False Professions and The Danger of Prooftexting: "I Never Knew You" And The Parable of the Five Wise and Five Foolish Virgins

To my readers, let me first say that I'm thankful the Lord has let our paths cross once more. I've been busy in the work of the Lord, as I'm sure you have, and am back to indulge the Word of the Lord with you. 

I noticed this morning that I had a copy of R.C. Sproul's booklet titled "Can I Lose My Salvation?," a booklet that tackles some interesting passages that I've studied at length regarding the doctrines of salvation and apostasy (yes, if you read 1 Timothy 4, the Doctrine of Apostasy, Falling Away, or The Great Divorce (to use a familiar title from C.S. Lewis's book that bears the same name). 

I've only been able to read the beginning so far, but what I've read already troubles me because it proceeds down a path that so many believers tread down. And I think the interpretation made is short-sighted and does not do justice to the whole counsel of God. 

R.C. Sproul mentions passages such as Hebrews 6, 1 Corinthians 10:14, 1 Timothy 1:18-20, and 1 Corinthians 9:27, but eventually goes on to argue that these warnings, as serious as they may be, are not suggesting that genuine believers can fall; rather, these are designed to wake up false believers who have professed Christ but do not possess Him: 

"While some will return after a serious fall, some will not, because they never actually had faith. They made a false profession of faith; they did not possess what they professed" (R.C. Sproul, Can I Lose My Salvation? (Crucial Questions) Book No. 22. Reformation Trust Publishing, August 2015, page 15).

In the end, though, Sproul appeals to 1 John 2:19 and Matthew 7:21-23 to state his belief that the issue is false professions of faith and not genuine ones that go awry due to what Hebrews says is an issue of hardening one's heart against the deceitfulness of sin (see Hebrews 3:13). 

Let's examine Matthew 7. Jesus has just taught about false prophets and that their fruit, whether or not their sayings come true, will tell you the true nature of the prophet (whether he or she is genuine and has the Spirit of God or is a devil and lacks the Spirit of God). "So then, you will know them by their fruits," Jesus says in Matthew 7:20, NASB). 

In verse 21, Jesus begins with the statement that "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter" (v. 21). In verse 22, those who are rejected come and tell the Lord of the things they've done: prophesied, cast out demons, and performed miracles, all actions that appear to make these persons saved. And yet, Jesus tells them "I never knew you" in verse 23, which says that they were never saved to begin with. 

Yes, Sproul and I agree here: these individuals, though doing some amazing miracles in the name of Jesus, were never saved. Try to wrap your head around the fact that these persons performed miracles by the Spirit of God but were never saved. Some things in Scripture are mysteries, but I fear that a system called Calvinism and its adherents claim the word "mystery" for many teachings that are biblically faithful but challenge their own interpretations of Scripture. 

But Sproul claims that genuine believers cannot fall away from Christ because of Matthew 7. The only problem with this is that one must consult the words of Jesus as a whole, in every place possible, to arrive at a conclusion either way. True, he can't tackle every verse in his book, but he's too quick to dismiss truths in passages like Hebrews 6 by saying, in essence, that Matthew 7:21-23 cancels out the concept of genuine believers falling away and apostatizing from the faith. 

In actuality, though, Sproul would be wrong, terribly, terribly wrong. Matthew 7:21-23 does exist, and its truth is genuine: there are some who will "fake salvation" and are never of the Lord's people though they may assemble in church and go through the rituals of saved persons (they may even deceive genuine believers). However, where I disagree with Sproul is that Matthew 7 cannot be used to refer to all believers who fall away because, if it does, then it contradicts other passages of Scripture such as the Parable of the Ten Virgins in Matthew 25:1-13.  

In Matthew 25, there are five wise and five foolish virgins. Five virgins have oil in flasks to accompany their lamps but five are foolish and bring their lamps (with oil in them) but do not bring along an additional flask to refill their lamps. Both the wise and foolish virgins sleep, waiting for the Bridegroom. At midnight, the cry goes out to go meet the bridegroom for the marriage feast, but only five are ready. 

The five foolish virgins, those whose oil has depleted from their lamps, ask the wise virgins for some of their oil. This is where we see the wisdom of the Wise Virgins: they tell the Foolish to "go instead to the dealers and buy some for yourselves" (Matt. 25:9). While the Foolish are buying oil, the Wise have gone to the chamber to meet the bridegroom and the door is shut. The Foolish come in late, but the Bridegroom refuses to open up to them. 

Yes, this shorthanded version of the parable is not meant to dishonor it but to conserve space and time for the point of emphasis. What is the emphasis? That this Parable tells us, to first be brief and then descriptive, that there are those who have the expectation of heaven but will not reach final salvation because they live their lives in Christ unprepared. Simply put, one can be a believer and end up on the outside of glory looking in.

Let's examine what I mean. First, let's remember that these are virgins and that the parable pertains to "the kingdom of heaven" (25:1). Virgins are pure, spotless, and undefiled, so it can't be said that these persons are unbelievers. They are wearing white, a symbol of purity, that they've been "washed" and cleansed from their former sins, and are part of the Lord's people (John 13:8; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Revelation 7:14).

Next, the five foolish virgins, who were cleansed, saved, and had an expectation of heaven (that comes to all who confess and believe) missed the marriage feast because they were unprepared. The oil was running out of their lamps and they did not have additional oil with which to refill their lamps (v.8). When these five foolish virgins, who had their lamps and had expected to meet Christ, came to the door after it had been shut, they cried for the Lord to open to them but He did not. He says "I do not know you" (Matt. 25:12), not "I never knew you," as the Lord had said to some in Matthew 7:23. The Lord's words that "I do not know you" is present tense; unlike the word "never," it does not assume that the Lord never knew the foolish virgins.

