In the numerous books on Calvinism out in stores and on the internet, many will discuss the text of 2 Peter 2:20-22. And in many cases, there will be exposition on the false teachers--- how they left the faith and were never saved to begin with.
And I’m not going to disagree with that statement. It’s one thing to fall away from the faith...and another entirely to go on a campaign against the faith. To campaign and strategize “against” the faith is to declare oneself an enemy of the cross. Those who do so hate Christ and want His truth eradicated at all costs. They will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to bring Christ’s kingdom down (and to demolish His will being done in the lives of His people).
Robert Peterson is no different in his attack on the false teachers. He writes:
“I hold this view [false teachers as unregenerate] for three reasons. First, Lucas and Green correctly point to verse 22 as aiding in the interpretation of the false teachers’ identity. In the proverb, the dog and pig do not change nature---they remain unclean animals. Similarly, though the false teachers experience outward changes, they are never regenerated.
Second, as Lucas and Green mention, Jesus refers to unbelievers as ‘dogs’ and ‘pigs’ in Matthew 7:6, and Peter likely uses these terms in the same way in 2 Peter 2:22. Therefore, Peter’s comparison of the false teachers to the same animals makes it more likely that he regards them as unbelievers than as apostate Christians. Third, we noted that Peter quotes Proverbs 26:11 in verse 22. And the ‘fool’ of Proverbs 26:1-12 is better understood as a person never saved than as a believer who later repudiated his faith. Peter’s description of the false teachers in 2 Peter 2:20-21, then, when considered in light of verse 22, the Old Testament background of that verse’s first proverb, and Jesus’ saying in Matthew 7:6, leads me to regard the teachers as unregenerate persons affected for a time by Christian morality” (Robert A. Peterson, “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2009, pages 184-185).
I will not disagree with Peterson regarding false teachers. However, I think Calvinists should engage Arminians not on the false teachers, but those who are enticed by the false teachers:
“For when they [false teachers] they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, THE ONES WHO ACTUALLY ESCAPED FROM THOSE WHO LIVE IN ERROR” (2 Peter 2:18, NKJV).
The word here for “actually” in the Greek is “oligos,” meaning “scarcely, barely.” The word “oligos” is a Greek word from which our English word “oligarchy” comes. An oligarchy refers to a few people in control over a territory. So those who “scarcely” or “barely” escape leave the corruption of the world by “small” increments. While they have come to Christ, they have made the right decision but still yearn in some sense for the things of the world. These people, then, are those who, like the soil that falls away in Jesus’ parable of the Sower, “have no root” (Lk. 8:13). However, according to Peter, they have still escaped the world. They are saved, even if they are “barely” saved!
My question to Peterson and all Calvinists would be, “What about those who have ‘actually escaped’? What about those who are saved, but are “barely” saved? What about this group? I think it’s easy to sit and debate about the false teachers...but it’s a lot harder to talk about this group that, while believing, is still very much in love with the things of the world (still lusts for the things of the world). These people, then, the “barely-escapers,” have begun to listen to the words of the false teachers. Are the followers saved?
I want Peterson and all other Calvinists to tackle this little thorny problem in 2 Peter 2:18. If the followers of 2 Peter 2:18 are saved, can they return to the world? And if so, does this mean that they were saved?
If we are faithful to the biblical text, we have to admit that the followers are saved. However, they are “barely” saved...and what does this mean? That, unless they continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18), they too can become entangled with the world again. This doesn’t mean that they were never saved---it just means that they fell away because of temptation.
Showing posts with label Election and Free Will. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election and Free Will. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
The Unbeliever's Destiny
“So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,’ and ‘a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.’ They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do” (1 Peter 2:7-8; quoting Ps. 118:22; Isa. 8:14).
“Believers are honored, but unbelievers stumble over the most important stone of all. Peter’s words are severe: ‘They stumble because they disobey the word, AS THEY WERE DESTINED TO DO’ (1 Peter 2:8b)...Here again SCRIPTURE TEACHES THAT GOD DESTINES THE FATE OF UNBELIEVERS. Although they are condemned because they ‘do not obey the gospel of God’ (4:17), God is nonetheless LORD OF THEIR DESTINY” (Robert A. Peterson, “Election and Free Will: God’s Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2007, pages 140-141).
Once again, I’m back to examine another passage Peterson uses in his little quest to convince his readers that Calvinism is the right theological system to uphold. Peterson gives a good shot...but comes up wrong once more.
Look at 1 Peter 2:7-8 above. The phrase that I will zone in on for the sake of importance is the phrase “they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.”
The first words in the Greek are “hoi proskoptousin.” The word “hoi” is a plural article, which means that “proskoptousin” is a plural word as well. The word “proskoptousin” comes from the Greek verb “proskopto,” meaning “to stumble.” The translation of “hoi proskoptousin” becomes “the ones who stumble, THEY...” As you can see “the ones” and “they” are pretty redundant phrases.
The next phrase in the Greek is “to logo apeithountes,” which translates in English to “the word disbelieving.” Placed with the first words above, we have the translation, “They stumble, disbelieving the word...” Notice in verse 7 that, for those who do not believe, Christ has become “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.” Christ serves as a stumbling block for those who do not believe. Their unbelief causes their stumbling, for Christ serves as a “thorn in their side.” They shun everything He is because of everything they are.
The first part of 1 Peter 2:8 is a reference to Psalm 118:22 in the Old Testament. Jesus references Psalm 118:22 in His encounter with the Jewish leaders in Luke 20. The Jewish leaders ask Jesus,
“tell us, by what authority are You doing these things? Or who is he who gave You this authority?” (Lk. 20:2, NKJV)
Jesus responds,
“I also will ask you one thing, and answer Me: The baptism of John--- was it from heaven or from men?” (v.4)
The Jewish leaders were more concerned about what Jesus would say instead of answering the question:
“And they reasoned among themselves, saying, ‘If we say, “From heaven,” He will say, “WHY THEN DID YOU NOT BELIEVE HIM?” But if we say, “from men,” all the people will stone us, for they are persuaded that John was a prophet” (vv.5-6).
If they said that John’s baptism was from heaven, they feared Jesus scolding them for their unbelief. It was UNBELIEF that was the key issue. And this is why, in the parable Jesus tells following this question, the emphasis is on belief. After the owner has sent three servants to the vinedressers, whom the vinedressers beat, the owner sends his son:
“Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my beloved son. PROBABLY THEY WILL RESPECT HIM WHEN THEY SEE HIM” (Lk. 20:13).
However, that is not what happened; instead of respecting the Son, they kill Him instead. Jesus responds by saying, “He [the owner] will come and destroy those vinedressers and give the vineyard to others” (v.16a). What is the response of the Jews? “Certainly not!” (v.16b) They refuse to believe that they would lose the privilege of the kingdom and that it would go to the Gentiles.
The Jews alert the reader that they are cognizant of Jesus’ criticism of themselves when it says that “the chief priests and the scribes THAT VERY HOUR sought to lay hands on Him, but they feared the people---FOR THEY KNEW HE HAD SPOKEN THIS PARABLE AGAINST THEM” (Lk. 20:19).
Going back to 1 Peter 2, then, we find that “he who believes on Him [Christ, the chief cornerstone] will by no means be put to shame” (1 Pet. 2:6). The emphasis, then, is not on the appointment of some to be damned---but on the damnation of those who live in unbelief. It is the unbelievers who are appointed to death, not the believers: “He who BELIEVES in Him IS NOT CONDEMNED; but he who DOES NOT BELIEVE IS CONDEMNED ALREADY, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18, NKJV). The unbelievers are already appointed to condemnation, but the believers are appointed to eternal life.
We can see this clearly in the surrounding context of 1 Peter 2. In chapter 1, Peter tells the congregation of believers that are scattered that they “are kept by the power of God THROUGH FAITH FOR SALVATION ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Pet. 1:5). Their faith is what is keeping them. The power of God is demonstrated through their faith in Christ. In verse 23 of chapter 1, Peter tells them that they are “born again, not of corruptible seed but INCORRUPTIBLE, THROUGH THE WORD OF GOD WHICH LIVES AND ABIDES FOREVER...this is the word which BY THE GOSPEL WAS PREACHED TO YOU” (vv.23, 25).
How did they become “born again?” It doesn’t say that they were born again by some secret eternal counsel of God, or some selection of God’s own arbitration. No---the text says that they were born again “through the word of God.” It is through the preached Word that these men and women came to Christ and the knowledge of the truth.
My last comment regarding 1 Peter 2 is the use of the word “etethesan,” meaning “were appointed.” The word itself comes from “tithemi,” which means “to appoint.” It is often translated “destined.”
Now I want us to look back at verses 7 and 8. Only those who disbelieve find Christ to be “a stone of stumbling.” Why is Christ a stone of stumbling? Because Christ “trips up” the unbeliever. He is destruction to those who do not believe. Their stumbling, therefore, is a DIRECT RESULT of their unbelief, not of some secret decree in eternity past!
It is the disobedience that causes the unbeliever to stumble; and the stumbling is what unbelievers are appointed to. If a person does not believe, what happens when they encounter Christ? They stumble and fall. Remember, Peter just stated in verse 6 that anyone who believed would not be ashamed. So if everyone is accepted by the Lord due to faith, then why would the Lord ordain some to be damned right from the start?
