Essential Church Pastor makes the case for Prevenient Grace in New Book

Prevenient grace is a topic that seems to be relegated to the field of scholastics with regard to theology. It isn’t taught, preached, or pondered much these days in typical bible studies and church discussions, but that could soon change.

Pastor D.M. Richardson, the shepherd of internet-connected The Essential Church and author of books Short-Sighted Faith: Once Saved, Always Saved (OSAS) and the Doctrine of Perseverance, Doctrinal Deception: Responding to Carlton Pearson’s The Gospel of Inclusion, and More Doctrinal Deception: Bishop Carlton Pearson’s Inclusion, Further Examined, is back with a book regarding prevenient grace. Titled Lydia’s Heart: The Case for Prevenient Grace, the book uses well-known biblical doctrines to assert that the grace of God that goes before faith (as taught in Ephesians 2:8-9) is resistible in nature, not irresistible. While prevenient grace isn’t a term one finds in the Scriptures, it can be inferred. For example, the word Trinity isn’t found in Scripture either, but it is inferred based upon Scripture’s mention of “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit.” Grace is mentioned, but “prevenient” is an inference (“prevenient” means that it goes before something; grace goes before faith).

Richardson draws from a number of well-known biblical doctrines that Baptists, in particular, would find encouraging, such as the idea of infant grace (that is, every infant is born in a state of grace). Infants have “angels in Heaven,” Jesus says in the Gospels, a statement that doesn’t set aside some infants for salvation and others for damnation (a statement John Calvin held in high regard). A chapter titled “The Good News About Hell” shows that Hell is a choice for humans, who were not created for Hell. Hell exists only for the Devil and his angels, though humans can choose to enter this dreadful place through rebellion against God and sheer unbelief. Hell wasn’t created for a single human person, meaning that Calvin’s Doctrine of Reprobation is not only distasteful but also highly unbiblical. Richardson also tackles the Doctrine of Atonement regarding God’s universal love for the world as a whole, not just some in it.

The main heroine of the book happens to be Lydia, the God-fearer and worshipper whose heart and mind was opened to the revelation of Jesus Christ in the gospel message, preached by the apostle Paul. This is the center of the book, and Richardson saves the best for last — with the title chapter as the last chapter (chapter 7).

Richardson says that she has written such a book because of Calvinism claims that prevenient grace doesn’t exist but is an Arminian concoction to bolster the Arminian view of human depravity. “There aren’t different views of human depravity in Calvinism and Arminianism,” Richardson says. “All depravity is the same. Calvinists and Arminians led by James Arminius, the founder of Arminianism, both believe that man can do nothing meritorious of himself and is incapable to do any good apart from the aid of divine grace. The notion of prevenient grace within Arminianism is an acknowledgment, not a denial, that man needs God’s grace to respond in faith. It’s grace-enabled responsibility at its finest.”

Pastor D.M. Richardson, apart from being Founder and Pastor of The Essential Church, is also an undergraduate of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, having received baccalaureate degrees in History (Modern Europe) and Music (Performance) in 2006. Since then, Richardson has gone on to graduate with a Master of Divinity degree in Christian Apologetics from Southeastern Seminary in 2011. She entered the seminary’s postgraduate, Master of Theology (ThM) program for four years after receiving her MDiv, studying under the Seminary’s Dean of the Faculty and Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach author, Dr. Kenneth Keathley.

You can pick up your copy of Lydia’s Heart over at Amazon.com. Both Kindle (digital) and Paperback versions are currently selling at the low price of $15 through January 15, 2018. You can preview the book at the link below.

Richardson has more work in store for 2019: among it, a groundwork theology and an introduction to theological systems in salvation (soteriology).

https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asin=B07JYV9F43&preview=newtab&linkCode=kpe&ref_=cm_sw_r_kb_dp_FdMlCbBFV0BC6

Confession and Belief: Confirmatory or Essential?

It’s good once more to return to The Center for Theological Studies. I acknowledge that I haven’t posted in months and do apologize for this. A number of things have transpired this semester between work and school that have prevented this. All in all, it’s good to be back. I feel like this is a “Blog Reunion” of sorts J

I was submitting some work for one of my bosses today and got to thinking about Calvinism and Arminianism and the constant disagreement that goes on between these two soteriological camps. Of course, when you throw Molinism in the mix, it’s a battle of a time!

Today, though, I wanna focus on salvation itself and talk about confession and belief, components of the Gospel. I tackle this question here today because a lot of Calvinists who hold to irresistible grace do so because of “the sovereignty of God,” they often say. First off, they act sometimes as if Classical Arminians such as myself have no notion of the sovereignty of God...and they often cannot distinguish between Classical Arminians and Open Theists. Even the late Dr. Clark Pinnock, most renown five-point-Calvinist-turned-Open Theist, could distinguish the two camps.

So what happens in salvation, according to the Scriptures? More specifically, how does one become saved? What does the Bible specifically tell men and women to do in order to be saved? Calvinists believe that the Lord first regenerates a person, changes them from the inside out---and then, they confess and believe (as though confession and belief are merely confirmatory signs of a predetermined salvation that God has already done).

Let’s take a look at this, however: if the Calvinist ordo salutis (order of salvation) is correct, then why must the individual confess and believe? The Calvinist notion of salvation is the same thing as saying that a person must first go buy a chainsaw in the store to work on their yard and then, the store owner will let them in to buy the chain saw! Does this make sense? Not at all! How can someone buy a chain saw if he doesn’t first enter the store? If it is “necessary” to enter the store, how then, can entering the store be “merely confirmatory”? If something is confirmatory, it is significant but more optional than necessary. The words “necessary” and “optional” are opposites (not synonymous).

If we apply this to salvation, the question we must ask ourselves is, “If confession and belief are required for salvation,” are they necessary? Yes they are. I’m sure that many Christians would not disagree with that statement. The problem, however, comes when you tie in the necessity of confession and belief with the sovereignty of God. Calvinists, in their attempts to focus on the sovereignty of God, minimize the very salvation process that God’s sovereignty created. They give with one hand what they take away with the other.