I hope you're starting to see the problem with Sproul's interpretation: it overlooks the fact that some individuals were never saved and are never joined to Christ, but others can be joined to Christ and fall away from faith because of sin. Sproul can explain Jesus' words in Matthew 7, but how can one explain away the virgins, the spotless bride of Christ, that miss heaven in Matthew 25? 

John 15: Are there branches that were never joined to the Vine?

Perhaps Sproul would say that these individuals were never joined to Christ in the first place because, if they were, they would have been prepared. Well, this is problematic because, if we take Sproul at his word, Jesus made claims that were merely hypothetical and not true. First, Matthew 25 is problematic for Matthew 7's "I never knew you" being applied to all who Jesus will turn away in the end. Sure, it applies to some, but R.C. Sproul's desire to use Matthew 7's response as a blanket claim for all unbelievers in the end is a hermeneutical stretch. 

Let's examine John 15. We can understand that Jesus stresses the importance of bearing fruit in the Christian life: "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing" (v.5); "My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples" (v.8). These two verses tell us that the Christian life is about bearing fruit, that we glorify the Father when we bear fruit. 

And yet, John 15 poses problems for Sproul's claim that those who do not bear fruit were never saved. Here's what Jesus says that disagrees with Sproul's claim: 

"Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away" (John 15:2a). 

"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned" (John 15:6). 

These verses are problematic for Sproul's claim that there are only true believers and fake believers; rather, there are not two but three types of individuals: 1) those who believe and bear fruit, 2) those who believe but do not bear fruit, and 3) those who never believed and thus, never bore any fruit. Remember, those who are in Jesus but do not bear fruit are branches severed from the vine that dry up and are tossed in the fire. What the Lord is saying here is that these temporary believers will experience eternal punishment and torment in Hell. However, their end does not negate their faith at the first or prove that their confession was inauthentic. 

The question before us is as follows: did Jesus state a mere hypothetical when He spoke of "every branch in Me that does not bear fruit"? If Sproul is right, then no such branches exist in Christ that don't bear fruit. And yet, Scripture says that these branches "He takes away" (John 15:2), meaning that Christ severs them from the Vine (Himself, as He states in verse 1). These branches, the ones that don't bear fruit, are "thrown away...and dry up" (v.6). 

But, Sproul has said that there are no such branches in Christ. It appears as though, to protect his belief in the Doctrine of Eternal Security, he has had to part ways with alternative verses in the New Testament and only "prooftext" with two passages that lean heavily in his favor. Proper hermeneutics, however, requires us to make the most of not only the passages that agree with us, but those that don't - and Sproul's approach of the subject in these few pages I've read doesn't make much of anything out of the severe verses. Sproul simply says that "these verses pertain to those who were never saved." 

If Jesus's words are to be believed, then there are those "in Me," in Jesus, that will not bear fruit. There are branches in Jesus that are connected to Him by faith that will bear fruit, but there are branches that will not bear fruit. Those who do not bear fruit in the Christian life are severed from the Vine (which seems to imply that these branches are disowned by the Vine, Jesus, and the farmer, the Father) and no longer can bear fruit. If the branch, the believer, were never saved to begin with, there would be no expectation of the branch bearing fruit. To believe the position we've discussed here, that all who fall away from the faith have false professions, means that we must believe the exact opposite of Jesus' teaching.

As I've iterated before, sure, there are those who are never saved, who masquerade as genuine Christians. But not everyone is masquerading as nothing more than a fake believer in disguise. Why would Jesus mandate branches to bear fruit if they're not in Him and lack the Holy Spirit, who sanctifies believers so that they produce the fruit of the Spirit?

Take care, and be blessed, until next time.

Fellowship or Salvation: Divided Or United?, Pt. 1

I heard a sermon yesterday on Judges 16 regarding the life of Samson, one of the judges of Israel. The chapter focused on Samson’s downfall with women. All through chapters 14-15, Samson’s problem with women has not hurt him it seems. He manages to escape every lust problem he gets himself into. In chapter 14, he gets disappointed with his wife when she tells Samson’s bodyguards the answer to his riddle. He later returns to his wife (betrothed) to discover that the girl’s father has given her to Samson’s “best man.” Samson indulges in his sexual lusts once more as he has a one-night stand with a prostitute. Last but not least, Delilah (a Philistine woman) proves to be his stumbling block. He “trips” over her and “falls” miserably in his calling from the Lord and his relationship with the Lord.

In Judges 16 Delilah gets Samson to reveal the secret to his strength. The answer is found in his hair, seeing that God told his parents he was to be a Nazirite from birth and never shave his head (Judges 13:5). The Philistines desire to trap Samson, seeing that he is an Israelite whose strength cannot be conquered by any man. The Philistines recognize that Delilah is Samson’s weakness; they go to her and promise her a ton of money in exchange for the answer as to the source of Samson’s strength. In the text, Delilah does not try only ONCE to get Samson to reveal his secret, but FOUR times (Judges 16:6, 10, 13, 15). In addition, she then begins to pester Samson every day about the answer (Judg. 16:16). Finally, he tells her his entire story (Judg. 16:17). Once he tells her, however, she then gets the Philistines to come get Samson. She lulls Samson to sleep and then shaves his head. Verse 20, as the preacher said, is one of the saddest verses in all of Scripture:

“And she said, ‘the Philistines are upon you, Samson!’ So he awoke from his sleep, and said, ‘I will go out as before, at other times, and shake myself free!’ But he did not know that THE LORD HAD DEPARTED FROM HIM” (Judges 16:20, NKJV).