It is the exegesis of Peterson that makes no sense at all. Not only does my interpretation condemn Peterson’s, but also that of other theologians, as well as the church fathers. The Reverend Charles Bigg wrote in his “International Critical Commentary: St. Peter---
“an illustration may be found in the Book of Exodus...’and Pharaoh said, ‘Who is the Lord, that I should OBEY His voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go.’ Therefore the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart (vii. 3), and brought him to ruin” (Rev. Charles Bigg, International Critical Commentary: St. Peter and St. Jude. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1946).
Last but not least, there are quotes from some of the church fathers, one of them being Didymus the Blind:
“The position in which they find themselves is one which THEY HAVE CHOSEN, for IT STARTS WITH THEIR UNBELIEF. For just as the world, which has been placed under evil, is not evil by nature but has attained this position by its own desire, so also those who are being talked about here have been so placed because OF THEIR OWN UNWILLINGNESS TO BELIEVE...” (Gerald Bray, ed. “Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture:James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000, caps mine)
The church father Oecumenius wrote:
“God is not to be held responsible for this, for no cause of damnation can ever come from HIM WHO WANTS EVERYONE TO BE SAVED. It is they who have made themselves into VESSELS OF WRATH, and unbelief has followed naturally from that. Therefore they have been established in the order for which they have prepared themselves. For if a human being is made with free will, that free will cannot be forced, nor can anyone accuse him who has decreed their fate of having done anything to them which they did not fully deserve as a result of their own actions” (“Ancient Christian Commentary: James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude,” page 87).
As the evidence has shown, those who stumble over Christ are those who refuse to believe. So did the Jews...and so do unbelievers today. The unbeliever’s destiny lies in the hands of the unbeliever.
“Believers are honored, but unbelievers stumble over the most important stone of all. Peter’s words are severe: ‘They stumble because they disobey the word, AS THEY WERE DESTINED TO DO’ (1 Peter 2:8b)...Here again SCRIPTURE TEACHES THAT GOD DESTINES THE FATE OF UNBELIEVERS. Although they are condemned because they ‘do not obey the gospel of God’ (4:17), God is nonetheless LORD OF THEIR DESTINY” (Robert A. Peterson, “Election and Free Will: God’s Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2007, pages 140-141).
Once again, I’m back to examine another passage Peterson uses in his little quest to convince his readers that Calvinism is the right theological system to uphold. Peterson gives a good shot...but comes up wrong once more.
Look at 1 Peter 2:7-8 above. The phrase that I will zone in on for the sake of importance is the phrase “they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.”
The first words in the Greek are “hoi proskoptousin.” The word “hoi” is a plural article, which means that “proskoptousin” is a plural word as well. The word “proskoptousin” comes from the Greek verb “proskopto,” meaning “to stumble.” The translation of “hoi proskoptousin” becomes “the ones who stumble, THEY...” As you can see “the ones” and “they” are pretty redundant phrases.
The next phrase in the Greek is “to logo apeithountes,” which translates in English to “the word disbelieving.” Placed with the first words above, we have the translation, “They stumble, disbelieving the word...” Notice in verse 7 that, for those who do not believe, Christ has become “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.” Christ serves as a stumbling block for those who do not believe. Their unbelief causes their stumbling, for Christ serves as a “thorn in their side.” They shun everything He is because of everything they are.
The first part of 1 Peter 2:8 is a reference to Psalm 118:22 in the Old Testament. Jesus references Psalm 118:22 in His encounter with the Jewish leaders in Luke 20. The Jewish leaders ask Jesus,
“tell us, by what authority are You doing these things? Or who is he who gave You this authority?” (Lk. 20:2, NKJV)
Jesus responds,
“I also will ask you one thing, and answer Me: The baptism of John--- was it from heaven or from men?” (v.4)
The Jewish leaders were more concerned about what Jesus would say instead of answering the question:
“And they reasoned among themselves, saying, ‘If we say, “From heaven,” He will say, “WHY THEN DID YOU NOT BELIEVE HIM?” But if we say, “from men,” all the people will stone us, for they are persuaded that John was a prophet” (vv.5-6).
If they said that John’s baptism was from heaven, they feared Jesus scolding them for their unbelief. It was UNBELIEF that was the key issue. And this is why, in the parable Jesus tells following this question, the emphasis is on belief. After the owner has sent three servants to the vinedressers, whom the vinedressers beat, the owner sends his son:
“Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my beloved son. PROBABLY THEY WILL RESPECT HIM WHEN THEY SEE HIM” (Lk. 20:13).
However, that is not what happened; instead of respecting the Son, they kill Him instead. Jesus responds by saying, “He [the owner] will come and destroy those vinedressers and give the vineyard to others” (v.16a). What is the response of the Jews? “Certainly not!” (v.16b) They refuse to believe that they would lose the privilege of the kingdom and that it would go to the Gentiles.
The Jews alert the reader that they are cognizant of Jesus’ criticism of themselves when it says that “the chief priests and the scribes THAT VERY HOUR sought to lay hands on Him, but they feared the people---FOR THEY KNEW HE HAD SPOKEN THIS PARABLE AGAINST THEM” (Lk. 20:19).
Going back to 1 Peter 2, then, we find that “he who believes on Him [Christ, the chief cornerstone] will by no means be put to shame” (1 Pet. 2:6). The emphasis, then, is not on the appointment of some to be damned---but on the damnation of those who live in unbelief. It is the unbelievers who are appointed to death, not the believers: “He who BELIEVES in Him IS NOT CONDEMNED; but he who DOES NOT BELIEVE IS CONDEMNED ALREADY, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18, NKJV). The unbelievers are already appointed to condemnation, but the believers are appointed to eternal life.
We can see this clearly in the surrounding context of 1 Peter 2. In chapter 1, Peter tells the congregation of believers that are scattered that they “are kept by the power of God THROUGH FAITH FOR SALVATION ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Pet. 1:5). Their faith is what is keeping them. The power of God is demonstrated through their faith in Christ. In verse 23 of chapter 1, Peter tells them that they are “born again, not of corruptible seed but INCORRUPTIBLE, THROUGH THE WORD OF GOD WHICH LIVES AND ABIDES FOREVER...this is the word which BY THE GOSPEL WAS PREACHED TO YOU” (vv.23, 25).
How did they become “born again?” It doesn’t say that they were born again by some secret eternal counsel of God, or some selection of God’s own arbitration. No---the text says that they were born again “through the word of God.” It is through the preached Word that these men and women came to Christ and the knowledge of the truth.
My last comment regarding 1 Peter 2 is the use of the word “etethesan,” meaning “were appointed.” The word itself comes from “tithemi,” which means “to appoint.” It is often translated “destined.”
Now I want us to look back at verses 7 and 8. Only those who disbelieve find Christ to be “a stone of stumbling.” Why is Christ a stone of stumbling? Because Christ “trips up” the unbeliever. He is destruction to those who do not believe. Their stumbling, therefore, is a DIRECT RESULT of their unbelief, not of some secret decree in eternity past!
It is the disobedience that causes the unbeliever to stumble; and the stumbling is what unbelievers are appointed to. If a person does not believe, what happens when they encounter Christ? They stumble and fall. Remember, Peter just stated in verse 6 that anyone who believed would not be ashamed. So if everyone is accepted by the Lord due to faith, then why would the Lord ordain some to be damned right from the start?
It is the exegesis of Peterson that makes no sense at all. Not only does my interpretation condemn Peterson’s, but also that of other theologians, as well as the church fathers. The Reverend Charles Bigg wrote in his “International Critical Commentary: St. Peter---
“an illustration may be found in the Book of Exodus...’and Pharaoh said, ‘Who is the Lord, that I should OBEY His voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go.’ Therefore the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart (vii. 3), and brought him to ruin” (Rev. Charles Bigg, International Critical Commentary: St. Peter and St. Jude. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1946).
Last but not least, there are quotes from some of the church fathers, one of them being Didymus the Blind:
“The position in which they find themselves is one which THEY HAVE CHOSEN, for IT STARTS WITH THEIR UNBELIEF. For just as the world, which has been placed under evil, is not evil by nature but has attained this position by its own desire, so also those who are being talked about here have been so placed because OF THEIR OWN UNWILLINGNESS TO BELIEVE...” (Gerald Bray, ed. “Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture:James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000, caps mine)
The church father Oecumenius wrote:
“God is not to be held responsible for this, for no cause of damnation can ever come from HIM WHO WANTS EVERYONE TO BE SAVED. It is they who have made themselves into VESSELS OF WRATH, and unbelief has followed naturally from that. Therefore they have been established in the order for which they have prepared themselves. For if a human being is made with free will, that free will cannot be forced, nor can anyone accuse him who has decreed their fate of having done anything to them which they did not fully deserve as a result of their own actions” (“Ancient Christian Commentary: James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude,” page 87).