Can we not find a solution that equally holds to both the sovereignty of God and the necessity of confession and belief---without sidelining either? Calvinists show through their minimization of confession and belief that they cannot find a solution that fits with their notions of irresistible grace and unconditional election. And this explains why they often have to appeal to mystery or say, “It’s all in the mind of God” as a defense mechanism to cope with the problems and contradictions of their own system. Molinists battle the same problem: their notion of unconditional election forces them to say that the individual in question would have been saved, had he never confessed and believed (because these are conditions and election is “unconditional”). 

“No, that’s not what Molinists would say!” some tell me. Molinists would say that confession and belief are necessary conditions for salvation; however, they would then turn around and say that God had already chosen the church (and those who make up the church) before the foundation of the world (appealing to Ephesians 1). How could God have chosen these individuals before they fulfilled the conditions? The Molinist answer would be that God foreknew who would choose Him (this is where they sound like a Classical Arminian)...but they would then veer left and say, “But God sovereignly chose the world in which these individuals ‘happened’ to choose Him”---and God foreknew all that would happen. This may suffice for the Christian who cares about his or her own election and takes no thought to the perishing and ungodly in the world; but this doesn’t suffice for me. I strongly believe in the sovereignty of God, such that God could have saved the entire world (and never granted freedom of choice to begin with). However---and this is where I draw the line---God did grant humans the freedom to choose to either be saved or be damned. God’s sovereignty is responsible for man’s freedom. I would say to any Calvinist that, if you think God’s sovereignty didn’t grant freedom, think again---it did!

Because God granted the freedom to choose whether one is saved or lost, the question becomes, “Why didn’t He choose that the entire world be saved?” What I mean by this is, if God is sovereign in the Calvinist sense (that He irresistibly saves whom He pleases), then God has an awful lot of explaining to do. Somewhere along the way, He only decided to save 18 people out of a pool of 50 people drowning (an example often used), while the other 32 perished. Why didn’t God save the others who were perishing? The answer? “Because God didn’t want to.” Now the question after this is: “If God didn’t want to save those other 32, who’s to say that God wants to save me?” I could be a member of the church and think I’m saved, but how do I know? What about if, in the end, I’m not one of the elect (due to some invisible election decree)? The sad reality is, if there is one person on earth that God does not want to save, who’s to say that God wants to save anybody?

Have any of us ever seen the invisible election decree? No. How then, can we believe God loves us, as opposed to the ungodly? This is where Calvinists would start to name things in their lives that have changed, their love for the things of God, how God is teaching them...experience then becomes the reason as to why they “know” God loves them. But this is a problem. Where does Ephesians 1 ever say anything about “God validating our election with experience” before the foundation of the world? Where does it say that the election decree will be confirmed by experience? Nowhere do the Scriptures teach this. If there is an invisible, unconditional election decree, then confession and belief are not needed for salvation---they are merely confirmatory signs of an eternal regeneration (that is, Christians were “born saved”).

I could go on, but I think Romans 10:9 can stand by itself. As I close, though, ask yourself: “What did Jesus spend the majority of His time teaching?” What pervaded Jesus’ gospel message while He was on earth? If you do the right kind of digging, you’ll find that He spent far more time on the conditions of confession and belief than He did the invisible election decree and irresistible grace. God bless. 

The Assumption: A Presuppositional Reading of Romans 8:30

“And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified” (Romans 8:28-30, NKJV).

 As I have done for the last several posts, once again, I lift up F. Leroy Forlines’s book, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation up to you. As I have read closely each page of the work so far, I have been encouraged by Forlines’ work and his gargantuan effort to produce a systematic theology that Reformed Arminians can embrace as their own and pass down to future generations. Make no mistake: I wholeheartedly believe that the theology of James Arminius is one that should not stop with me and current Arminian believers...but one that should outlive you and me. We should preserve this work so that, in years to come, future generations will know that the divine sovereignty/human responsibility debate has been solved...and the answer is found in Reformed Arminianism.

In today’s post, Romans 8:28-30 is the passage presented to us that supposedly argues for unconditional election. Forlines writes:

“Calvinists have sometimes thought that this verse guarantees that everyone who is called will respond, everyone who is called will be justified, and everyone who is justified will be glorified” (F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation. Nashville: Randall House, 2011, pages 149-150).

The key word in the above quote is “guarantees.” This word is a summation of Calvinism. It is a “guarantee” theology: everything is done, sure, and necessarily so. In the Calvinist system, everything is automatically ensured. This comforts many who believe that they are of the elect; but what about those who are reprobated? If some are elect, what else can the rest be but reprobates? If one accepts guaranteed election for the elect, he or she must also accept guaranteed reprobation for the reprobate. You cannot have one without the other.

And yet, within the chapter itself, there are verses that seem to go against this notion of “guaranteeism.” Why does Paul tell the believers, “for if you live according to the flesh you will die” (Rom. 8:13), if eternal life is “guaranteed”? Why does Paul say that believers will be glorified “if indeed we suffer with Him” (Rom. 8:17), if everything is guaranteed? Why are believers told to wait for their salvation hope “with perseverance” (Rom. 8:25), if eternal life is guaranteed? Why are all these conditionals located within the first 25 verses, if verse 30 is to override all of these statements?

If verse 30 provides a guarantee, and these verses provide conditions (possibility), is this not a contradiction?

If someone tells you, “you’re guaranteed this job,” and then turns around and says, “you’ll get the job if you do such and such,” has that person not contradicted themselves? If the job is guaranteed, why meet the conditions? Someone may say that the conditions should be met because the job is guaranteed, that meeting the conditions further guarantees the job...but that is beside the point. For something to be guaranteed means that no conditions need be met to receive it. So if a person says, “there are no conditions to get the job,” and then turns around and says, “Oh, but there are conditions,” has this person not contradicted themselves?

If Paul provides conditions for glorification, then turns around and says, “oh, but it’s guaranteed,” does that not make Paul out to be contradictory? Worse yet, does that not make the Scriptures out to be contradictory? Even worse, does this not make the Bible, the infallible, inerrant, inspired Word of God out to be contradictory? And last but never least, does this not oppose God’s nature? Does this not go against the God who “cannot deny Himself” (2 Tim. 2:13), whose Word is truth (John 17:17)?

