVE ANY OTHER THAN A CONFUSED SENSE OF GRACE, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only...the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. HE ONLY GIVES THEM A MANIFESTATION OF HIS PRESENT MERCY...THUS WE DISPOSE OF THE OBJECTION THAT IF GOD TRULY DISPLAYS HIS GRACE, IT MUST ENDURE FOREVER. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterward proves evanescent” (Book 3, Chap. 2, paragraph 11).
Last but not least, this is probably the most well-known of Calvin’s shocking statements:
“There is a special call which, FOR THE MOST PART, God bestows on believers only, when by the internal illumination of the Spirit he causes the word preached to take deep root in their hearts. SOMETIMES, HOWEVER, HE COMMUNICATES IT ALSO TO THOSE WHOM HE ENLIGHTENS ONLY FOR A TIME, and whom afterwards, IN JUST PUNISHMENT FOR THEIR INGRATITUDE, HE ABANDONS AND SMITES WITH GREATER BLINDNESS” (Book 3, Chap. 14, Paragraph 8).
So even some of the non-elect receive the special call. Then, “in just punishment for their ingratitude” (whatever this means), the Lord ABANDONS THEM!
I wanted to quote Calvin here after Peterson to let you, the readers, see that Peterson is being a cold, but consistent Calvinist. Calvin himself explained away the soil that believed for a while (Luke 8) by saying that God removed his grace from the person. Remember his words above about grace? “Thus we dispose of the objection that if God truly displays His grace, it must endure forever.”
As hard as it is for most people to believe, Peterson is being consistent in his theology. If someone doesn’t persevere to the end, whose fault is it? God’s. Most people will respond and say, “well, it was that person’s fault”; but in the Calvinist system, people are picked by God to be saved...and, should they fall, they fall because God “lets the trampoline go from under them.” God “pulls out the rug from under them” and kicks them to destruction. In the Calvinist system, the person’s responsibility is absent from the scene altogether!
And this is what is so dangerous about Peterson’s conclusions regarding perseverance and apostasy. If God preserves a person no matter what he or she does (because He has handpicked him or her for salvation), then how does their choice work? How does man’s responsibility and action work? If man will infallibly persevere because God picked him, then man’s choices and responsibility play no role in the Bible whatsoever---or in man’s relationship with God. Peterson, like many Calvinists, cannot claim that divine sovereignty and human responsibility work (Peterson’s book “Election and Free Will”) and then turn around and argue that God necessarily keeps us to the end (which negates man’s responsibility of perseverance). If God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are actual and real BEFORE coming to faith (God completes the work of salvation and man believes in Christ), then divine sovereignty and human responsibility also matter AFTER a person is in the faith (God supplies the strength man needs, while man continues to have faith and perseverance until the end). In both the PRE- and POST- salvation states, God gives us what we need (faith and the fruit of the Spirit post-conversion) to please Him; and we use what He gives us for His glory, to live lives according to His Word.
The sentence in the above quote (capitalized) is probably the most shocking statement I’ve read in any book in regards to the Calvinist-Arminian debate (second to the idea that God reprobates men and women to hell from before the foundation of the world). I think what is most shocking about the quote is that it blames God for the fact that some believers do not persevere.
Most Calvinists that I know will argue that God picks people; but they will then turn around and blame the person for not persevering. In fact, I engaged in a conversation with a Calvinist friend of mine once. She told me that if a person does not persevere, that they were not sincere about their faith. What I told her is, that if the person was saved at some point, and God chose the person to be saved (which is the Calvinist presupposition), then it is “God’s fault” that the person did not persevere. According to the Calvinist perspective, God “let the rug out from under” the person, and so stole their perseverance. Augustine argues in a work called “The Gift of Perseverance” that EVEN SOME OF THE ELECT do not get perseverance! In Augustine’s view, there are the non-elect, the elect with perseverance, and the elect without perseverance. So even if you’re part of the “elect,” you can still not be sure that you will finally reach eternal life.