As the evidence has shown, those who stumble over Christ are those who refuse to believe. So did the Jews...and so do unbelievers today. The unbeliever’s destiny lies in the hands of the unbeliever.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Even A "Goat" Can Be Saved, Part II: Examining John 10 And Its Immediate Context
I am back to examine John 10. We’ve already seen in my last post that Peterson’s claims about reprobation regarding John 10 are highly suspect. What I’m gonna do in this post is demonstrate that Peterson’s exegesis of this passage is wrong when you take into account the chapter itself, as well as the surrounding chapters of John’s Gospel and the other three Gospels. I will not cover every little statement in every Gospel, but will give at least one or two examples (maybe more) from the other three Gospels to aid our understanding of John 10.
Let’s reprint the quote from John 10:
‘I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, BUT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT MY SHEEP. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish’ (John 10:25-28 NIV).
Peterson quotes John 10:26, but disregards verse 25: “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, THEY BEAR WITNESS OF ME.”
What work is Jesus referring to? In the immediate context, the work refers to “opening the eyes of the blind” (Jn. 10:21), which Jesus performed in John 9.
Jesus rebukes them in verse 25 because they plead, “How long do you keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, TELL US PLAINLY” (v.24). They act as if they desire to know, but they’ve seen all the miracles...and yet, do not believe it. If the miracles didn’t convince them, then neither would Jesus’ confession.
Go back to John 10:25-28 (above). Notice that Jesus gives characteristics of His sheep? “My sheep LISTEN TO MY VOICE...” Jesus was telling the Jews that if they were His sheep, if they clearly desired to follow Him, then they would have seen the miracles and believed them. Instead, what do they do? “Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him” (v.31). And they do this “because You, being a Man, MAKE YOURSELF GOD” (v.33). They demonstrate through their actions that they are hard-hearted and do not care to believe. It is their actions that prove they are goats---but they are goats because they do not want to believe, not because Jesus damned them from the beginning!
In John 10 itself, there is proof that Jesus was willing to give eternal life to all who believe:
“I am the door. IF ANYONE enters by Me, HE WILL BE SAVED, and will go in and out and find pasture” (John 10:9, NKJV).
Why then, would He turn around and declare to the Jews that He damned them from the beginning---if He really wanted “anyone” and everyone to come to Him for salvation? Peterson’s analysis of this text doesn’t make sense within John 10 itself, not to mention the rest of the Gospel material.
How does Peterson’s analysis stack up for the rest of John’s Gospel? As he himself says, the idea of unbelief as the cause of damnation is “overwhelmingly” present in the Gospel of John. Let’s look at John 3:
“For GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD that He gave His only begotten Son, that WHOEVER believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For GOD DID NOT SEND HIS SON INTO THE WORLD TO CONDEMN THE WORLD, BUT THAT THE WORLD THROUGH HIM MIGHT BE SAVED” (John 3:16, 17).
If God really loved the world and gave His Son for the world, and desires that the world would be saved, then He really is “Savior of all men” (1 Tim. 4:10). John 3:18 tells us that “he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” The unbeliever is not condemned because God condemned him, but because he refuses to believe.
We have these words in John 5:
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life” (Jn. 5:24).
John 5 is even stronger against the Calvinist position with these words:
“Yet I do not receive testimony from man, BUT I SAY THESE THINGS THAT YOU MAY BE SAVED” (Jn. 5:34).
Wait a minute! Jesus is now stating to the Jews that He desires their salvation. But this doesn’t agree with Peterson’s interpretation of John 10. If Christ desires the salvation of the Jews, why would He then turn around and tell them that He damned them from the beginning? Peterson’s exegesis doesn’t just go against John---it contradicts common sense.
In verses 38-40 of the same chapter, Jesus shows us where to place the blame:
“But you [the Jews] do not have His word abiding in you, because WHOM HE SENT, HIM YOU DO NOT BELIEVE. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO COME TO ME that you may have life” (Jn. 5:38-40, NKJV).
The Jews not only have unbelief, but they are not willing to come to Christ; in addition, the very Scriptures they read testify to Christ---and yet, they see Christ in the Scriptures but refuse to come to Him. As I just mentioned, if Jesus desires their salvation (Jn. 5:34), then the blame lies with the Jews and not God Himself.
There are a host of other verses in John’s Gospel that speak out against the Calvinist position; but instead, I am now going to turn to one pivotal verse in the other Gospels. The verse itself is located in the Gospel of Luke:
“And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers REJECTED THE WILL OF GOD FOR THEMSELVES, not having been baptized by him” (Luke 7:30, NKJV).
Notice that the Pharisees and lawyers “rejected the will of God for themselves,” which means that God willed something for them (salvation) that they refused to accept (salvation). In other words, they opposed God’s will. If God wanted them to be saved (according to Luke 7 above and John 5:34), then how could Christ have damned them from the beginning?
Peterson must answer these questions if he desires to make his exegesis stick. However, I don’t think his interpretation of John 10:25-28 has merit...simply because, as John Calvin said it, “Scripture interprets Scripture.”
Let’s reprint the quote from John 10:
‘I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, BUT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT MY SHEEP. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish’ (John 10:25-28 NIV).
Peterson quotes John 10:26, but disregards verse 25: “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, THEY BEAR WITNESS OF ME.”
What work is Jesus referring to? In the immediate context, the work refers to “opening the eyes of the blind” (Jn. 10:21), which Jesus performed in John 9.
Jesus rebukes them in verse 25 because they plead, “How long do you keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, TELL US PLAINLY” (v.24). They act as if they desire to know, but they’ve seen all the miracles...and yet, do not believe it. If the miracles didn’t convince them, then neither would Jesus’ confession.
Go back to John 10:25-28 (above). Notice that Jesus gives characteristics of His sheep? “My sheep LISTEN TO MY VOICE...” Jesus was telling the Jews that if they were His sheep, if they clearly desired to follow Him, then they would have seen the miracles and believed them. Instead, what do they do? “Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him” (v.31). And they do this “because You, being a Man, MAKE YOURSELF GOD” (v.33). They demonstrate through their actions that they are hard-hearted and do not care to believe. It is their actions that prove they are goats---but they are goats because they do not want to believe, not because Jesus damned them from the beginning!
In John 10 itself, there is proof that Jesus was willing to give eternal life to all who believe:
“I am the door. IF ANYONE enters by Me, HE WILL BE SAVED, and will go in and out and find pasture” (John 10:9, NKJV).
Why then, would He turn around and declare to the Jews that He damned them from the beginning---if He really wanted “anyone” and everyone to come to Him for salvation? Peterson’s analysis of this text doesn’t make sense within John 10 itself, not to mention the rest of the Gospel material.
How does Peterson’s analysis stack up for the rest of John’s Gospel? As he himself says, the idea of unbelief as the cause of damnation is “overwhelmingly” present in the Gospel of John. Let’s look at John 3:
“For GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD that He gave His only begotten Son, that WHOEVER believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For GOD DID NOT SEND HIS SON INTO THE WORLD TO CONDEMN THE WORLD, BUT THAT THE WORLD THROUGH HIM MIGHT BE SAVED” (John 3:16, 17).
If God really loved the world and gave His Son for the world, and desires that the world would be saved, then He really is “Savior of all men” (1 Tim. 4:10). John 3:18 tells us that “he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” The unbeliever is not condemned because God condemned him, but because he refuses to believe.
We have these words in John 5:
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life” (Jn. 5:24).
John 5 is even stronger against the Calvinist position with these words:
“Yet I do not receive testimony from man, BUT I SAY THESE THINGS THAT YOU MAY BE SAVED” (Jn. 5:34).
Wait a minute! Jesus is now stating to the Jews that He desires their salvation. But this doesn’t agree with Peterson’s interpretation of John 10. If Christ desires the salvation of the Jews, why would He then turn around and tell them that He damned them from the beginning? Peterson’s exegesis doesn’t just go against John---it contradicts common sense.
In verses 38-40 of the same chapter, Jesus shows us where to place the blame:
“But you [the Jews] do not have His word abiding in you, because WHOM HE SENT, HIM YOU DO NOT BELIEVE. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO COME TO ME that you may have life” (Jn. 5:38-40, NKJV).
The Jews not only have unbelief, but they are not willing to come to Christ; in addition, the very Scriptures they read testify to Christ---and yet, they see Christ in the Scriptures but refuse to come to Him. As I just mentioned, if Jesus desires their salvation (Jn. 5:34), then the blame lies with the Jews and not God Himself.
There are a host of other verses in John’s Gospel that speak out against the Calvinist position; but instead, I am now going to turn to one pivotal verse in the other Gospels. The verse itself is located in the Gospel of Luke:
“And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers REJECTED THE WILL OF GOD FOR THEMSELVES, not having been baptized by him” (Luke 7:30, NKJV).
Notice that the Pharisees and lawyers “rejected the will of God for themselves,” which means that God willed something for them (salvation) that they refused to accept (salvation). In other words, they opposed God’s will. If God wanted them to be saved (according to Luke 7 above and John 5:34), then how could Christ have damned them from the beginning?
Peterson must answer these questions if he desires to make his exegesis stick. However, I don’t think his interpretation of John 10:25-28 has merit...simply because, as John Calvin said it, “Scripture interprets Scripture.”