For Professor Forlines, such a notion as the above opposes what Scripture itself teaches. First, he provides a quote by John Wesley that I think demonstrates proper hermeneutics:

“St. Paul does not affirm, either here or in any other part of his writings, that precisely the same number are called, justified, and glorified. He does not deny that a believer may fall away, and be cut off between his special calling and his glorification, Romans 11:22...He only affirms that this is the method whereby God leads step by step toward heaven” (John Wesley, quoted by F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism, page 150).

Romans 11:22 provides immediate context and evidence for the genuine possibility of apostasy. Paul tells the Gentiles, “you stand by your faith,” and says that if they do not continue in God’s kindness, they too “will be cut off.” It is not guaranteed that the Gentiles will remain in God’s kindness; in the same way, it is not guaranteed that the Jews will remain in God’s wrath: “And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, God is able to graft them in again” (Rom. 11:23, NKJV). What does it mean to be “cut off” from the vine? And what does it mean to be “grafted in again”? To be cut off from the vine is to be disowned from the people of God (see Genesis 17:14; Exodus 12:15, 19, etc.). In the context of Romans 11, to be cut off leads to a hardening of heart, which is what the nation of Israel was experiencing as a direct result of their unbelief (Rom. 11:25). And Israel’s partial hardening means that, while the majority of the nation is headed towards spiritual death, she is not “completely” hardened; each living Israelite can turn to God and be grafted into the people of God once again.

In addition to evidence from the immediate context of Romans 8, there is also evidence from other places in the New Testament that testify against the Calvinist notion of guaranteed glorification. Forlines again:

“There is parallel with words of Jesus when He said, ‘For the earth yields crops by itself: first the blade, then the head, after that the full grain in the head” (Mk. 4:28). The process that is followed from the appearance of the blade until the grain is fully developed is stated, but Jesus does not guarantee that, once the blade appears, in every case all of the other steps follow. In some cases, the stalk of grain dies before reaching full development” (Forlines, Classical Arminianism, page 150).

This is confirmed by the Parable of the Sower (Matthew 13, Mark 4, Luke 8). In each account of this Parable, there is the seed that is sown on “rocky soil,” that “hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 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” (Matthew 13:20-21).

The text says that the rocky believer “endures only for a while.” The text does not say that the rocky believer “never endured,” or “was never planted to begin with”; rather, the text says that this type of believer “endures for a while,” and when persecution comes “because of the word,” this believer falls away. The question I pose to people often is, “how does the person experience persecution ‘because of the word,’ if they were ‘never saved to begin with’?” I’ve asked Calvinists and four-point Arminians alike to explain these verses...to no avail. I’ve never gotten an answer. In the world of theology, people are quick to give answers if they have them. The fact that Professor Forlines, Dr. Matthew Pinson, nor I (nor any other five-point Arminian) have been given answers on this question testifies to the fact that there are no other adequate answers to explain these verses. If one does not take these verses at face value, how then, can one explain them without sounding absurd?

All of this is to say that each of the soils in the Parable received the word (the seed was sowed and fell on different types of soil), but it was not received the same. Some didn’t receive it at all and the seed was choked up; others received it and “sprouted,” only to be scorched by the sun (Mark 4:5-6); others sprouted and bore much fruit. All got the word, all received the call of the gospel...but not all responded in the right manner. And not all endured for the long-term. When Calvinists assume guaranteed glorification, they negate Jesus’ teaching on the rocky believer. Does this not make Calvinists guilty of creating a “salad-bar theology,” where many pick the parts of Scripture they like and abandon the parts they don’t like or cannot handle?

If Jesus’ teaching on the various soils (symbolic for hearers of the Word) means anything, it means that glorification is “certain,” but not “guaranteed.” That is, believers can be positive about the future, but not so presumptuous as to not suffer for Christ’s name. A certain future with Christ should not drive us to neglect anxiously waiting for it with perseverance (Rom. 8:25). There is still a life of faith to be lived if the living believer desires to see God (Hebrews 10:37-39).

Hermeneutics plays a great role in many theological debates. It helps, in this case, to be able to distinguish between the philosophical terms of “certainty” and “necessity.” If anything, I hope this post has demonstrated that Calvinists have a hard time reading Scripture: it’s not easy to intentionally overlook apostasy passages and argue the guarantee...but what else can a Calvinist do when the majority of Scripture argues against the Calvinist view?

Discerning A Logical Contradiction: The Philosophical Consistency of An Eternal Decree of Conditional Election

“There is certainly no problem with the election occurring before birth. I think it does. Individual conditional election by God in eternity past does not involve a logical contradiction” (F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation. Nashville: Randall House, 2011, page 121).

The name of the blog is “The Center for Theological Studies.” Here at the site, I daily devote my time to issues of theological importance; however, if you ever look at the blogging sections to the right on the main page, you will find that I also have sections on philosophical issues that are connected to theology, such as “hermeneutics,” “Philosophy: Theology’s Handmaiden,” “Doctrine of Election,” etc. The reason for philosophical studies and discussions here at CTS is to show my readers that I value philosophical theology. Being a theologian, in my opinion, involves more than just having the right theology and making sure one has a Bible verse for everything; rather, hermeneutics (philosophy) is a tool God has provided the church. If all one needs is theology, what does one do when battling Open Theists, who believe that God only has partial foreknowledge of all future events? Open Theists show Christians everyday that it takes more than theology to do battle in theology. Open Theists often engage non-openness theologians and believers alike in philosophical debates over the nature of God (divine foreknowledge) as well as the philosophy of language (what does the text mean when God says He didn’t know something, or He didn’t think something would be done by the Jews, etc.). One must think on their feet when engaging opposing views in theology and philosophy.

With that being said, I believe in the importance of training believers to not just be good theologians and know their Bible only...but to also train believers to be good philosophers, know how to do hermeneutics, and know how to philosophically defend the nature of God amidst various perceptions of the divine that exist in the contemporary world. The early church fathers certainly believed that “philosophy is the handmaiden of theology”; and since I can do no better than they, I must admit that I too, need philosophy to make me a good theologian. For those who disagree with me on this one, I pray that in time, you too, would come to agree with me.