Calvin follows this same train of thought in his “Institutes of the Christian Religion”:
“Perseverance is the gift of God, which he does not lavish promiscuously on all, but imparts to whom he pleases. If it is asked how the difference arises---why some steadily persevere, and others prove deficient in steadfastness, we can give no other reason than that the Lord, by his mighty power, strengthens and sustains the former, so that they perish not, while he does not furnish the same assistance to the latter, but leaves them to be monuments of instability” (Book 2, Chap. 5, Paragraph 3).
In another place, Calvin distinguishes the “superior grace” of the elect from the “inferior grace” of the non-elect:
“Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only forever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an INFERIOR OPERATION OF THE SPIRIT from taking its course in the reprobate...the reprobate NEVER HAVE ANY OTHER THAN A CONFUSED SENSE OF GRACE, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only...the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. HE ONLY GIVES THEM A MANIFESTATION OF HIS PRESENT MERCY...THUS WE DISPOSE OF THE OBJECTION THAT IF GOD TRULY DISPLAYS HIS GRACE, IT MUST ENDURE FOREVER. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterward proves evanescent” (Book 3, Chap. 2, paragraph 11).
Last but not least, this is probably the most well-known of Calvin’s shocking statements:
“There is a special call which, FOR THE MOST PART, God bestows on believers only, when by the internal illumination of the Spirit he causes the word preached to take deep root in their hearts. SOMETIMES, HOWEVER, HE COMMUNICATES IT ALSO TO THOSE WHOM HE ENLIGHTENS ONLY FOR A TIME, and whom afterwards, IN JUST PUNISHMENT FOR THEIR INGRATITUDE, HE ABANDONS AND SMITES WITH GREATER BLINDNESS” (Book 3, Chap. 14, Paragraph 8).
So even some of the non-elect receive the special call. Then, “in just punishment for their ingratitude” (whatever this means), the Lord ABANDONS THEM!
I wanted to quote Calvin here after Peterson to let you, the readers, see that Peterson is being a cold, but consistent Calvinist. Calvin himself explained away the soil that believed for a while (Luke 8) by saying that God removed his grace from the person. Remember his words above about grace? “Thus we dispose of the objection that if God truly displays His grace, it must endure forever.”
As hard as it is for most people to believe, Peterson is being consistent in his theology. If someone doesn’t persevere to the end, whose fault is it? God’s. Most people will respond and say, “well, it was that person’s fault”; but in the Calvinist system, people are picked by God to be saved...and, should they fall, they fall because God “lets the trampoline go from under them.” God “pulls out the rug from under them” and kicks them to destruction. In the Calvinist system, the person’s responsibility is absent from the scene altogether!
And this is what is so dangerous about Peterson’s conclusions regarding perseverance and apostasy. If God preserves a person no matter what he or she does (because He has handpicked him or her for salvation), then how does their choice work? How does man’s responsibility and action work? If man will infallibly persevere because God picked him, then man’s choices and responsibility play no role in the Bible whatsoever---or in man’s relationship with God. Peterson, like many Calvinists, cannot claim that divine sovereignty and human responsibility work (Peterson’s book “Election and Free Will”) and then turn around and argue that God necessarily keeps us to the end (which negates man’s responsibility of perseverance). If God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are actual and real BEFORE coming to faith (God completes the work of salvation and man believes in Christ), then divine sovereignty and human responsibility also matter AFTER a person is in the faith (God supplies the strength man needs, while man continues to have faith and perseverance until the end). In both the PRE- and POST- salvation states, God gives us what we need (faith and the fruit of the Spirit post-conversion) to please Him; and we use what He gives us for His glory, to live lives according to His Word.
Inclusive Language
“If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me” (Luke 9:23, NKJV).
To whom does Jesus refer in Luke 9:23? The only way of knowing the answer to this question is to look at the language Jesus uses. He refers to “anyone,” which is the indefinite pronoun “tis.” An indefinite pronoun uses inclusive language, or “language that includes everyone.” Because “tis” is an indefinite pronoun, everyone is involved here. So when Jesus says “if anyone” wants to follow Him, He is alerting the disciples that everyone CAN follow Him, but those who so choose MUST do the following things that He lists in the verse above. Following Jesus comes with conditions; either we accept those or nothing at all.