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Even a "Goat" Can Be Saved, Part I
“Although the accent of the judgment passages is on sinners’ abuse of freedom, a few passages teach that God is sovereign over the destiny of the lost. OVERWHELMINGLY, THE GOSPEL OF JOHN POINTS TO PEOPLE’S EVIL AND UNBELIEF AS THE REASONS FOR THEIR CONDEMNATION (e.g., John 3:18-20; 5:28-29). BUT A FEW TIMES IT REVEALS THAT GOD IS IN CHARGE OF THE FATE OF THE LOST. In his Good Shepherd Discourse, Jesus utters startling words:
‘I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, BUT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT MY SHEEP. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish’ (John 10:25-28 NIV)” (Robert A. Peterson, “Election and Free Will: God’s Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2007, page 139).
I realize that the post title may throw some of my readers off-guard. That’s right: “Even a goat can be saved.” As I get into Peterson’s material, you’ll see why the post title is given the label it has received. For now, I want to dive right in to the madness of Calvinist theology.
First, before attacking Peterson’s proof-text, let’s read his analysis of John’s Gospel:
“OVERWHELMINGLY, THE GOSPEL OF JOHN POINTS TO PEOPLE’S EVIL AND UNBELIEF AS THE REASONS FOR THEIR CONDEMNATION (e.g., John 3:18-20; 5:28-29). BUT A FEW TIMES IT REVEALS THAT GOD IS IN CHARGE OF THE FATE OF THE LOST.”
Peterson notes here that “people’s evil and unbelief” are the reasons for eternal damnation in John’s Gospel. What is fascinating is that Peterson would even make such a statement!
But what is then most disappointing is when he says the exact opposite thing in the next sentence: “but a few times it reveals that GOD IS IN CHARGE OF THE FATE OF THE LOST.”
Let’s think through this: either God is RESPONSIBLE for the lost, or He is not. Using a valid hermeneutic, we understand that there are NO CONTRADICTIONS in the Bible. In other words, two opposing things cannot exist. For example, election to salvation cannot be both conditional and unconditional at the same time. Either God gives salvation by faith, or He picks and chooses who He wants to be saved. Both of these things cannot co-exist in the same way at the same time (like the adjectives “short and tall”). So when Peterson says that the unbelief of THE PERSON is responsible for their damnation, but then turns around and says that GOD is responsible, we now have a contradiction. Both God and the person cannot be responsible for the damnation of human souls. If God has damned any human souls at all, then their unbelief doesn’t matter. If, however, unbelief is what leads to damnation, then God can honor their choice (since He provides a genuine choice to all) by sentencing them to eternal damnation. But the person and God cannot be responsible for the soul’s damnation. So which one will be responsible: God or the person?
Having said all this, we understand that if John’s Gospel “overwhelmingly” points to unbelief as the cause of damnation (Peterson says this in his quote), then the passages that “seem” to contradict this statement must conform to the “overwhelming” message of John’s Gospel. In other words, the passage that we are getting ready to examine must conform to the consistent message of John’s Gospel and the biblical canon itself...otherwise, we content ourselves with a blatant contradiction.
Henry Virkler writes regarding John Calvin:
“ ‘SCRIPTURE INTERPRETS SCRIPTURE’ was a favorite phrase of Calvin, which alluded to the importance Calvin placed on studying the context, grammar, words, and parallel passages rather than importing one’s own meaning onto the text. In a famous sentence he stated that ‘it is the first business of an interpreter to let the author say what he does say, instead of attributing to him what we think he ought to say’” (Henry A. Virkler, “Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation.” Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2000, page 67).
I think Calvin was right in his view of “Scripture interprets Scripture.” And I think we would do well to employ Calvin’s belief. But go back to what I quoted about Peterson earlier: if John’s Gospel “overwhelmingly” (I’m gonna keep using this word that Peterson wrote) attests to unbelief as the cause of damnation, then how could he turn around and give the other side (the Lord being responsible) an equal opportunity? If Peterson were using a proper hermeneutic, he would clearly have employed such a hermeneutical rule before he examined the “seemingly contradictory” passages. The fact that he doesn’t testifies to his willingness to turn the Bible into a Calvinist propaganda tract instead of maintaining the Bible’s coherency and faithfulness as the Word of God.
Now, on to the passage itself:
‘I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, BUT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT MY SHEEP. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish’ (John 10:25-28 NIV).
Here’s what Peterson writes regarding the passage:
“Jesus says the opposite of what we might expect. He does not say, ‘You are not my sheep because you do not believe.’ Rather, he says, ‘You do not believe because you are not my sheep.’ One of John’s election themes is THE PRIOR IDENTITY OF THOSE WHO ARE GOD’S PEOPLE AND OF THOSE WHO ARE NOT. God’s people, HAVING BEEN CHOSEN BY GOD, FAVORABLY RESPOND to Jesus’ messages and miracles. Others, who are not God’s people, reject the Son of God. We will call the two groups SHEEP AND GOATS, respectively” (Peterson, 140).
Regarding the words, ‘You do not believe because you are not my sheep’ (John 10:26), Peterson writes:
“These are strong words indeed. People are goats BEFORE they respond to Jesus, and they reject him BECAUSE THEY ARE GOATS. THIS IS REPROBATION----GOD’S PASSING OVER THOSE WHOM HE ALLOWS TO PAY THE PENALTY FOR THEIR OWN SINS” (140).
Peterson’s comments regarding John 10, as bad as they are, are not as horrible as the implications at which he arrives: that God “allows [some]...to pay the penalty for their own sins” is as bad as it gets!
Using Calvin’s rule that “Scripture interprets Scripture,” let’s see if Peterson’s implications hold up. What passage in the Bible demonstrates that God passes over some and leaves them in their sins? Where does it show me that Hell was prepared for people? In Matthew 25:41, Jesus tells the goats, “Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire PREPARED FOR THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS” (NKJV). Jesus never says that Hell was prepared for one person; so I continue to ask Calvinists, SHOW ME A PASSAGE WHERE THIS OCCURS! Where’s the passage to support your opinion?
If God deliberately leaves some in their sins, then there should be a passage demonstrating this. Calvinists, however, have NEVER found such a passage...and this casts huge doubt on their exegesis. Even though I’ve yet to examine John 10, we are already suspicious of Peterson’s claims. I’ll show us the reason to be when I examine John 10 in my next post.
‘I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, BUT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT MY SHEEP. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish’ (John 10:25-28 NIV)” (Robert A. Peterson, “Election and Free Will: God’s Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2007, page 139).
I realize that the post title may throw some of my readers off-guard. That’s right: “Even a goat can be saved.” As I get into Peterson’s material, you’ll see why the post title is given the label it has received. For now, I want to dive right in to the madness of Calvinist theology.
First, before attacking Peterson’s proof-text, let’s read his analysis of John’s Gospel:
“OVERWHELMINGLY, THE GOSPEL OF JOHN POINTS TO PEOPLE’S EVIL AND UNBELIEF AS THE REASONS FOR THEIR CONDEMNATION (e.g., John 3:18-20; 5:28-29). BUT A FEW TIMES IT REVEALS THAT GOD IS IN CHARGE OF THE FATE OF THE LOST.”
Peterson notes here that “people’s evil and unbelief” are the reasons for eternal damnation in John’s Gospel. What is fascinating is that Peterson would even make such a statement!
But what is then most disappointing is when he says the exact opposite thing in the next sentence: “but a few times it reveals that GOD IS IN CHARGE OF THE FATE OF THE LOST.”
Let’s think through this: either God is RESPONSIBLE for the lost, or He is not. Using a valid hermeneutic, we understand that there are NO CONTRADICTIONS in the Bible. In other words, two opposing things cannot exist. For example, election to salvation cannot be both conditional and unconditional at the same time. Either God gives salvation by faith, or He picks and chooses who He wants to be saved. Both of these things cannot co-exist in the same way at the same time (like the adjectives “short and tall”). So when Peterson says that the unbelief of THE PERSON is responsible for their damnation, but then turns around and says that GOD is responsible, we now have a contradiction. Both God and the person cannot be responsible for the damnation of human souls. If God has damned any human souls at all, then their unbelief doesn’t matter. If, however, unbelief is what leads to damnation, then God can honor their choice (since He provides a genuine choice to all) by sentencing them to eternal damnation. But the person and God cannot be responsible for the soul’s damnation. So which one will be responsible: God or the person?
Having said all this, we understand that if John’s Gospel “overwhelmingly” points to unbelief as the cause of damnation (Peterson says this in his quote), then the passages that “seem” to contradict this statement must conform to the “overwhelming” message of John’s Gospel. In other words, the passage that we are getting ready to examine must conform to the consistent message of John’s Gospel and the biblical canon itself...otherwise, we content ourselves with a blatant contradiction.
Henry Virkler writes regarding John Calvin:
“ ‘SCRIPTURE INTERPRETS SCRIPTURE’ was a favorite phrase of Calvin, which alluded to the importance Calvin placed on studying the context, grammar, words, and parallel passages rather than importing one’s own meaning onto the text. In a famous sentence he stated that ‘it is the first business of an interpreter to let the author say what he does say, instead of attributing to him what we think he ought to say’” (Henry A. Virkler, “Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation.” Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2000, page 67).