F. Leroy Forlines’ quote above involves nothing but pure, unadulterated philosophical argument. The subject up for debate in this post is whether or not a conditional election decided in eternity is a logical contradiction.

It would help to think of eternity (before time) and time as being points on a line, like the following:

EP_______________T____________EF

In the above diagram, “EP” stands for “eternity past,” while “T” stands for “time” and “EF” stands for “eternity future” (which is the world to come). Now that this line is laid, let’s think about the eternal decrees.

According to Scripture, God foreknows His work from eternity (Acts 15:18), meaning prior to time. Before He even created time, He foreknew His own plans and His decrees. In the “EP” above, eternity past, God set up the decrees regarding things He would do in time. One of the decrees in eternity past that God made was the decree to send Jesus. In “EP” God decreed to send Jesus, but Jesus did not come until “T” (what Galatians calls “the fullness of time”; see Galatians 4:4). Calvinist theologian John Piper would not disagree with the decree to send Jesus being made in eternity and carried out in time. Why? Because the decree to send Jesus was unconditional (the Father sent Jesus because of His own love for the world and His personal decision). The problem for Piper comes in when one claims that election is conditional, and that this decree was made in eternity.

Why is the eternal conditional decree a logical contradiction to Piper? It’s similar to what many say when they provide a critique against Molinism called “the grounding objection.” Ken Keathley, author of “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach, writes as a footnote:

“Some ask how it is that God innately knows what free creatures will do. That is, they want to know the grounds or basis for this knowledge (which is why this objection is commonly called the ‘grounding objection’). However, as Craig points out, the burden of proof is on the objector. ‘But why should I know how God has such foreknowledge? Who are human beings that they should know how God foreknows the future?” (William Lane Craig, quoted by Kenneth Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, page 40).

Piper and many Calvinists often ask Molinists (and Arminians), “If God foreknows human choices, how does He foreknow them? In eternity, humans have not been created yet. If God foreknows choices in eternity created by people that He will create in time (but has not created when He decided to actualize a world), how then, can God foreknow those free human choices?” To many, it seems that, if God is the only existing being in eternity, He can only foreknow choices because He will foreordain them. Many Calvinists believe that it doesn’t make sense to posit that God foreknows choices created by people who don’t exist. To many, that is the same thing as a movie producer (such as “Christoff”) who foreknows that the character Truman Burbank (from “The Truman Show”) will get married. Why does Christoff foreknow Truman will get married? He foreknows because he foreordained Truman to get married in the script he wrote. He wrote the script and decided beforehand that Truman would get married. Truman did not have a say in the matter (although it seems he did).

The Calvinist philosophical reasoning, though rather astute in its presentation, falters when it comes to the Divine. First and foremost, God’s decision in eternity means that there was never a time when God “decided” to create the world. Although I use the phrase “God decided to create the world” above, in reality, God “always” decided to create the world, God always foreknew He would create the world (and thus, always foreknew the people He would create, that the Fall of man would occur, and that He would send Jesus to atone for man’s sin). There was never a time in eternity past when God had to say, “Shall I or shall I not create a world?” God never had to deliberate over the matter, since He is not like us. This is why Molinists refer to the “logical” moments of God’s foreknowledge, not actual moments (as though God’s foreknowledge occurred in process):

“It is important to keep in mind that these three moments are a logical sequence, not a chronological sequence. Since God is omniscient, He innately knows all things---this means He does not go through the mental processes that finite beings do of ‘figuring things out.’ God never ‘learns’ or has things ‘occur’ to Him. He already knows all truths. The fact that God is omniscient does not merely mean that God is infinitely more knowledgeable than us, but that His knowledge is of a different type and quality. So the three moments of God’s knowledge proposed by Molinism refer to logical order, not a sequence in time” (Kenneth Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach, page 16).

Dr. Keathley’s argument about God’s knowledge is impeccable. God is “omniscient,” we are limited in our knowledge. God’s foreknowledge, by virtue of His divine nature, is different in “type” and greater in “quality.” When it comes to the human, the earthly, man can comprehend many things; but when it comes to the Divine, who can comprehend fully all God foreknows? To be able to understand exactly how God foreknows all human choices would require us to possess omniscience, an impossibility for mortal man. Therefore, while we cannot say how God foreknows what humans will freely choose, we can say that the Bible declares God foreknows all human choices. Those who deny that God can establish an election based on a certain condition in eternity are those who are merely grappling with a philosophical question that only God can accurately provide an answer to. But the fact that Calvinists do not understand the “how” of it does not make the idea itself a logical contradiction. After all, a logical contradiction can only be claimed if someone has something earthly to compare the thing in question to; and, since nothing on earth can be compared to God’s nature and personality, there are no examples to compare to God’s foreknowledge...thus eliminating the possibility of logical contradiction.

This post was a philosophical post in its content. The goal was to demonstrate that the decree of conditional election in eternity is not a logical contradiction, since divine foreknowledge is not of the same type and quality as human foreknowledge. For humans, events and ideas at a later time can change an impression we had at an earlier time; this is not the case with God. God’s mind does not change; He does not need to go back and rethink His ideas. God does not have to go back and correct His thinking, or struggle to recall an event that happened years ago. He foreknows all things perfectly, simultaneously, eternally.

Rather, something that happens in time was always foreknown by God in eternity. And why is this the case? Because, if God foreknew all His actions from eternity (Acts 15:18), foreknew His decision to create the world, place Adam and Eve and subsequent people in it, foreknew His decision to send Jesus to atone for sin, then surely, He foreknew Adam and Eve would sin, foreknew that the Fall of Genesis 3 would happen, foreknew that Satan and 1/3 of the angels in heaven would fall, foreknew that some would accept His atonement while others would not. If the very hairs of man’s head are numbered (Matt. 10:30), and the Lord knows man’s thoughts afar off (Psalm 139:2), then He foreknows all human choices. Nothing escapes the mind of our God!