“Tis,” as stated above, is an indefinite pronoun. If this is the case, why then, does Robert Peterson make the indefinite pronoun DEFINITE? In his work on “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy,” he makes the following comment regarding Hebrews:
“This emphasis on individuals fits with my view that although the writer is assured of the spiritual status of the preponderance of his audience, he has real concerns for a SHAKY MINORITY in the congregation. It is individuals in this minority who are addressed in the texts above” (Robert A. Peterson, “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2009, page 174).
Peterson advocates a view of Hebrews where a “shaky minority” is thinking about turning back to Judaism. However, upon close reading of the verses Peterson mentions, one will see that the language includes everybody and does not single out one person over another. Let’s look at Peterson’s evidence:
“Beware brethren, lest there be in ANY OF YOU an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God” (Hebrews 3:12-13, NKJV).
How is the language of Hebrews 3 singling out a minority? The writer refers to “any of you.” Now, imagine that a friend sits five monetary bills in front of me ($5, $10, $20, $50, $100) and says, “you can pick any one of these bills for a Christmas gift.” I can pick the $5 so as to not offend their generosity...or I can pick the $100 bill and walk away extremely happy! If the person says that I can pick “ANY ONE” of the bills placed in front of me, then all five bills are available to be chosen. None of the five bills are excluded.
If this is the case, then with Hebrews 3, “any of you” refers to ANY MEMBER of the entire congregation, not a shaky minority.
Peterson points out another verse:
“Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest ANY OF YOU seem to have come short of it” (Hebrews 4:1, NKJV).
Once again, we see the words “any of you,” referring to “anyone of you.” The word for “any” here is “tis,” which, as I stated above (with Luke 9), is an indefinite pronoun. If the word is an INDEFINITE pronoun, then how can it be referring to a DEFINITE group of the congregation (and not the entire congregation itself)?
What about Hebrews 6:11?
“And we desire that EACH (Gk. hekaston) ONE OF YOU show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope until the end” (Heb. 6:11, NKJV).
Go back to my dollar bill example. If “each one of these bills” or “any one of these bills” I can take, then the $100 bill is just as much an option as the $5 or $10 bill. None of the bills are excluded. Once again, I don’t see here how the writer of Hebrews is distinguishing between a “saved majority” and a “shaky minority.” He refers to “each one of you,” which means that he is giving great care to EVERY PERSON in the congregation.
The next example Peterson uses comes from Hebrews 12:
“Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which NO ONE will see the Lord; looking carefully lest ANYONE fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled” (Heb. 12:14-15, NKJV).
The Greek word for “anyone” is our favorite word again---“TIS”! Once again, as an indefinite pronoun, the word refers to ANY MEMBER OF THE CONGREGATION! There is no “shaky minority” here. Look at verse 15: “any root of bitterness” can cause “many” to “become defiled.” This shows that one person hardened by sin can lead many others down a destructive path. Many can “become defiled,” which means that they were not defiled before. No one is immune from sin and its deleterious effects.
Peterson claims that the warnings refer to certain people in the congregation...but as we’ve seen, the words refer to “anyone” and “each one” of the members of the congregation. No one seriously believes that Jesus’ reference in Luke 9 refers to “a believing minority” of those who choose to follow Christ (and excluding others). If Luke 9’s “anyone” refers to any person, then why not Hebrews? Why must Hebrews refer to a “shaky minority” instead of the entire congregation (whether shaky or not)?
I think it’s good to defend what you believe; but when Scripture works against it, we should acknowledge that our belief is our “preference” and not “scripturally prescribed.” I think Peterson would do well to acknowledge his preference here. Other Calvinists have done so (as did Buist Fanning; see my posts on the “Four Views of the Warning Passages in Hebrews”)...and Peterson does not have to be an exception to the rule.