I think Calvin was right in his view of “Scripture interprets Scripture.” And I think we would do well to employ Calvin’s belief. But go back to what I quoted about Peterson earlier: if John’s Gospel “overwhelmingly” (I’m gonna keep using this word that Peterson wrote) attests to unbelief as the cause of damnation, then how could he turn around and give the other side (the Lord being responsible) an equal opportunity? If Peterson were using a proper hermeneutic, he would clearly have employed such a hermeneutical rule before he examined the “seemingly contradictory” passages. The fact that he doesn’t testifies to his willingness to turn the Bible into a Calvinist propaganda tract instead of maintaining the Bible’s coherency and faithfulness as the Word of God.
Now, on to the passage itself:
‘I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, BUT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT MY SHEEP. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish’ (John 10:25-28 NIV).
Here’s what Peterson writes regarding the passage:
“Jesus says the opposite of what we might expect. He does not say, ‘You are not my sheep because you do not believe.’ Rather, he says, ‘You do not believe because you are not my sheep.’ One of John’s election themes is THE PRIOR IDENTITY OF THOSE WHO ARE GOD’S PEOPLE AND OF THOSE WHO ARE NOT. God’s people, HAVING BEEN CHOSEN BY GOD, FAVORABLY RESPOND to Jesus’ messages and miracles. Others, who are not God’s people, reject the Son of God. We will call the two groups SHEEP AND GOATS, respectively” (Peterson, 140).
Regarding the words, ‘You do not believe because you are not my sheep’ (John 10:26), Peterson writes:
“These are strong words indeed. People are goats BEFORE they respond to Jesus, and they reject him BECAUSE THEY ARE GOATS. THIS IS REPROBATION----GOD’S PASSING OVER THOSE WHOM HE ALLOWS TO PAY THE PENALTY FOR THEIR OWN SINS” (140).
Peterson’s comments regarding John 10, as bad as they are, are not as horrible as the implications at which he arrives: that God “allows [some]...to pay the penalty for their own sins” is as bad as it gets!
Using Calvin’s rule that “Scripture interprets Scripture,” let’s see if Peterson’s implications hold up. What passage in the Bible demonstrates that God passes over some and leaves them in their sins? Where does it show me that Hell was prepared for people? In Matthew 25:41, Jesus tells the goats, “Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire PREPARED FOR THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS” (NKJV). Jesus never says that Hell was prepared for one person; so I continue to ask Calvinists, SHOW ME A PASSAGE WHERE THIS OCCURS! Where’s the passage to support your opinion?
If God deliberately leaves some in their sins, then there should be a passage demonstrating this. Calvinists, however, have NEVER found such a passage...and this casts huge doubt on their exegesis. Even though I’ve yet to examine John 10, we are already suspicious of Peterson’s claims. I’ll show us the reason to be when I examine John 10 in my next post.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Romans 9 Once More...
“Arminians do the very thing that Walls and Dongell accuse Calvinists of doing with these verses. They read their theology of human free will into Romans 9 in spite of the strong words of that chapter. WHERE DOES ROMANS 9 TEACH THAT GOD CONDITIONS THE SALVATION OF PERSONS ON FORESEEN FAITH? NOWHERE. Rather, Paul repeatedly insists that salvation is the free gift of almighty God, and that he gives to whomever he wants. God has mercy on whom he wants and has compassion on whom he wants (v.15). Salvation ‘depends NOT on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy’ (v.16). God shows mercy on whom he wills to show mercy, and he hardens whom he wills (v.18). And GOD PUTS IN THEIR PLACE ANY WHO QUESTION HIS RIGHT TO DO WHAT HE WANTS WITH HIS OWN CREATURES (vv.19-21)!” (Robert A. Peterson, “Election and Free Will: God’s Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2007, page 122).
I’m back to examine Peterson’s analysis of Romans 9. In his mind, Romans 9 is all about God doing whatever He wants, giving salvation to only those HE WANTS to receive it. But Peterson continues to fall throughout his book. What he fails to do in numerous cases is examine how one passage lines up with another scripturally. If we examine Scripture, we see that Peterson’s analysis doesn’t make sense in light of other scriptures:
“For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, WHO IS THE SAVIOR OF ALL MEN, especially of those who believe” (1 Tim. 4:10, NKJV).
First, let’s notice that Paul singles out “those who believe.” If he singles out believers, then who does the rest of “all men” represent? Contrary to Calvinist belief, Paul is not speaking of “all classes of men,” but instead, “every single person,” including believers as well as unbelievers. 1 Timothy 4:10 tells us then, that God is the Savior of all men, INCLUDING UNBELIEVERS!
My next question would be, “How then, can God be the Savior of unbelievers, if He is not willing to SAVE THEM? That is one that I encourage you to ask a Calvinist. Chances are, he or she will turn speechless...
Simply put, then, Romans 9 does not paint God as one who “picks and chooses” certain people over others in salvation. Romans 9 tells us that God has a selection process: that is called “election.” However, when Paul gives the examples of Jacob and Esau and Isaac and Ishmael, he shows us by virtue of the examples what the selection method is: faith. To choose Isaac over Ishmael as the promised seed went against the law of the day (the eldest received the inheritance and blessing----which, in this case, would have been Ishmael); similarly, choosing Jacob over Esau would have been against societal law as well (Jacob was the second-born, Esau was the oldest). Both of these examples “against the law” Paul uses to say that the works of the law are not what God requires. Instead, he requires faith, which is the reason why the Gentiles have received righteousness but the Jews have not (Rom. 9:30-33). The end of Romans 9 tells us that the Gentiles have come to God BY FAITH, while the Jews still seek to do the works of the law (and continue to fight against God’s requirement of faith).
Last but not least, Peterson uses verses out of context to tell us not to question God “picking some and damning others.” But as I just stated, God doesn’t do this. We are told in Scripture, however, why God made salvation possible by grace:
“For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, because the THE LAW BRINGS ABOUT WRATH; for where there is no law there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith so that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, BUT ALSO TO THOSE WHO ARE OF THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM, who is the father of us all (as it is written, ‘I have made you a father of many nations’) in the presence of Him whom he believed----God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did” (Rom. 4:14-17, NKJV).
Romans demonstrates that grace allows EVERYONE, whether Jew or Gentile, to become a child of the promise. Now which will you choose to believe: the explanation of Peterson or the explanation of Scripture?
Peterson’s theological system (Calvinism) paints God as a mysterious Lord who does anything He wants to because He wants to. And because God does whatever He wants to, you and I get no answers (for, as Peterson says, the answers are all hidden in God).
But if God is the Savior of all men, don’t you think He would want to communicate how men and women can be saved? After all, this is the same God that revealed Himself in nature (Ps. 19, Rom. 1) and in His Word (Psalm 19), did He not?
I’m back to examine Peterson’s analysis of Romans 9. In his mind, Romans 9 is all about God doing whatever He wants, giving salvation to only those HE WANTS to receive it. But Peterson continues to fall throughout his book. What he fails to do in numerous cases is examine how one passage lines up with another scripturally. If we examine Scripture, we see that Peterson’s analysis doesn’t make sense in light of other scriptures:
“For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, WHO IS THE SAVIOR OF ALL MEN, especially of those who believe” (1 Tim. 4:10, NKJV).
First, let’s notice that Paul singles out “those who believe.” If he singles out believers, then who does the rest of “all men” represent? Contrary to Calvinist belief, Paul is not speaking of “all classes of men,” but instead, “every single person,” including believers as well as unbelievers. 1 Timothy 4:10 tells us then, that God is the Savior of all men, INCLUDING UNBELIEVERS!
My next question would be, “How then, can God be the Savior of unbelievers, if He is not willing to SAVE THEM? That is one that I encourage you to ask a Calvinist. Chances are, he or she will turn speechless...
Simply put, then, Romans 9 does not paint God as one who “picks and chooses” certain people over others in salvation. Romans 9 tells us that God has a selection process: that is called “election.” However, when Paul gives the examples of Jacob and Esau and Isaac and Ishmael, he shows us by virtue of the examples what the selection method is: faith. To choose Isaac over Ishmael as the promised seed went against the law of the day (the eldest received the inheritance and blessing----which, in this case, would have been Ishmael); similarly, choosing Jacob over Esau would have been against societal law as well (Jacob was the second-born, Esau was the oldest). Both of these examples “against the law” Paul uses to say that the works of the law are not what God requires. Instead, he requires faith, which is the reason why the Gentiles have received righteousness but the Jews have not (Rom. 9:30-33). The end of Romans 9 tells us that the Gentiles have come to God BY FAITH, while the Jews still seek to do the works of the law (and continue to fight against God’s requirement of faith).
Last but not least, Peterson uses verses out of context to tell us not to question God “picking some and damning others.” But as I just stated, God doesn’t do this. We are told in Scripture, however, why God made salvation possible by grace:
“For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, because the THE LAW BRINGS ABOUT WRATH; for where there is no law there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith so that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, BUT ALSO TO THOSE WHO ARE OF THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM, who is the father of us all (as it is written, ‘I have made you a father of many nations’) in the presence of Him whom he believed----God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did” (Rom. 4:14-17, NKJV).
Romans demonstrates that grace allows EVERYONE, whether Jew or Gentile, to become a child of the promise. Now which will you choose to believe: the explanation of Peterson or the explanation of Scripture?