"Unstated In the Verse," Pt. 2: Thomas R. Schreiner's Critique of Dr. Brian Abasciano

“It reminds me of a time when I was teaching a class on Ephesians, and I asked, ‘What is this verse teaching?’ And one student replied, ‘It teaches that we must choose God to be saved.’ I replied, ‘Does it not seem strange that the wording of the verse emphasizes just the opposite of what you said? It stresses God’s choice, not ours.’ This is seen in Eph. 1:5 as well, where as though to oppose the Arminian interpretation of God’s choice Paul adds that God ‘predestined us according to the purpose of his will’” (Dr. Thomas R. Schreiner, “Corporate and Individual Election in Romans 9: A Response to Brian Abasciano.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 2 (June 2006): 380).

In my last post on Schreiner’s critique of Dr. Abasciano’s conclusion regarding Romans 9 (that it is primarily about conditional election and that only), I stated that in the logical ordering of decrees in eternity, we can posit (a safe interpretation) that God decreed Christ as Savior before believers were decreed as elect in Christ. As a result, there is a case for corporate election (as Abasciano espouses) in Ephesians 1. The phrase “in Christ” tells us that faith is what joins us to Christ...but the fact that “He chose us” points to God’s sovereignty, that He determined that believers would be saved by virtue of faith in Christ. In other words, the fact that there are even believers is a testimony to God’s sovereignty; had God not established grace and faith as the conditions for salvation, and granted them to us, man would never have ever been “elect.” Instead, we all would have been “reprobate.”

Schreiner attempts to make Ephesians 1 all about individual election and God’s choice. But Ephesians 1 also points to human choice as well. And that is the concern of this post: to establish the fact that man makes choices in salvation, and God makes choices as well. This all goes to show that divine sovereignty and human responsibility work together...that the two concepts do not create a “paradox” or provide “tension” in the biblical text.

Ephesians 1:13 states---

“In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Eph. 1:13, NKJV).

The phrase “in Him” is used twice in this verse, some eleven times or so in Ephesians 1 [Eph. 1:1,4,5,6,7,10,11,12,13 (2X)].

Notice that the text says “you also trusted.” The believers at Ephesus trusted in Christ after hearing the gospel (called “the word of truth”).

But Ephesians 1 is not alone in describing genuine human choice; Romans does the same. Romans 5 finds Paul discussing the parallel between the physical union in Adam and the spiritual union with (in) Christ:

“For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:17).

There are similarities between the union with Adam and union with Christ: for one, Christ is called “the second Adam” in 1 Corinthians 15. Secondly, both involve choice: that is, in Adam, all humanity willingly chose to sin...in Christ, one must choose to receive Christ’s atonement. However, there is a difference: one is born in union with Adam, but one is not born in union with Christ as God’s elect. One must receive salvation in order to be elect (due to faith in Christ, the “Elect One”).

Dr. Schreiner attempts to focus on God’s choosing Christ and choosing believers in Christ; but what about Romans 5, which indicates that man chooses to receive salvation? If the interpretations of the passages I have provided are correct, then Schreiner’s ideas of the Arminian view are not entirely correct.

It is an interesting thought indeed: God chooses in Ephesians 1, and humans choose in Romans 5. How can we reconcile these two texts? Schreiner would say that the answer is found in his view of compatibilistic freedom. And how exactly does this work? I will share more of Schreiner’s view in posts to come.

"Unstated In the Verse": Dr. Thomas R. Schreiner's Critique of Dr. Brian Abasciano

“When it comes to Eph 1:4, ‘just as he [God] chose us in him [Christ] before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him in love,’ Abasciano maintains that ‘the election of Christ is surely part of the background and meaning of the verse’ (p.18). Such a statement is not necessarily at odds with my own view. The point I was trying to make in my previous article is that in Eph 1:4 human beings are the direct object of God’s election, not Jesus Christ. Hence, the emphasis in the verse is not on the election of Christ, but the election of human beings...what Paul does not emphasize in Eph 1:4, however, is that God chose Christ as the corporate head, and then the election of the church becomes a reality insofar as human beings put their faith in Jesus Christ. What Paul emphasizes in the verse is not Christ’s election (even if it is in the background), but the election of believers. Arminian interpreters place their emphasis on a matter that is unstated in the verse, and at the same time undercut Paul’s stress on divine election of human beings” [Dr. Thomas R. Schreiner, “Corporate and Individual Election in Romans 9: A Response to Brian Abasciano.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 2 (June 2006): 380].

I have a biased interest in the doctrine of election. Here at the Center for Theological Studies (CTS), I believe in pursuing all sorts of doctrines in the Christian faith; however, I do love studying what the Scriptures teach concerning election. And from time to time, I find myself back in the debates concerning election over and over again.

Today’s post places us in a disagreement between Drs. Brian Abasciano and Thomas Schreiner over the issue of corporate and individual election. As always, Ephesians 1 is the top text in the debate.

Schreiner’s first response (involving Ephesians 1) is that “in Eph 1:4 human beings are the direct object of God’s election, not Jesus Christ” (380). I agree with that. The verse says, “He [God] chose us in him [Christ] before the foundation of the world...” The phrase “in Him” is in the dative case in the Greek, and the dative case is used for indirect objects. The direct object is “humas” (Grk. us). Schreiner is right to say that the emphasis of this verse is humans. Schreiner also goes on to say that Paul emphasizes “the election of believers.” As a Reformed Arminian (Classic Arminian), I agree with this statement. The issue in Ephesians 1 is the election of believers. In his Disputation 49, titled “On the Union of Believers with Christ,” Arminius describes the union as follows:

“We may define it or describe it to be that spiritual and most strict and therefore mystically essential conjunction, by which believers, being immediately connected, by God the Father and Jesus Christ through the Spirit of Christ and God, with Christ Himself, and through Christ with God, became one with him and with the Father, and are made partakers of all his blessings, to their own salvation and the glory of Christ and of God” (James Arminius, “Works,” Disputation XLVIIII, Sec. 3).

It is “believers” who are unified with Christ. Arminius uses the word “believers” because such are “made partakers of all his blessings”...and sinners cannot partake of the divine blessings until they confess and believe on His Name. I disagree with Schreiner’s view that God selects individuals for salvation; but I do not disagree with the idea of an individual election (provided that individuals are predestined for salvation on the basis of God’s foreknowledge, as Arminius himself agreed to).