At this point, the preacher interjects with a word or two to the believers:

“Now let me say that true believers, those who are genuinely saved, YOU CANNOT LOSE YOUR SALVATION; YOU CAN LOSE GOD’S PRESENCE IN YOUR LIFE...the favor and blessing of God can depart when you walk in rebellion and disobedience to your God.”

In other words, according to the preacher, a person can live without God’s presence and remain saved despite an active lifestyle of sin.

His words about salvation versus presence took me back to a claim that I’ve read over and over again from Calvinists: that is, that a person can lose fellowship with the Lord, but not salvation. Somehow, salvation and fellowship are two distinct things that cannot be joined.

Nevertheless, I see problems with such an approach. How do we know that fellowship is separate from salvation? To find this answer, we must look to the Scriptures themselves; but by so doing, however, the Calvinist is humiliated even more than before.

I did a search at biblegateway.com for the word “fellowship” and found 16 references to the word in the New King James Bible.

1 Corinthians 1:9 states “God is faithful, BY WHOM YOU WERE CALLED INTO THE FELLOWSHIP of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.”

We were called into fellowship with Christ; but notice also that Christ is “our Lord.” To be called into fellowship, then, is to be called to salvation. There is no distinction in 1 Corinthians 1:9 between fellowship and salvation. The phrase “abide in Christ” or “remain in Him,” as the Johannine Epistles so often emphasize, are other phrases that attest to the same concept: that of fellowship (as a result of salvation) with Christ.

There are other references to fellowship and salvation that I will not mention here. Rather, I will discuss these references in posts to come. What I desired to do in this post is begin a discussion concerning fellowship and salvation: why is it that so many believers I know often say, “You can lose fellowship, but not salvation”? To say this is to imply that fellowship and salvation are distinct and separate in the Christian life. The problem with such a presupposition is that it is not found in the Scriptures themselves. And it’s high time we examine the Bible’s teachings and stop inventing fancy phrases to disguise our misguided theological ideas.

"It's a Hypothetical": Doug Eaton and the Definition of "Hypothetical" As Applied to Hebrews Chapter 6

The Oxford American Desk Dictionary defines “hypothetical” as “of or based on or serving as a hypothesis; supposed but not necessarily real or true.” Synonyms of “hypothetical” include “assumed, presumed, conjectured, surmised, imaginary.” Something that is hypothetical can be assumed for the sake of the argument...but whether or not the assumption can happen in real life is another thing altogether.

I listened some time ago to a one-hour presentation on eternal security at Youtube by Doug Eaton. The first thirty minutes is Eaton’s sermon on eternal security and why he believes the concept is true and scriptural. The last thirty minutes or so of the presentation consists of Eaton discussing the other passages that have been known to argue against eternal security.

It is in the last ten minutes of the presentation that Doug Eaton actually gets around to Hebrews 6. I sat through the entire one-hour presentation, listening to every word, relistening to certain portions and taking detailed notes.

In his remarks concerning the controversial chapter of Hebrews 6, Eaton responded, “This passage [Hebrews 6:4-6] doesn’t actually say that apostasy can be done. It’s a hypothetical.”

Now, the first thing that comes to mind is the meaning of the word “hypothetical,” and how we label the warning of these verses (Heb. 6:4-6). According to the Oxford American Dictionary, the word means “imaginary” or “assumed.” Now, these two words do not mean the same thing. When something is assumed, it can be taken as either real or unreal. When something is “imaginary,” it is simply assumed “for the sake of the argument,” not because it shares any correspondence with reality itself.

So, how do we characterize the “hypothetical” of Hebrews 6:4-6? Is the hypothetical “assumed” as real or unreal? Or is the warning “imaginary”?
The verses themselves have the answer. Let’s look at Hebrews 6:4-6---

“For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame” (Hebrews 6:4-6, NKJV).

The congregation to which the writers send this epistle is at the same place as those persons discussed in Hebrews 6. What I mean by this is that the congregation itself had been enlightened (Heb. 10:32); they had received salvation (Heb. 2:3; 4:1, 3, 14; Heb. 10:23, 34); they had become partakers of the Holy Spirit (Heb. 3:1); they had tasted of the good word of God (Heb. 5:11-14) and the powers of the coming age, referring to at least the gifts of the Spirit (Heb. 2:4), if not miracles and other supernatural signs. In short, the congregation of Jewish believers was at the place of those to whom the writers refer in Heb. 6:4-5. This is expected, since the writer is talking to these Jewish believers regarding their perseverance in the faith.

So if these Jews are believers, then how do we label the “hypothetical” nature of Hebrews 6:4-6? The first thing we must notice is that these Jewish believers have not fallen away YET (the operative word here)! We know this because the writers state just three verses down from the harsh words of Hebrews 6:

“But beloved, WE ARE CONFIDENT OF BETTER THINGS CONCERNING YOU...” (Heb. 6:9, NKJV)

In verse 10, the writers recount the good deeds of the Jewish believers as well as the perseverance in well doing of their current state. From this, we gather that these said Jews are still continuing in the faith. In this sense, the warning is “hypothetical,” meaning that it is a warning of “possibility,” that the congregation “could” fall away (v.6).