Peterson’s theological system (Calvinism) paints God as a mysterious Lord who does anything He wants to because He wants to. And because God does whatever He wants to, you and I get no answers (for, as Peterson says, the answers are all hidden in God).
But if God is the Savior of all men, don’t you think He would want to communicate how men and women can be saved? After all, this is the same God that revealed Himself in nature (Ps. 19, Rom. 1) and in His Word (Psalm 19), did He not?
Monday, December 14, 2009
Harmonization and Hermeneutics, Part I: Explaining Romans 8
“Arminians have sometimes assumed conditions of human faith when reading Romans 8:29-30. Grider attempts (as John Wesley did) to loosen the links in the chain of the five verbs in Romans 8:29-30: ‘So, in Romans 8:30, God FORESEES THAT INDIVIDUALS WILL BELIEVE; and in due time He calls them to himself in various ways, as through preaching and by the Spirit’s summons. And AS THEY RESPOND FAVORABLY to this call, He justifies them. Then, STILL BASED ON HIS FOREKNOWLEDGE (see v.29) THAT INDIVIDUALS WILL KEEP ON BELIEVING, He glorifies them” (Cf. Walls and Dongell, “Why I Am Not a Calvinist, 83; caps mine). The italicized (or capped, as I’ve done) words signify Grider’s additions to the biblical text, added in AN ATTEMPT TO HARMONIZE PAUL’S WORDS WITH THE ARMINIAN DOCTRINE OF CONDITIONAL ELECTION...but there are no breaks in the chain of verbs...Paul posits a CONTINUITY in the beneficiaries of salvation from its first manifestation in God’s eternal counsel to its final one in glorification...Paul does not make salvation contingent on human faithfulness, but on divine grace from beginning to end” (Robert A. Peterson, “Election and Free Will: God’s Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2007, pages 114-115).
In all the reading I’ve done on Calvinism and Arminianism, I cannot name the countless numbers of times that I have read about the so-called “unbreakable chain” of Romans 8:29-30. According to Calvinists, this means that once they are called by God, they are on their way through a “continuous” process that never ends until glorification. In their minds, glorification is as sure as their profession and salvation.
Peterson here attacks the Arminian interpretation of Romans 8:29-30, but there are some clues within Romans 8 that casts doubt on the so-called “unbreakable chain,” or that cast doubt upon the interpretation of the chain of Romans 8.
First, let’s look at Romans 8:17—
“and if children [children of God, v. 16], then heirs----heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, IF INDEED WE SUFFER WITH HIM, THAT WE MAY ALSO BE GLORIFIED TOGETHER” (NKJV).
The language of verse 17 is not one of certainty, but one of possibility (“may also be glorified,” and “if we suffer”).
Going down further, verses 24 and 25 reveal that the hope of glorification (“revealing of the sons of God,” v.19) has not yet arrived:
“For we were saved in this hope [the adoption], BUT HOPE THAT IS SEEN IS NOT HOPE: FOR WHY DOES ONE STILL HOPE FOR WHAT HE SEES? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance” (Rom. 8:24, 25).
According to Paul, we are currently waiting for the hope, the redemption of our bodies, to come. However, since it is still off in the future, “we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.” When Paul talks about waiting for it with perseverance, he’s telling us that we must persevere to the end in order to see this revelation of the sons of God (the redemption of our bodies, etc.). Right here in the middle of the passage, Paul reveals the NECESSITY OF PERSEVERANCE! While Calvinists are so consumed by the unbreakable chain, the rest of the world reads these verses in context and knows that the chain is not as guaranteed as one may think.
Then comes the unbreakable chain of Romans 8:29-30. As the context demonstrates, we must suffer with Christ, and we must persevere to the end. The hope of redemption is one that is still far off in the future, a hope that we have not seen. This is why we must wait for it with perseverance (Rom. 8:24, 25).
Notice that before verse 29 comes verse 28: “And we know that ALL THINGS WORK TOGETHER FOR GOOD TO THOSE WHO LOVE GOD...” It doesn’t say that every thing that happens turns out good, but instead, all things “work together” for good. What Paul is doing in this verse is telling us that the end result is worth it, that in the end, at the end of time, the sacrifices made for Christ will all be worth it, the trials and tribulations will have been so worth it! And then, Paul starts the so-called “unbreakable chain.”
Some may ask, “If your analysis is right, then why is the chain placed here?” The chain is here because Paul is looking to the future, seeing our glorification. With eyes of faith, Paul is looking forward to the moment in which we are revealed as sons of God (as does also 1 John 3:2-3). Paul also does the same thing in his letter to the Ephesians:
“But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), AND RAISED US UP TOGETHER, AND MADE US SIT TOGETHER IN THE HEAVENLY PLACES IN CHRIST JESUS...” (Eph. 2:4-6, NKJV)
We know that now, at this moment, many of us are not “in the heavenly places,” and are not seated with Christ in heaven yet; however, Paul writes here as though the event itself has already happened. No wonder, then, that when he writes to the Thessalonians, he labels one of the pieces of the armor of God as “the HOPE of salvation” (1 Thess. 5:8).
You may wonder what seems wrong with the Arminian analysis above in Peterson’s quote? In my opinion, nothing at all...I will get into the harmonization of Romans 8 with other passages in my next post.
In all the reading I’ve done on Calvinism and Arminianism, I cannot name the countless numbers of times that I have read about the so-called “unbreakable chain” of Romans 8:29-30. According to Calvinists, this means that once they are called by God, they are on their way through a “continuous” process that never ends until glorification. In their minds, glorification is as sure as their profession and salvation.
Peterson here attacks the Arminian interpretation of Romans 8:29-30, but there are some clues within Romans 8 that casts doubt on the so-called “unbreakable chain,” or that cast doubt upon the interpretation of the chain of Romans 8.
First, let’s look at Romans 8:17—
“and if children [children of God, v. 16], then heirs----heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, IF INDEED WE SUFFER WITH HIM, THAT WE MAY ALSO BE GLORIFIED TOGETHER” (NKJV).
The language of verse 17 is not one of certainty, but one of possibility (“may also be glorified,” and “if we suffer”).
Going down further, verses 24 and 25 reveal that the hope of glorification (“revealing of the sons of God,” v.19) has not yet arrived:
“For we were saved in this hope [the adoption], BUT HOPE THAT IS SEEN IS NOT HOPE: FOR WHY DOES ONE STILL HOPE FOR WHAT HE SEES? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance” (Rom. 8:24, 25).
According to Paul, we are currently waiting for the hope, the redemption of our bodies, to come. However, since it is still off in the future, “we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.” When Paul talks about waiting for it with perseverance, he’s telling us that we must persevere to the end in order to see this revelation of the sons of God (the redemption of our bodies, etc.). Right here in the middle of the passage, Paul reveals the NECESSITY OF PERSEVERANCE! While Calvinists are so consumed by the unbreakable chain, the rest of the world reads these verses in context and knows that the chain is not as guaranteed as one may think.
Then comes the unbreakable chain of Romans 8:29-30. As the context demonstrates, we must suffer with Christ, and we must persevere to the end. The hope of redemption is one that is still far off in the future, a hope that we have not seen. This is why we must wait for it with perseverance (Rom. 8:24, 25).
Notice that before verse 29 comes verse 28: “And we know that ALL THINGS WORK TOGETHER FOR GOOD TO THOSE WHO LOVE GOD...” It doesn’t say that every thing that happens turns out good, but instead, all things “work together” for good. What Paul is doing in this verse is telling us that the end result is worth it, that in the end, at the end of time, the sacrifices made for Christ will all be worth it, the trials and tribulations will have been so worth it! And then, Paul starts the so-called “unbreakable chain.”
Some may ask, “If your analysis is right, then why is the chain placed here?” The chain is here because Paul is looking to the future, seeing our glorification. With eyes of faith, Paul is looking forward to the moment in which we are revealed as sons of God (as does also 1 John 3:2-3). Paul also does the same thing in his letter to the Ephesians:
“But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), AND RAISED US UP TOGETHER, AND MADE US SIT TOGETHER IN THE HEAVENLY PLACES IN CHRIST JESUS...” (Eph. 2:4-6, NKJV)
We know that now, at this moment, many of us are not “in the heavenly places,” and are not seated with Christ in heaven yet; however, Paul writes here as though the event itself has already happened. No wonder, then, that when he writes to the Thessalonians, he labels one of the pieces of the armor of God as “the HOPE of salvation” (1 Thess. 5:8).
You may wonder what seems wrong with the Arminian analysis above in Peterson’s quote? In my opinion, nothing at all...I will get into the harmonization of Romans 8 with other passages in my next post.
Friday, December 11, 2009
The Significance of Foreseen Faith
I decided to write this blog post because of the common attack against Arminians that I hear all the time: that Arminians claim God elects persons based on foreseen faith----and that, in the minds of Calvinists, Arminians are the ones with the farfetched theological views.
Robert A. Peterson does this in his book, “Election and Free Will: God’s Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility”:
“Not once does Jesus teach that the Father gave people to him [Jesus] because they believe in him, BECAUSE HE FORESAW THEIR FAITH, or the like (regarding John 17)” (Peterson, “Election and Free Will: God’s Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2007, page 65).
“It is incorrect to maintain that election is based on God’s FORESEEING PEOPLE’S FAITH” (61).