To whom does Jesus refer in Luke 9:23? The only way of knowing the answer to this question is to look at the language Jesus uses. He refers to “anyone,” which is the indefinite pronoun “tis.” An indefinite pronoun uses inclusive language, or “language that includes everyone.” Because “tis” is an indefinite pronoun, everyone is involved here. So when Jesus says “if anyone” wants to follow Him, He is alerting the disciples that everyone CAN follow Him, but those who so choose MUST do the following things that He lists in the verse above. Following Jesus comes with conditions; either we accept those or nothing at all.
“Tis,” as stated above, is an indefinite pronoun. If this is the case, why then, does Robert Peterson make the indefinite pronoun DEFINITE? In his work on “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy,” he makes the following comment regarding Hebrews:
“This emphasis on individuals fits with my view that although the writer is assured of the spiritual status of the preponderance of his audience, he has real concerns for a SHAKY MINORITY in the congregation. It is individuals in this minority who are addressed in the texts above” (Robert A. Peterson, “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2009, page 174).
Peterson advocates a view of Hebrews where a “shaky minority” is thinking about turning back to Judaism. However, upon close reading of the verses Peterson mentions, one will see that the language includes everybody and does not single out one person over another. Let’s look at Peterson’s evidence:
“Beware brethren, lest there be in ANY OF YOU an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God” (Hebrews 3:12-13, NKJV).
How is the language of Hebrews 3 singling out a minority? The writer refers to “any of you.” Now, imagine that a friend sits five monetary bills in front of me ($5, $10, $20, $50, $100) and says, “you can pick any one of these bills for a Christmas gift.” I can pick the $5 so as to not offend their generosity...or I can pick the $100 bill and walk away extremely happy! If the person says that I can pick “ANY ONE” of the bills placed in front of me, then all five bills are available to be chosen. None of the five bills are excluded.
If this is the case, then with Hebrews 3, “any of you” refers to ANY MEMBER of the entire congregation, not a shaky minority.
Peterson points out another verse:
“Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest ANY OF YOU seem to have come short of it” (Hebrews 4:1, NKJV).
Once again, we see the words “any of you,” referring to “anyone of you.” The word for “any” here is “tis,” which, as I stated above (with Luke 9), is an indefinite pronoun. If the word is an INDEFINITE pronoun, then how can it be referring to a DEFINITE group of the congregation (and not the entire congregation itself)?
What about Hebrews 6:11?
“And we desire that EACH (Gk. hekaston) ONE OF YOU show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope until the end” (Heb. 6:11, NKJV).
Go back to my dollar bill example. If “each one of these bills” or “any one of these bills” I can take, then the $100 bill is just as much an option as the $5 or $10 bill. None of the bills are excluded. Once again, I don’t see here how the writer of Hebrews is distinguishing between a “saved majority” and a “shaky minority.” He refers to “each one of you,” which means that he is giving great care to EVERY PERSON in the congregation.
The next example Peterson uses comes from Hebrews 12:
“Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which NO ONE will see the Lord; looking carefully lest ANYONE fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled” (Heb. 12:14-15, NKJV).
The Greek word for “anyone” is our favorite word again---“TIS”! Once again, as an indefinite pronoun, the word refers to ANY MEMBER OF THE CONGREGATION! There is no “shaky minority” here. Look at verse 15: “any root of bitterness” can cause “many” to “become defiled.” This shows that one person hardened by sin can lead many others down a destructive path. Many can “become defiled,” which means that they were not defiled before. No one is immune from sin and its deleterious effects.
Peterson claims that the warnings refer to certain people in the congregation...but as we’ve seen, the words refer to “anyone” and “each one” of the members of the congregation. No one seriously believes that Jesus’ reference in Luke 9 refers to “a believing minority” of those who choose to follow Christ (and excluding others). If Luke 9’s “anyone” refers to any person, then why not Hebrews? Why must Hebrews refer to a “shaky minority” instead of the entire congregation (whether shaky or not)?
I think it’s good to defend what you believe; but when Scripture works against it, we should acknowledge that our belief is our “preference” and not “scripturally prescribed.” I think Peterson would do well to acknowledge his preference here. Other Calvinists have done so (as did Buist Fanning; see my posts on the “Four Views of the Warning Passages in Hebrews”)...and Peterson does not have to be an exception to the rule.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