However, is the warning of verse 6 “hypothetical” in the sense that the idea of falling away is imaginary and cannot happen? That is a far-fetched conclusion with no evidence from the text itself. After the warning in verse 6, with the two alternatives of the land in verses 7-8, and the recognition of the good works of the Jewish believers in verses 9-10, the writers continue to exhort the believers: “And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope until the end, that you DO NOT BECOME SLUGGISH, but imitate those who through faith and patience inherit the promises” (Heb. 6:11-12).

The warning in verses 4-6, then, is to push the believers forward in their walk with Christ so that they would continue to endure the persecution they faced daily. Notice that in verse 12, the writers desire that the Jews not become “sluggish,” since they can only inherit the promises “through faith and patience.” Sluggishness, in the minds of the writers, leads to the opposite of inheriting the promises (“the word ‘but’ indicates contrast).

The writers use verses 4-6 to show the Jews what would happen to someone in that state. Since the Jews have all the characteristics of verses 4-6 EXCEPT for “falling away,” we can safely conclude that the Jewish believers to whom the letter was written were on the brink of apostasy (not that they had actually committed it yet). Nevertheless, apostasy was a real possibility for these believers. As Paul Ellingworth writes,

“The meaning of vv.4-6 may thus be summarized as follows: (1) apostasy is a real danger which threatens the community addressed. (2) There is no way back from apostasy to a renewal of the initial act of repentance associated with baptism and forgiveness. (3) The author does not state that the community or any of its members have in fact already abandoned their faith. (4) the author’s ultimate purpose, next expressed in vv. 9-12, is to encourage his readers to persevere” (“The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Epistle to the Hebrews.” Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1993, page 325).

Even the Greek scholars of the NIGTC agree that apostasy is a real danger. While it had not happened yet with these Jewish believers, it had occurred in the church at Ephesus (2 Timothy 2:17-18).

To sum up, this post covered the definition of the word “hypothetical” as applied to the situation of Hebrews 6. The believers were still in the faith, as their work for God testified; however, they were on the brink of apostasy, so the writers wanted to encourage them to press on and persevere in the faith, while understanding that to go back to Judaism would be to renounce their faith and abandon the only hope for their eternal destination. To neglect their salvation (Heb. 2:3) would merit eternal damnation. Let us often say the words of Peter in John 6: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (John 6:68-69, NKJV).

A Word on Conditional Perseverance: Bberchin and the Five Points of Arminianism, Pt. II

For my thoughts on this video, please see "A Word on Conditional Perseverance," published on August 4, 2010.

A Word on Conditional Perseverance: Bberchin and the Five Points of Arminianism

I was up this morning watching a Youtube video by someone bearing the username “bberchin,” titled “The Five Points of Arminianism”(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9q0-mPxrm0&feature=related). He attempted to refute the five points of Arminianism based upon scriptural support from the work called “The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented,” by authors David Steele, Curtis Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn. I have cited this same book here quite a few times at the site and will continue to do so in the future.

While exploring the five points of Arminianism, the point that most intrigued me about his presentation was point five, that of conditional perseverance. The fifth Arminian tenet states that not all believers endure to the end and be saved; therefore, only those who have faith and perseverance until the end of mortal life are those who will receive eternal life. “Bberchin” attempted to refute this fifth Arminian tenet through his use of Matthew 18:12-14.



Let’s read these verses:

“What do you think? If a man has 100 sheep, and one of them goes astray, won’t he leave the 99 on the hillside and go and search for the stray? And if he finds it, I assure you: He rejoices over that sheep more than over the 99 that did not go astray. In the same way, it is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these little ones perish” (Matthew 18:12-14, Holman Christian Standard Bible).

First off, let’s place these verses in the context of Matthew 18. When Jesus refers to “these little ones,” exactly to whom is Jesus referring? In the context of chapter 18, Jesus is referring to children. He uses the phrase “these little ones” in verse 10; in verse 6 He refers to children as “these little ones who believe in Me”. In verse 2, Jesus “called a child to Him” and labels the child as “one of these little ones who believe in Me” in verse 6. What we see from this chapter is that Jesus is referring to children. In addition, we also see Jesus telling the disciples “unless you are converted and BECOME LIKE CHILDREN, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:3).

When we arrive at verse 11, Jesus tells us that “the Son of Man has come to save the lost.” “Bberchin,” however, does not pay attention to the context when He states that God finds the strayed believer. Unfortunately, the text itself does not say this; rather, what the text says is, “And IF he finds it,” not “When He finds it.” The Lord certainly pursues those who have strayed from the fold; but does the Lord “drag” such believers back to the faith? Evidently not---otherwise, why would 1 Timothy 4:1, as given by the Holy Spirit, tell us that some would “depart” from the faith? We never read of those specifically pointed out in 1 Timothy 4:1 ever coming back to the faith.

And regarding the meaning of these verses (Matt. 18:12-14), “Bberchin” had this to say:

“These verses have been taken out of context...especially by the Arminians. Many think it refers to God not wanting any person to go to Hell...but that is not what these verses are saying. What they are saying is that OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SAVED, THERE ARE GOING TO BE THOSE WHO GO ASTRAY. Some people call it a ‘lull in the faith,’ ‘a falling away’...BUT THE BELIEVER ALWAYS COMES BACK. GOD ALWAYS BRINGS THE BELIEVER BACK. And that’s what this verse is saying” (7:16-8:35).