“God does not elect them on the basis of FORESEEN MERIT OR FORESEEN FAITH” (46).
“This teaching [2 Tim. 1:8-9] does not fit with the Arminian idea that God chooses based on HIS FOREKNOWLEDGE OF FAITH IN HIS SON” (102).
“We conclude then, that Paul’s locating election before creation flies in the face of the Arminian concept of conditional election: the idea that God chose us BASED ON HIS FORESEEING OUR FAITH IN HIS SON” (104).
“Arminians read FORESEEN FAITH into the words [of Ephesians 1] as an attempt to harmonize their view of conditional election with the apostle’s words. But the attempt fails” (107).
These are but six references from Peterson’s book regarding the Arminian belief in foreseen faith.
Why do Calvinists have such a problem with what God foreknows and foresees? Here’s what David had to say about God’s prescience:
“My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, BEING YET UNFORMED. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, WHEN AS YET THERE WERE NONE OF THEM” (Psalm 139:15-16, NKJV).
This is the same God, David said, who understood his thoughts from afar (Ps. 139:2) and knew every word on his tongue before he even said it (v.4).
Calvinists seem to have no problem with God “foreknowing” what their days would turn out to be and “foreseeing” their lives before they were even conceived. Why then do they have such a problem with God foreseeing the faith of those who would believe?
And the biggest kicker of all comes when you consider that Paul believed Scripture foresaw the faith of the Gentiles:
“And the Scripture, FORESEEING THAT GOD WOULD JUSTIFY THE GENTILES BY FAITH, preached the gospel to Abraham BEFOREHAND, saying, ‘In you ALL THE NATIONS shall be blessed.’ So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham” (Galatians 3:8-9. NKJV).
Paul said that God foresaw His plans to justify the Gentiles by faith. The fact that God would justify the Gentiles by faith means that the Lord would allow Gentiles to come to Him on the basis of faith in Christ. This makes sense when we consider key verses within Romans 9, that disputed passage that Calvinists like to claim as belonging to their theology:
“What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, EVEN THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF FAITH; 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 AS IT WERE, BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW” (Romans 9:30-32, NKJV).
Romans 9 shows us the fulfillment of the Scriptures----in the reality of Gentiles coming to believe in Christ and being counted among His elect. But does this mean that Christ CHOSE some and not others? Of course not! After all, if that were the case, Paul would not be struggling to understand why the Jews were not saved (Romans 9:1-4); instead, he would simply have said “Well, God doesn’t desire them to be saved, that’s why.” What further provides anguish for Paul is the fact that “the adoption [and] the promises” belong to them (9:4)...and yet, they are not “children of promise” (Galatians 3). The fact that Paul has such anguish over them demonstrates that He believes that the Jews, like the Gentiles, can believe on Christ’s name.
The Scripture foresaw the faith of the Gentiles, but does not “force” the Gentiles to believe and be saved. Placed alongside of passages like Acts 13, where the Jews “count themselves unworthy of eternal life,” we see that God doesn’t count anyone out----although many will never receive the free gift of salvation that Christ has to offer.
Foreseen faith, then, is not just an “invention” of Arminians; it is a biblical concept that demonstrates God’s sovereignty over all things. If He foresaw our days “when as yet there were none of them” (as David says in Psalm 139), then how can we believe that foreseen faith is unbiblical seeing that He foreknew everything about us?
Robert A. Peterson does this in his book, “Election and Free Will: God’s Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility”:
“Not once does Jesus teach that the Father gave people to him [Jesus] because they believe in him, BECAUSE HE FORESAW THEIR FAITH, or the like (regarding John 17)” (Peterson, “Election and Free Will: God’s Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2007, page 65).
“It is incorrect to maintain that election is based on God’s FORESEEING PEOPLE’S FAITH” (61).
“God does not elect them on the basis of FORESEEN MERIT OR FORESEEN FAITH” (46).
“This teaching [2 Tim. 1:8-9] does not fit with the Arminian idea that God chooses based on HIS FOREKNOWLEDGE OF FAITH IN HIS SON” (102).
“We conclude then, that Paul’s locating election before creation flies in the face of the Arminian concept of conditional election: the idea that God chose us BASED ON HIS FORESEEING OUR FAITH IN HIS SON” (104).
“Arminians read FORESEEN FAITH into the words [of Ephesians 1] as an attempt to harmonize their view of conditional election with the apostle’s words. But the attempt fails” (107).
These are but six references from Peterson’s book regarding the Arminian belief in foreseen faith.
Why do Calvinists have such a problem with what God foreknows and foresees? Here’s what David had to say about God’s prescience:
“My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, BEING YET UNFORMED. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, WHEN AS YET THERE WERE NONE OF THEM” (Psalm 139:15-16, NKJV).
This is the same God, David said, who understood his thoughts from afar (Ps. 139:2) and knew every word on his tongue before he even said it (v.4).
Calvinists seem to have no problem with God “foreknowing” what their days would turn out to be and “foreseeing” their lives before they were even conceived. Why then do they have such a problem with God foreseeing the faith of those who would believe?
And the biggest kicker of all comes when you consider that Paul believed Scripture foresaw the faith of the Gentiles:
“And the Scripture, FORESEEING THAT GOD WOULD JUSTIFY THE GENTILES BY FAITH, preached the gospel to Abraham BEFOREHAND, saying, ‘In you ALL THE NATIONS shall be blessed.’ So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham” (Galatians 3:8-9. NKJV).
Paul said that God foresaw His plans to justify the Gentiles by faith. The fact that God would justify the Gentiles by faith means that the Lord would allow Gentiles to come to Him on the basis of faith in Christ. This makes sense when we consider key verses within Romans 9, that disputed passage that Calvinists like to claim as belonging to their theology:
“What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, EVEN THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF FAITH; 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 AS IT WERE, BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW” (Romans 9:30-32, NKJV).
Romans 9 shows us the fulfillment of the Scriptures----in the reality of Gentiles coming to believe in Christ and being counted among His elect. But does this mean that Christ CHOSE some and not others? Of course not! After all, if that were the case, Paul would not be struggling to understand why the Jews were not saved (Romans 9:1-4); instead, he would simply have said “Well, God doesn’t desire them to be saved, that’s why.” What further provides anguish for Paul is the fact that “the adoption [and] the promises” belong to them (9:4)...and yet, they are not “children of promise” (Galatians 3). The fact that Paul has such anguish over them demonstrates that He believes that the Jews, like the Gentiles, can believe on Christ’s name.
The Scripture foresaw the faith of the Gentiles, but does not “force” the Gentiles to believe and be saved. Placed alongside of passages like Acts 13, where the Jews “count themselves unworthy of eternal life,” we see that God doesn’t count anyone out----although many will never receive the free gift of salvation that Christ has to offer.
Foreseen faith, then, is not just an “invention” of Arminians; it is a biblical concept that demonstrates God’s sovereignty over all things. If He foresaw our days “when as yet there were none of them” (as David says in Psalm 139), then how can we believe that foreseen faith is unbiblical seeing that He foreknew everything about us?
A Mystery No More
“Acts does not give the basis of election, but the Arminian idea of election based on God’s foreseeing faith clashes with Acts 13:48, where faith is the consequence (not the cause) of election. PREDESTINATION is not based on what human beings do, BUT IS HIDDEN IN GOD” (Robert A. Peterson, “Election and Free Will: God’s Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2007, page 72).
One of the most common arguments offered by the Calvinists regarding “predestination and free will” or “election and free will” is that of mystery: we can’t know it. I’ve talked to numerous classmates of mine, and most of the response I’ve received is, “It’s a mystery; we can’t know it.” One person just threw his hands into the air and said, “We’ll never know.” Now, I’ve never provoked these persons I’ve talked to; but I’ve always wanted to know, “How is it that the Bible can give us ‘predestination’ as a term without also giving us something we can know about it?” If there’s any little thing that we can know about predestination, then the concept itself is no longer a mystery. When people turn to mystery on this subject, therefore, they are clearly contradicting the message of the Bible.
Peterson may very well be right regarding Acts’ silence on the basis of election; but the rest of the Bible is not. And a good rule of thumb in studying the Bible (as well as this debate) is to reconcile one passage of Scripture with another...with another...with another...you get the point. We cannot just take one passage of Scripture and “proof-text” it as a way to endorse our view or theological belief. And that is a flaw in Peterson’s book: he does not take time to size up one passage with another. Instead, he takes each passage for what it is; using his approach, the everyday believer and theologian will end up with contradicting messages in the Bible. And if this is reality, what are we saying about the character and nature of God to say that HIS WORD (which reveals His character and nature) is CONTRADICTORY?
Fortunately, sound hermeneutics will be performed here. Peterson believes that predestination is “hidden in God,” but let’s match up his view with Ephesians 1, a Classic Calvinist passage:
“Having PREDESTINATED US to adoption as sons BY JESUS CHRIST to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will...” (Eph. 1:5, NKJV)
This verse teaches us something about predestination (so it’s not a mystery). We learn in this verse that the predestination is “to adoption as sons.” This means that God allows us to become part of His family. How are we adopted? “By Jesus Christ.” Through faith in Christ, we can be adopted as sons. This kills the mystery of how predestination and free will work together: we are given a genuine choice of whether to accept or reject the gospel; when we accept Christ by faith, we become “sons,” part of the family of God. Our predestination comes by faith in Christ, with its goal being adoption (sonship). Mystery solved.