Having said that, Ephesians 1 is about believers being elected in Christ. While Christ is not the center of the statement in Ephesians 1:4, Christ is involved in election. The phrase “in Him” is used throughout the Scriptures to refer to salvation by grace through faith. Even in Ephesians 1, we see how important the phrase “in Him” is: “IN HIM we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace” (Eph. 1:7, NKJV). Only by union with Christ is there salvation.

But Schreiner’s words go too far when he writes the following:

“Arminian interpreters place their emphasis on a matter that is unstated in the verse, and at the same time undercut Paul’s stress on divine election of human beings” (380).

How do Arminians attempt to eliminate divine election?

“...God chose Christ as the corporate head, and then the election of the church becomes a reality insofar as human beings put their faith in Jesus Christ” (380).

According to Schreiner, this is “a matter that is unstated in the verse.” The issue of faith in Christ comes as we read Ephesians 1:4. The words “in Him” are a simplified verse of “through faith in Him,” “by Christ Jesus” (a phrase that is also used in Eph. 1:5).

What about the idea of Christ as corporate head? This idea can be seen in Ephesians 1:4, to the contrary of Dr. Schreiner. Believers are chosen “in Christ.” So, in the eternal decrees, Christ was there while humanity was not. To deal with sin, the decree to send Christ had to precede the decree to elect certain individuals. As I’ve said in previous posts, had God decreed to elect persons before sending Christ, then God would be choosing sinners who would still bear their own guilt on their heads. Placing Christ before humans in the eternal decrees (before time) is how God deals with sin before justifying sinners through Christ. Sinners need justification...and only Christ can justify sinners. After all, God sent Jesus when He did “that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:26). Only those who believe are justified.

I already stated that Christ must be decreed as Savior before anyone could be saved “in Christ.” Once God decreed to send Jesus, then (only referring to a logical order of the decrees, not a chronological order) God could decide to elect persons. At this point, grace and faith were decreed as conditions by which man would be saved. And all those who exercised faith in Christ would be deemed “elect.” Of course, they would be “elect” because of their faith in the “Elect One,” that being Christ.

Now someone could say, “What biblical evidence do you have for your philosophical argument?” Well, the Scriptures teach us that Christ is the Elect One (Matthew 12:18, quoting Isaiah 42:1; Luke 23:35; 1 Peter 2:6, quoting Isaiah 28:16). Those who believe in Him are elect (1 Peter 2:4, 9; Revelation 17:14). If Christ is “the head of the church” (Eph. 1:22-23), then those who believe constitute the church, which Ephesians 1:23 also calls “His body.” If Christ must pay the penalty for our sins (and we can contribute nothing of merit to our salvation), then we can only be justified through faith in Christ. Only after the Elect One is placed logically before elect persons can we see the importance of corporate election (built upon the elect individual, which is Christ). The election described in Ephesians 1 looks like this:

Decree #1: Christ dies for the sins of the world.

Decree #2: God sets the terms of salvation (as stated in John 3:16-18); He then decrees to dispense grace and faith needed for salvation.

Decree #3: Those who believe are given an individual election, which was foreknown by Christ before time.

Decree #4: God declares that those who believe are the church, which is Christ’s body. The saints not only have an individual election, but also a corporate one.

Schreiner states that “Arminian interpreters place their emphasis on a matter that is unstated in the verse, and at the same time undercut Paul’s stress on divine election of human beings.” How do I respond to Schreiner? I’ll reveal that in my next post.

The Parallel

“Seventh, particular intent maintains the parallel between our solidarity with Adam and our solidarity with Christ. As Neal Punt puts it, Romans 5:15-17 ‘[does] not say that one of the differences between Adam’s transgression and Christ’s obedience is that the transgression resulted in actual death while the obedience merely established a potential or possibility for life. Instead of making such a distinction, Paul, using the identical grammatical construction, makes a parallel application of actual death and actual life in verse 18. Calvinists are unmistakably correct in noting that Romans 5:12 through 21 says‘acquittal and life’ actually come to all those represented by Christ just as certainly as it declares that‘sin and death’ actually came upon all those represented by Adam’” (Dr. Terrance L. Tiessen, “Who Can Be Saved? ReAssessing Salvation in Christ and World Religions.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004, page 98).

In recent posts, I have discussed in great detail the Calvinist notion that God’s sovereignty involves the necessity of salvation for all those God intends to save. Since the Scriptures and experience teach that every individual does not come to faith, Calvinists reason that this is evidence in favor of the Calvinist position of limited atonement. God did not die for every person; therefore, every person cannot be saved. As a result of Calvinist logic, the phrase “all men” in Romans 5:18 has been twisted to mean “all men that Christ intends to save.”

But today, I wanna examine this concept in the text of Romans 5 itself to see if the Calvinist interpretation plays itself out. Did Christ’s atonement not only purchase but THROW the gift of salvation into the laps of certain individuals? Or did Christ’s atonement purchase salvation while allowing individuals to receive or reject it? For the answers to these questions, we now turn to the Scriptures themselves.

Tiessen (and Neal Punt, in the quote above) argues that Romans 5 details the parallel unions between Adam and Christ (the “second Adam,” 1 Cor. 15). In order to keep the parallel (according to Neal Punt, whom Tiessen quotes), we have to argue for efficacious grace; that is, that “all” that Christ intended to save were made alive and justified because of Christ’s obedience. If we don’t argue the Calvinist logic, we lose the parallelism of Romans 5.

But why is this the case? I will get into that momentarily. If one reads Romans 5, one will quickly notice that Neal Punt (and Dr. Tiessen) quickly skirt over verses that seem to undermine their interpretation of the passage. For example, they point to verse 18 (in the above quote) but what about verse 17? Verse 17 states that “those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ” (NKJV). So here, the gift is given to those who “receive” it, not just given to a select few. The gift is not automatically given without reception. The condition for possessing the gift is reception of the gift. One must reach out and grab it, otherwise, salvation becomes of no use.