The verse says nothing about the believer “always coming back” to the faith; rather, what it says is that whenever a believer strays, God will pursue that sheep. There is no verse in Scripture that says that believers will always return to the faith; rather, there are biblical examples against this very notion. Take for example, 2 Timothy 2:16-18---

“But avoid irreverent, empty speech, for this will produce an even greater measure of godlessness. And their word will spread like gangrene, among whom are Hymenaeus and Philetus. They have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and are OVERTURNING THE FAITH OF SOME” (2 Timothy 2:16-18, HCSB).

The word for “overturn” here is “anatrepousin,” a compound of the words “ana” (over, again) and “trepo” (run, turn). Here we find that because false teachers are propagating the idea that the resurrection has already happened, many find that Christianity is no longer useful to them and throw away their faith in Christ. We don’t find any of these people returning to the faith. As I said above, we don’t find any of the deceived in 1 Timothy 4:1 returning to the faith, either. “Bberchin” has got to show proof that EVERY believer will come back if he intends to make his case...whereas I’ve got some good examples that refute his belief.

It is good that “Bberchin” attempted to deal with the five points of Arminianism; however, I’ve already argued the errors of Steele, Thomas, and Quinn regarding Arminianism; and I will be bold enough to say that Bberchin stands in error on this as well. I pray for the day when Calvinists and Molinists will come to see that the Arminian notion of perseverance is more than just a philosophical notion---but a biblical concept.

When The Text Says Otherwise

A friend of mine is in town to visit me for the next month as well as attend a wedding of another friend of ours. This morning, we stayed up until after 7am laughing our heads off at one another. Let’s just say that we’re catching up on all the fun moments we’ve missed in the past year (can you believe she abandoned me for a year? LOL).

In any case, today was a good day to get up and listen to some preaching done on a church podcast. The sermon my friend and I listened to today was the first sermon done in a new series on Parables. The text? Matthew 13:1-23. Let’s examine that text now:

3 Then He spoke many things to them in parables, saying: “Behold, a sower went out to sow. 4 And as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside; and the birds came and devoured them. 5 Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth. 6 But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away. 7 And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them. 8 But others fell on good ground and yielded a crop: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. 9 He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”

18 “Therefore hear the parable of the sower: 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside. 20 But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles. 22 Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful. 23 But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.” (Matthew 13:3-9, 18-23, New King James Version)

The sermon was on the four different soils, but I was dying to hear what the preacher had to say about the seed sown on the stony soil (“stony places”).

When the sermon arrived at verse 20, things got interesting. The preacher actually stated before the congregation that this passage referred to a believer, a Christian! In fact, he used this verse to exhort the congregation about the fact that “all who are in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution,” a reference to 2 Timothy 3:12. 2 Timothy 3:12 aptly supports the view that the seed on the stony places refers to a Christian (“when tribulation or persecution arises BECAUSE OF THE WORD,” v.21).

What we find in this text is that a Christian can fall away because of suffering or persecution. And “the word” in the text is “the word of the kingdom” (v.19), which is “the word of God.”

What the text tells us then, is that a believer can fall away from the faith. The question then becomes, “Why then, do we argue for eternal security?” Why is it that we come to passages in John that state that “no man can pluck them out of My hand” or passages like Romans 8 that state “nothing shall separate you from the love of God” and conclude that a believer cannot fall away from the faith?

The truth of the matter is, Matthew 13 must be considered equally on par with the other passages of Scripture that seem to argue that a believer cannot fall away. Scripture cannot (with qualification) argue for BOTH unconditional AND conditional security. The question becomes, “How can we interpret both texts such that they work together and not contradict each other?” In other words, a person can have “eternal security” if they “eternally believe” and “eternally endure” (or as Jesus says, “endure to the end,” Matt. 10, 24). In the words of Isaiah from the Lord, “The work of righteousness will be peace, and the effect of righteousness, quietness and assurance FOREVER” (Isaiah 32:17, NKJV). However, the basis for security in Christ is faith (Rom. 11:20ff), and if faith is thrown off (as in the case of the seed on rocky soil), then that person can have no assurance of their salvation. “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” (Hebrews 10:35-36, NKJV).

The preacher exposited the text correctly, and for that, I am thankful. But did he even think about how it directly relates to the Calvinistic Doctrine of Eternal Security? He may have or may not have. Still, though, the passage of the seed possessing temporary faith must be explained in the Calvinist context; and the logical conclusion arrived at in this system must be, as John Calvin affirmed, “God gives faith, and God takes it away”...and I’m not so sure that most self-proclaimed Calvinists are willing to go that far.

Surprisingly, he said that the Word is the ultimate authority source...and that, if he is wrong, then his congregation should follow the Word (according to him, it wouldn’t offend). When it comes to the Word, either Matthew 13 (as well as Mark 4 and Luke 8) regarding the Parable of the Sower is right...or wrong. If it’s true, then I think the preacher’s word on this text is correct. Nevertheless, it does contradict his view of the Doctrine of Perseverance/Eternal Security. And, do we not always say that “the Bible does not contradict”?

Adequately Refuted??

“The precise meaning of John’s statement that Jesus was the propitiation ‘not for our [sins] alone, but also for the whole world (2:2b; cp. 4:14) is difficult to understand and hotly debated...it is, however, much more difficult when the discussion moves to what John actually meant by ‘the whole world.’ Some contend that this passage speaks of God’s redemption with a universal scope in its POTENTIAL. IN THIS INTERPRETATION THE ‘WHOLE WORLD’ SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD AS ‘ALL INCLUSIVE,’ THUS JESUS IS THE PROPITIATION FOR ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION...others argue that when John speaks of the ‘whole world,’ HE IS REFERRING TO ALL THE ELECT OF BOTH JEWS AND GENTILES...While both of the above positions are possible interpretations of 1 John 2:2, NEITHER IS WITHOUT PROBLEMS. In the first instance, to assert that Jesus’ death was sufficient to deal with the sins of all people but only becomes effective if one believes is ACTUALLY DIFFICULT TO SUPPORT THEOLOGICALLY” (Christopher D. Bass, “That You May Know: Assurance of Salvation in 1 John.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2008, pages 81-82).