But what about the parallelism of the passage? Doesn’t Romans 5 loses the parallelism if we interpret the text the way I did above, that “all men” are those who “receive abundance of grace of the gift of righteousness” (Rom. 5:17)? Actually, no. Dr. Tiessen and Neal Punt err when they make such a statement. Why? Because, if you look at the text, you’ll notice that Romans 5:12 states that Adam sinned, death spread to all, and that “all sinned”. Every single human being sinned in Adam. When Adam chose to disobey God, every human being (by virtue of mortal union with Adam) disobeyed God as well. Paul tells us in the text that “all sinned,” asserting that it was a deliberate choice on the part of humanity to sin against God.

So, if “all sinned,” then what does the text mean by “all will be made alive”? As I aforementioned, the “all” of the text in verse 18 refers to “those who receive” the grace and gift in verse 17. “All will be made alive” means “all those who receive the grace and gift of salvation” will be justified. The parallelism of Romans 5 has not been lost. Every single person CHOSE to sin in Adam; there must be a choice if someone is to be made alive in Christ. The mortal union involved a deliberate choice to sin; the spiritual union with Christ involves a deliberate choice to receive God’s grace and His gift of salvation. Where has the parallelism been lost in this interpretation?

But what about Ephesians 1? This is the classic text used by Calvinists to claim that humans don’t make choices...rather, God picks and chooses. “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world,” they say (Ephesians 1:4). The problem with the Calvinist interpretation is that they don’t see the phrase “in Him.” How is one united to Christ? Romans 5 tells us: we are united to Christ “by faith.” The spiritual union with Christ comes to those who “receive abundance and the gift of righteousness” (Rom. 5:17). God chose humans before the foundation of the world to be His own...but He did not choose individuals without regard to Christ. Rather, He set faith as the condition for salvation and, on that basis, chose believers to be His own.

To end the post, I’d like to talk more on Ephesians 1. I just stated here that God “chose believers to be His own.” This is a significant statement indeed: God could not choose individuals without regard to grace and faith because, prior to this, we were all “children of wrath.” Calvinists often read Ephesians 1 but fail to read Ephesians 2; yet, it is in Ephesians 2 that we realize we were under the wrath and condemnation of God prior to faith. So if God chooses us without regard to faith, God chooses to smile on sinners and their sin---which is something that the Bible states God cannot do. Whenever a Calvinist says, “God chose us to be in Christ,” what he is really saying is “God was delighted to smile on us while we were yet sinners.” If God favored us as sinners, why then, did He require Jesus to go the cross? Why was Christ the penalty for our sins, if God smiled on us as sinners? Paul states that the reason Jesus was sent to Calvary was because

“in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, TO DEMONSTRATE AT THE PRESENT TIME HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS, THAT HE MIGHT BE JUST AND THE JUSTIFIER OF THE ONE WHO HAS FAITH IN JESUS” (Rom. 3:25-26).

Part of the purpose of Calvary (aside from purchasing the salvation of every person) was to deal with sin. “The wages of sin is death,” Paul writes (Rom. 6:23). Christ came not only to purchase our salvation, but to suffer the penalty for our sin (1 John 2:1-2; 4:10). If this be the case, then God must first have dealt with sin in the eternal decrees before granting salvation. This is why Classic Arminians hold to the idea of conditional election. When it says that God “chose us in Him,” we understand that only by the divine gifts of Christ, grace, and faith, are we chosen for salvation.

Decrees and the Divine Will: The Activity of God in Salvation, Pt. 3: Molinism's Flawed Critique of Classical Arminianism

“As we will see, one feature that distinguishes Molinism from Arminianism is the way it understands God’s foreknowledge. Arminianism solves the problem of reprobation by presenting God’s decision concerning individuals as something entirely passive. God decrees to elect the church as a corporate body, and those individuals who choose Christ are then viewed as the elect, while those who reject Him are reprobate. In this respect Arminians view God’s decrees as the mere ratification of human choices. But the Bible presents God’s electing decision as something much more active and decisive. Unlike Arminianism, Molinism describes God as using His foreknowledge in a sovereign, unconditional manner” (Dr. Ken Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, pages 141-142).

In the last two posts, I have dealt with issues of the sovereignty of God, as well as God’s active role in salvation. Contra Dr. Keathley, Classic Arminians do not assume that God is passive in salvation. Since we hold to the antecedent/consequent wills approach (see part 2 of the series), we believe that the sovereign Lord of creation has placed salvation before every individual due to His own decision. Since Christ not only purchased our redemption but offers it on His own terms, He has been more active in salvation in the Classic Arminian view than Molinists give our theology credit for.

In today’s post, I am back to critique the caricaturized version of Arminian theology that has been placed upon us--- that is, the idea that we only hold to corporate election.

What I failed to place in the quote above is a footnote. After the statement that Arminians see the decrees as God’s concession to human decision, there is a footnote there. The footnote references Robert Shank’s “Elect in the Son,” pages 45-55. I own Robert Shanks’ work and I took the time today to look through it. Shank does indeed hold to corporate election. Shank writes on page 45, “A second aspect of election is implicit in Paul’s Ephesian doxology: the election to salvation is corporate as well as Christocentric” (Robert Shank, “Elect In the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Election.” Grand Rapids: Bethany House Publishers, 1989, page 45).

However, Dr. Keathley’s error is that he attributes Shank’s view of election to all of Arminianism itself. This is problematic when one considers that Arminius held to both corporate AND individual election. As Arminius writes regarding the decrees in his section titled “My Own Sentiments on Predestination”:

“To these succeeds the FOURTH decree, by which God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere,---according to the before-described administration of those means which are suitable and proper for conversion and faith; and, by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere” (James Arminius, “Works” I:653-654).

Notice the phrase “save and damn certain particular persons”? This should clear up any misconceptions about Arminius. He writes in his own theology that he held to both corporate AND individual election. The problem with Dr. Ken Keathley’s assessment is that he takes Shank’s view and applies it to all Arminians. In actuality, to hold to only corporate election is to hold to a somewhat Open Theist view of election (see “Perspectives On Election: Five Views by Brand where Clark Pinnock holds to an “Open” View of election). If the truth be told, Classic Arminians hold to individual and corporate election just as much as Molinists and Classic Calvinists. If Arminians are deemed “less orthodox,” it cannot be on the basis of their view on election. Our doctrine of election is as robust as any other accepted theological system present in evangelicalism today.

Classic Arminians do hold to God’s active role in salvation. God Himself decided to send His Son to die for the sins of the world; He then decided to allow us to come to faith, set the conditions for the reception of salvation, and decreed to dispense grace and faith so that all could believe; last but not least, God knew within Himself, from before the foundation of the world, who would and would not believe and endure until the end. The Classic Arminian God may not pick some individuals and abandon others, but He does have an active role in the salvation of mankind. God does not just “ratify” human choices; He designed salvation to be given upon human reception of eternal life. As Dr. Keathley himself has said, “If man is to choose between heaven and hell, it is because the Lord of Creation has placed the choice before him” (“Salvation and Sovereignty,” 60). If that makes God passive, then I will boldly say that the Scriptures affirm it...rather than let my notions of divine sovereignty drive my own conception of the divine.

More to come at CTS...Stay tuned.

Arriving At the Biblical Doctrine of Election From First and Second Thessalonians

In today’s post, I decided to spend some time on the Biblical Doctrine of Election---that is, what the Bible has to say about election.

For me, this touches close to home because of the sermon on 1 Thessalonians 1 I heard a few days ago. The preacher arrived at 1 Thessalonians 1:4 and argued that to be chosen of God means to be “predetermined” for salvation “from before the foundation of the world” (taking Ephesians 1:4 out of context). In this post, however, I am gonna take a look at Paul’s teaching on election to the Thessalonians...and see if the preacher’s idea of Ephesians 1:4 matches what the rest of Scripture teaches. I will first look at all the passages on “election” and “chosenness” in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and then I’ll sum up what we can know about election from this book. While 1 and 2 Thessalonians have to match up to the rest of Scripture, we can know something about the biblical teaching through these two Pauline epistles.

First, we’ll take a look at 1 Thessalonians 1 regarding election:

“knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God” (1 Thess. 1:4, NKJV).

Paul’s words here regarding the election of the Thessalonian believers follows on the heels of Paul’s words regarding the visible manifestation of their election--- “remembering without ceasing your work of faith, labor of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ...” (v.3) With these words, we see that, tied to election is a visible manifestation thereof. The Thessalonians’ faith was one that resulted in work (“your work of faith”) as well as love (“labor of love”) and patience (“patience of hope”). Their patience demonstrates that they are waiting (with the hope of salvation) for the glory of God to be revealed. They do not see it yet, for how can they hope for what they already see (Rom. 8:24-25)?

Next, we’ll look at 1 Thessalonians 5:

“For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 5:9).

Paul first labels the Thessalonians “sons of light and sons of the day,” and distinguishes them from the sons of darkness and night (5:5). In verse 8, he tells them that they should apply the whole armor of God to their lives, including the breastplate of faith and love and the helmet (of the hope of salvation)[v.8]. In verse 9, when Paul mentions that the Thessalonians have been appointed “to obtain salvation,” we recognize that salvation is yet to be reached (not that it has come in its fullness already).

2 Thessalonians 2, there is another reference to election:

“But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth” (2 Thess. 2:13).

As can be seen here, the believers in Thessalonica were elected THROUGH certain means, for which the goal is salvation. This is where the Scriptures help us understand election. While the goal of election is salvation (“chose you for salvation,” 2 Thess. 2:13), the means by which election is realized are “belief in the truth” and “sanctification by the Spirit.”

Here is where we see two things that are important to election: justification (by faith) and sanctification (by the Spirit). Without these, election to final salvation cannot occur. Therefore, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 tells us that both justification and sanctification are necessary for election to final salvation.

Ken Keathley writes regarding Molinism:

“A close corollary to the premise that CHRIST IS THE ONLY BASIS FOR ASSURANCE is the necessity to reaffirm the doctrine of sola fide. Perseverance cannot be understood in terms of good works and great effort without having the result of dismantling the Reformation. The doctrine of perseverance must be formulated so that IT DOES NOT CREATE THE IMPRESSION THAT THE SCRIPTURES CONTRADICT THEMSELVES ABOUT GRACE AND WORKS” (Ken Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, page 188).

I agree with Dr. Keathley that the Scriptures do not contradict in this area. However, I disagree with his idea that (in the words of one of his tenets of the Evidence-of-Genuineness Proposal) “the only basis for assurance is the objective work of Christ” (“Salvation and Sovereignty,” page 188). While there is an objective aspect of assurance (the work of Christ), John himself talks about the presence of a subjective aspect of assurance--- that is, the assurance of the believer about himself (1 John 3:18-24). In the passage referenced, John tells us that we should “love...in deed and in truth...and by this we know that we are of the truth, AND SHALL ASSURE OUR HEARTS BEFORE HIM” (1 John 3:18-19). In verse 22, John states that we can ask God (with confidence) for the things we desire. Why? “Because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight” (1 Jn. 3:22). In other words, our confidence comes not only as a result of Christ’s work on the Cross; it also comes as a result of how we live before God (i.e., sanctification, obeying His commandments). This is what provides us with a subjective assurance before God. As John states, “for if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things” (1 Jn. 3:20).

John here makes what is termed a “Lesser-To-Greater Argument”: that is, from the heart to God. In other words, if our own hearts condemn us and make us ashamed before God, then God (who knows all about us) will certainly condemn us. If our hearts condemn us (pass judgment on us because of our ungodliness), then how much more God? The subjective situation of the believer, (i.e., how he or she feels about his or her walk with God) while not a perfect test of a person’s walk with God (for example, a genuine Christian can doubt their faith at times), can be a small indicator of that person’s spiritual condition. The heart, while not a “perfect” indicator, can be an “adequate” one. And the subjective assurance comes as a result of not rejecting the sanctification that the Spirit provides. To put it briefly, sanctification is just as necessary for final salvation as justification. Molinism argues for justification, but forgets sanctification.

Can this be seen in Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians? I will talk more on sanctification in my next post. Stay tuned...