Today, I spent time reading through some of the book “That You May Know,” which is part of the NAC series (a supplement to the New American Commentary series). The purpose of the work is to trace exegetically John’s intention to provide assurance for the congregation, despite the departure of some false teachers, who deny Christ came in the flesh (those John labels as “antichrists” who have already gone out into the world). John wants the congregation to know that they have a true anointing from God and know the truth. Because of their anointing, they can trust God’s promises to them and His presence in them. Since they have the Son, they have life (1 John 5:12).

In the above quote, I quote Christopher Bass providing two different interpretations on the meaning of the phrase “the whole world” in 1 John 2:2. It is the first that I will deal with in this post.

Bass states that he finds problems with the view. The view is that while Christ’s death CAN save every person, His death will only save those who believe. In other words, everyone has an opportunity (despite the fact that many will choose to not be saved).

What are some of the problems with the above view? One of those problems seems to be that it cannot get around the logic of John Owen, whom he quotes at length:

“God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight...if the second, that is it which we affirm, that CHRIST IN THEIR STEAD AND ROOM SUFFERED FOR ALL THE SINS OF ALL THE ELECT IN THE WORLD. If the first, why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, ‘Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.’ BUT THIS UNBELIEF, IS IT A SIN, OR NOT? IF NOT, WHY SHOULD THEY BE PUNISHED FOR IT? IF SO, THEN WHY MUST THAT HINDER THEM MORE THAN THEIR OTHER SINS FOR WHICH HE DIED...? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will” (John Owen, “The Death of Death In the Death of Christ,” pages 61-62; quoted by Christopher D. Bass, “That You May Know: Assurance of Salvation in 1 John.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2008, page 83).

In the words of Christopher Bass, “To my knowledge no one has ADEQUATELY REFUTED John Owen’s definitive statement on this issue...” (83)

I will go ahead and admit my bias: I believe that Jesus died for all men, but that they do not receive salvation because of unbelief. Now, before I get into why I believe John Owen is simply wrong on this one, let’s affirm that unbelief is the scriptural reason as to why some men are not saved (though Jesus died for them):

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES...” (Romans 1:16, NKJV)

“But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, TO ALL AND ON ALL WHO BELIEVE” (Rom. 3:22)

“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (Rom. 3:28).

“For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham BELIEVED God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness’” (Rom. 4:3).

“but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? BECAUSE THEY DID NOT SEEK IT BY FAITH BUT...BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW” (Rom. 9:31-32).

“You will say then, ‘Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.’ Well said. BECAUSE OF UNBELIEF THEY WERE BROKEN OFF, AND YOU STAND BY FAITH” (Rom. 11:19-20).

As Scripture demonstrates, then, faith is required for salvation, and those who are not saved are unsaved because they refuse to believe (as in the case of national Israel in Romans).

The next thing we need to do is answer John Owen’s question: “But this unbelief, is it a sin or not?...if it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died? If he did not, then did not die for all their sins” (“That You May Know,” page 83).

Is unbelief a sin? Yes it is! So, did Christ die for all sins? The answer is yes. But why, then, are not all men saved? Why does unbelief hinder individuals from coming to Christ? A simple answer I will provide: because those who come to Christ must “receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness” from the Lord (Romans 5:17, NKJV). Put in another way, we can only please God if we come to Him in faith (Heb. 11:6); and those who do not believed are condemned already (John 3:18). The Lord has established “the law of faith” (Rom. 3:27), and those who disobey God’s “Law of faith” will not be saved.

I will deal more with the issue of Limited Atonement in the coming days.

"Limited" Depravity and "The Worse State," Part II: Examining 2 Peter 2:20-21

“What does the Doctrine of Total Depravity (and the Calvinist Doctrine of Eternal Security) have to do with each other? Well, if total depravity is true, then the doctrine of eternal security cannot be; for if a person struggles with sin before salvation, and struggles with sin after salvation, then the Spirit’s work is RESISTIBLE, and therefore, cannot be IRRESISTIBLE. If the Spirit’s work can be resisted, then passages such as 2 Peter 2:20-21 confirm this view of grace.”

I ended my last post with the above words. The first part of this discussion was to show that total depravity shows how far humankind as a whole plunged into sin. If this be the case, then why is it that the Spirit is “irresistible,” and cannot be resisted? What I hope is becoming clear though, is that the Doctrine of Eternal Security rests on the notion of irresistible grace: if God irresistibly draws people to Himself, then they cannot fall, no matter what they do. This explains why believers can still sin and be eternally secure.

But it’s remarkable that the Scriptures themselves disagree with this Calvinist belief. As I quoted in the last post, Paul’s words to the Romans in Romans 8 show us that our choice lifestyle (whether to live by the flesh or Spirit, Rom. 8:13) can have spiritual consequences---whether good or bad.

Now Calvinists would say that such people were “never saved to begin with.” And a little over a year ago, I believed the same thing. However, the Bible says that those who believe and fall away are in worse condition than those who never believed:

“For if, AFTER THEY HAVE ESCAPED THE POLLUTIONS OF THE WORLD THROUGH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, they are again entangled in them and overcome, THE LATTER END IS WORSE FOR THEM THAN THE BEGINNING” (2 Peter 2:20, NKJV).

The word for “have escaped” is “apopheugontes,” which consists of two words, “apo” (away from) and “pheugontes” (fleeing). Combined, the verb is translated “having fled from” or “having escaped from.” Notice that they escape from these corruptions but then “are again entangled in them and overcome.” This shows us that there are those who will come to the knowledge of the truth, but then go back to the world. The implied statement here in 2 Peter 2 is that there are people who come to Christ but then depart from Him and go back to the sin from which they came.

And then, there’s a curious statement about the spiritual condition of such a person:

“The latter end is worse for them than the beginning” (2 Peter 2:20).

What are “the latter end,” and “the beginning” states discussed here? The latter end refers to “turn[ing] from the holy commandment delivered to them” (v.21), while “the beginning” refers to “not hav[ing] known the way of righteousness” (v.21). So to turn from the gospel is WORSE than to never have believed it to begin with.
This statement in and of itself poses problems for Calvinism: According to Calvinism, once a believer becomes saved, he or she cannot fall away from the faith. However, if this is true, why does Peter write and affirm the exact opposite, that man CAN fall away from the faith?

But it shows something that I think Calvinists have never paid attention to: that is, the effects of total depravity. Humans are of such a depraved nature that the person who turns to Christ, escapes the world, but then returns to the world, is the person that is given over to their sin (“entangled and overcome”, 2 Peter 2:21). Peter states that these apostates have “fallen” beneath their original state: while they were unbelievers at first, they are now apostates, which is a WORSE STATE to be in than a state of unbelief.

But what about eternal security? If the Calvinistic Doctrine is right, then why is it that man can rebel and “fall beneath” his original status (which is to be “born in sin”)? If man can fall beneath his ORIGINAL UNBELIEF, what secures man from falling from his ORIGINAL (INITIAL) BELIEF? This is a good question indeed, and Calvinism must answer this question with an answer much different from “they were never saved to begin with.”

The Other Side, Part V-A: Calvin's Commentary on Hebrews 6:4-6

I am back at this point to discuss Hebrews 6:4-6 and give Calvin’s commentary on the passage. Someone might ask, “Why even bother with going through these passages?” My answer to this would be, that passages like Hebrews 6:4-6, the passages of 2 Peter and Hebrews, as well as others in the New Testament (and the Old Testament) matter when it comes to the issue of apostasy. Calvin certainly had to face these passages, as does every Calvinist theologian. Fortunately, unlike most Calvinist theologians today, John Calvin was able to see many of these passages with some clarity and acknowledge the content within. That is my desire for all of us, no matter what theological system we hold to--- that we all would be able to see Scripture and acknowledge its truth.

Hebrews 6:4-6 reads thus:

“For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame” (Heb. 6:4-6, NKJV).

Calvin writes a response for the reprobate:

“The apostle, also intending to exclude apostates from the hope of salvation, states, as the reason, that it is impossible to renew them to repentance (Heb. 6:6); that is, God by renewing THOSE WHOM HE WILLS NOT TO PERISH, GIVES THEM A SIGN OF PATERNAL FAVOR, and in a manner attracts them to himself, by the beams of a calm and reconciled countenance; on the other hand, BY HARDENING THE REPROBATE, WHOSE IMPIETY IS NOT TO BE FORGIVEN, HE THUNDERS AGAINST THEM” (John Calvin, “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” 3.3.21).

Notice that God “hardens the reprobate, whose impiety is not to be forgiven...” Calvin clearly had a doctrine of reprobation and believed that there are those that God “wills not to perish” and those that He does. So those God desires to bring back to the faith, those God desires to be elect, He receives again...but the reprobate are rejected and God doesn’t attempt to receive them again.

Calvin, however, has more to say:

“This kind of vengeance the apostle denounces against VOLUNTARY APOSTATES (Heb. 10:29), who, in falling away from the faith of the Gospel, mock God, insultingly reject his favor, profane and trample under foot the blood of Christ, no, as far as in them lies, crucify him afresh. Still, he does not, as some austere persons preposterously insist, leave no hope of pardon to voluntary sins, but shows that apostasy being altogether without excuse, it is not strange that God is inexorably rigorous in punishing sacrilegious contempt thus shown to himself” (3.3.21).

Notice that this group of “voluntary apostates” seem to be from within the ranks of the Christian faith itself: “falling away from the faith of the Gospel...insultingly reject his favor...sacrilegious contempt...”

Of the small phrases above, one stands out the most...and that is that the apostates fall away “from the FAITH of the Gospel.” Evidently, Calvin had read Luke 8, where the rocky soil “believed for a time” and then fell away due to temptation.

In his quote above, Calvin also makes the point that apostasy is not like the other list of “voluntary sins” that the Lord forgives. Apostasy is “altogether without excuse,” meaning that there is no reason sufficient to explain why a person would walk away from Christ and abandon their hope in Him for the world. Because of this “sacrilegious contempt shown to himself,” God does not receive that person again. By “sacrilegious contempt,” Calvin means that the apostate has shown utter hatred and disrespect for his or her master, the Lord Jesus Christ, and has, as Hebrews 6 said, “trampled underfoot the blood of the Son of God.” The apostate has taken the Lord’s precious blood, worth so much, and “treated it as a common thing,” as something to spit upon without a second thought.

In section 23 of the same book, Calvin explains the type of person the writer of Hebrews had in mind when he wrote Hebrews 6:4-6---

“The apostle...is directing his discourse against those who imagined that they could return to the Christian religion though they had once revolted from it. To divest them of this false and pernicious opinion, he says, as is most true, that those who had once KNOWINGLY AND WILLINGLY CAST OFF FELLOWSHIP WITH CHRIST, had no means of returning to it. It is not, however, so cast off by those who merely, by the dissoluteness of their lives, transgress the word of the Lord, but by those who avowedly reject his whole doctrine...when he speaks of those falling away...we must understand him as referring to those who, WITH DELIBERATE IMPIETY, HAVE QUENCHED THE LIGHT OF THE SPIRIT, TASTED OF THE HEAVENLY WORD AND SPURNED IT, ALIENATED THEMSELVES FROM THE SANCTIFICATION OF THE SPIRIT, AND TRAMPLED UNDER FOOT THE WORD OF GOD AND THE POWERS OF A WORLD TO COME. THE BETTER TO SHOW THAT THIS WAS THE SPECIES OF IMPIETY INTENDED, he afterward expressly adds the term ‘willfully’” (“Institutes,” 3.3.23).

Calvin makes it clear that the persons of Hebrews 6:4-6 are those who “knowingly and willingly cast off fellowship.” Such persons are not ignorant of what they are doing. Rather, as Romans 1 says, they are “haters of God” and “knowing the righteous judgment of God...those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them” (Romans 1:30, 32).

And then, Calvin becomes more detailed about the apostates: they “have quenched the light of the Spirit.” This is in direct violation of 1 Thessalonians 5:19. Next, they “tasted of the heavenly word and spurned it.” What does it mean to “taste of the heavenly word”? We can get a glimpse of this from 1 Peter 2:2-3---“as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby, IF INDEED YOU HAVE TASTED THAT THE LORD IS GRACIOUS” (NKJV). Peter told the scattered Jews in the Dispersion (Diaspora) that they should desire to grow in the Lord, since their prior experience of God in the faith revealed to them the goodness of the Lord. They had memories with the Lord in the faith that should move them to keep going forward in Christ. The voluntary apostates of Heb. 6:4-6, however, have tasted the word of God (called “good”), and have rejected it, like the baby who rejects eating carrots.
Next, such apostates have “alienated themselves from the sanctification of the Spirit.” This is one of the most interesting statements made by Calvin regarding the type of person that fulfills Hebrews 6:4-6. What does it mean to say that the apostates have “alienated themselves”?

Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary provides the following definition:

1 : to make unfriendly, hostile, or indifferent especially where attachment formerly existed

See the words “especially where attachment formerly existed”? such words demonstrate a connection between two people or things, or a combination thereof. But in order for a person to become hostile or unfriendly TO someone or something, that person must have had an attachment to that person or thing that they are now (currently) disconnecting themselves from.

When Calvin says, then, that the voluntary apostates have “alienated themselves from the sanctification of the Spirit,” he is saying that, whereas there was a time when the apostates “walked in the Spirit,” that time is past; whereas the apostates were once sensitive to the Spirit and His leading, they no longer listen to Him at all.
Instead, they grieve the Spirit (Eph. 4:30) and spend more time fulfilling the lusts of the flesh (which is the exact opposite of what they should be doing).

Let me ask a question at this point: How can a person “alienate themselves from the sanctification of the Spirit” if “they were never saved to begin with”? I ask this question because so many Calvinists and ordinary believers give this answer as the reason why individuals walk away from Christ. However, if the person is never saved, then 1) the Spirit doesn’t reside in them, and 2)they cannot be sanctified because they first need to be saved. In this case, the apostates would just be unbelievers. Apostates, however, according to the Bible, are a different group of unbelievers than just those who continue in their unbelief. Apostates are those who abandon the faith (1 Tim. 4:1), not those who never came to it.

Many respond to Hebrews 6:4-6 with sadness of heart, thinking the worst of God for not allowing apostates to return to the faith. Calvin responds to this feeling:

“To some it seems harsh, and at variance with the divine mercy, utterly to deny forgiveness to any who retake themselves to it. This is easily disposed of. It is not said that pardon will be refused if they turn to the Lord, but IT IS ALTOGETHER DENIED THAT THEY CAN TURN TO REPENTANCE, inasmuch as for their ingratitude THEY ARE STRUCK BY THE JUST JUDGMENT OF GOD WITH ETERNAL BLINDNESS” (“Institutes,” 3.3.24).

The issue then, is not about them turning to the Lord---it’s about them NOT WANTING TO TURN TO THE LORD! Because they have been ungrateful and shown contempt to the grace of God, “they are struck by the just judgment of God with eternal blindness.” God gives them over to their desires, just like those of Romans 1:

“For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened...they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles...therefore GOD GAVE THEM UP in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves...for this reason GOD GAVE THEM UP to dishonorable passions...and since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, GOD GAVE THEM UP to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done...” (Rom. 1:21, 23, 23, 26,28 ESV)

Three times in the text it says that “God gave them up” (1:24, 26, 28) to their own evil desires, because they chose not to worship and serve Him. Since humanity made it clear that they did not care to worship God despite knowing the truth, God decided to assent to their decision and let them be as debased and depraved as they desired to be. What a sad state of affairs to think about!

For whatever reason, eternal securitists today seem to think that God will not give a professed believer over to their sin should they persist in it...but if God did it in Romans 1, why does the modern-day child of God become an exception if he will not receive the Lord’s chastening (Hebrews 12:7-10)?