Go to Romans 8:29-30, the so-called “unbreakable chain” of the Christian life:
“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” (Romans 8:29, NKJV).
Romans 8:29 tells us that the goal of predestination is to make us more like Christ.
Go back now to Ephesians 2:
“For we are His workmanship, CREATED IN CHRIST JESUS FOR GOOD WORKS, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10).
Ephesians 2:10 reveals that we are “created for good works” IN CHRIST JESUS! Only by faith in Christ does a person become “predestined” to good works (the works being prepared beforehand). Here, once again, we see HOW predestination becomes possible (by union with Christ) as well as the PURPOSE (to do good works).
So, if predestination tells us the HOW as well as FOR WHAT (goal or purpose), why does Peterson tell us that it is “hidden in God”? The mystery that was hidden in God has been revealed:
“HAVING MADE KNOWN TO US THE MYSTERY OF HIS WILL, ACCORDING TO HIS GOOD PLEASURE...that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might GATHER TOGETHER IN ONE ALL THINGS IN CHRIST, both which are in heaven and which are on earth---- IN HIM” (Eph. 1:10).
There is one “mystery” stated, and that is that God would reconcile the world through Christ.
In Ephesians 3, Paul goes on to state the mystery revealed by God to him once more:
“how that by revelation He made known to me THE MYSTERY...that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs of the same body, and partakers of His promise IN CHRIST THROUGH THE GOSPEL” (Eph. 3:3,6).
Gathering the Gentiles to Himself in Christ is part of reconciling all things to Himself.
Paul writes further in the same chapter:
“and to make all see what is the FELLOWSHIP (or stewardship) OF THE MYSTERY, which from the beginning of the ages HAS BEEN HIDDEN IN GOD...” (Eph. 3:9)
The mystery was that the Gentiles should also be a part of God’s people...and that has now been revealed. When Jesus says that “For God so loved THE WORLD, that He gave His only-begotten Son” (John 3:16a), Jesus is saying that God truly loved every nation and every person in every nation on the earth!
And that brings up another response. Whenever an open theist like Clark Pinnock says that election is “corporate,” the classic attack made is that if God elects a particular group, He elects the people in that particular group (take Israel and her historical election, as Robert Peterson notes). But the same thing can be said for the Arminian argument: if “God so loved the world” (which He did), “that He gave His only Son” (which He did), then God gave His Son for the world (which He did). But in giving His Son for the world, He gave His Son for EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE WORLD!
If Calvinists are going to be consistent, then they have to acknowledge that, if God gave His Son for the world, then the world refers to every person in it (and not “classes of men,” as they like to state for verses like Titus 2:11, and so forth). So when God talks about the Gentiles being part of the family of God, He is saying that, in the same way He came for EVERY SINGLE JEW, He came for EVERY SINGLE GENTILE! Every single person in every single nation in every single land on the earth has an opportunity to be saved!
The idea of world reconciliation also found in 2 Corinthians 5:18-19:
“Now all things are of God, WHO HAS RECONCILED US TO HIMSELF THROUGH JESUS CHRIST, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, THAT GOD WAS IN CHRIST RECONCILING THE WORLD TO HIMSELF, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18-19, NKJV).
Our predestination, as Paul tells us in Ephesians, is no longer “hidden in God,” but has been made manifest in Jesus Christ. We are “predestinated” to adoption IN CHRIST. And, since the mystery has now been revealed, we know how predestination operates because it does so by faith in Jesus Christ! All the knowledge we need is found in Christ, “for it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6).
One of the most common arguments offered by the Calvinists regarding “predestination and free will” or “election and free will” is that of mystery: we can’t know it. I’ve talked to numerous classmates of mine, and most of the response I’ve received is, “It’s a mystery; we can’t know it.” One person just threw his hands into the air and said, “We’ll never know.” Now, I’ve never provoked these persons I’ve talked to; but I’ve always wanted to know, “How is it that the Bible can give us ‘predestination’ as a term without also giving us something we can know about it?” If there’s any little thing that we can know about predestination, then the concept itself is no longer a mystery. When people turn to mystery on this subject, therefore, they are clearly contradicting the message of the Bible.
Peterson may very well be right regarding Acts’ silence on the basis of election; but the rest of the Bible is not. And a good rule of thumb in studying the Bible (as well as this debate) is to reconcile one passage of Scripture with another...with another...with another...you get the point. We cannot just take one passage of Scripture and “proof-text” it as a way to endorse our view or theological belief. And that is a flaw in Peterson’s book: he does not take time to size up one passage with another. Instead, he takes each passage for what it is; using his approach, the everyday believer and theologian will end up with contradicting messages in the Bible. And if this is reality, what are we saying about the character and nature of God to say that HIS WORD (which reveals His character and nature) is CONTRADICTORY?
Fortunately, sound hermeneutics will be performed here. Peterson believes that predestination is “hidden in God,” but let’s match up his view with Ephesians 1, a Classic Calvinist passage:
“Having PREDESTINATED US to adoption as sons BY JESUS CHRIST to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will...” (Eph. 1:5, NKJV)
This verse teaches us something about predestination (so it’s not a mystery). We learn in this verse that the predestination is “to adoption as sons.” This means that God allows us to become part of His family. How are we adopted? “By Jesus Christ.” Through faith in Christ, we can be adopted as sons. This kills the mystery of how predestination and free will work together: we are given a genuine choice of whether to accept or reject the gospel; when we accept Christ by faith, we become “sons,” part of the family of God. Our predestination comes by faith in Christ, with its goal being adoption (sonship). Mystery solved.
Go to Romans 8:29-30, the so-called “unbreakable chain” of the Christian life:
“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” (Romans 8:29, NKJV).
Romans 8:29 tells us that the goal of predestination is to make us more like Christ.
Go back now to Ephesians 2:
“For we are His workmanship, CREATED IN CHRIST JESUS FOR GOOD WORKS, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10).
Ephesians 2:10 reveals that we are “created for good works” IN CHRIST JESUS! Only by faith in Christ does a person become “predestined” to good works (the works being prepared beforehand). Here, once again, we see HOW predestination becomes possible (by union with Christ) as well as the PURPOSE (to do good works).
So, if predestination tells us the HOW as well as FOR WHAT (goal or purpose), why does Peterson tell us that it is “hidden in God”? The mystery that was hidden in God has been revealed:
“HAVING MADE KNOWN TO US THE MYSTERY OF HIS WILL, ACCORDING TO HIS GOOD PLEASURE...that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might GATHER TOGETHER IN ONE ALL THINGS IN CHRIST, both which are in heaven and which are on earth---- IN HIM” (Eph. 1:10).
There is one “mystery” stated, and that is that God would reconcile the world through Christ.
In Ephesians 3, Paul goes on to state the mystery revealed by God to him once more:
“how that by revelation He made known to me THE MYSTERY...that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs of the same body, and partakers of His promise IN CHRIST THROUGH THE GOSPEL” (Eph. 3:3,6).
Gathering the Gentiles to Himself in Christ is part of reconciling all things to Himself.
Paul writes further in the same chapter:
“and to make all see what is the FELLOWSHIP (or stewardship) OF THE MYSTERY, which from the beginning of the ages HAS BEEN HIDDEN IN GOD...” (Eph. 3:9)
The mystery was that the Gentiles should also be a part of God’s people...and that has now been revealed. When Jesus says that “For God so loved THE WORLD, that He gave His only-begotten Son” (John 3:16a), Jesus is saying that God truly loved every nation and every person in every nation on the earth!
And that brings up another response. Whenever an open theist like Clark Pinnock says that election is “corporate,” the classic attack made is that if God elects a particular group, He elects the people in that particular group (take Israel and her historical election, as Robert Peterson notes). But the same thing can be said for the Arminian argument: if “God so loved the world” (which He did), “that He gave His only Son” (which He did), then God gave His Son for the world (which He did). But in giving His Son for the world, He gave His Son for EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE WORLD!
If Calvinists are going to be consistent, then they have to acknowledge that, if God gave His Son for the world, then the world refers to every person in it (and not “classes of men,” as they like to state for verses like Titus 2:11, and so forth). So when God talks about the Gentiles being part of the family of God, He is saying that, in the same way He came for EVERY SINGLE JEW, He came for EVERY SINGLE GENTILE! Every single person in every single nation in every single land on the earth has an opportunity to be saved!
The idea of world reconciliation also found in 2 Corinthians 5:18-19:
“Now all things are of God, WHO HAS RECONCILED US TO HIMSELF THROUGH JESUS CHRIST, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, THAT GOD WAS IN CHRIST RECONCILING THE WORLD TO HIMSELF, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18-19, NKJV).
Our predestination, as Paul tells us in Ephesians, is no longer “hidden in God,” but has been made manifest in Jesus Christ. We are “predestinated” to adoption IN CHRIST. And, since the mystery has now been revealed, we know how predestination operates because it does so by faith in Jesus Christ! All the knowledge we need is found in Christ, “for it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6).
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Appointed to Eternal Life?
“Arminians have employed at least four strategies in attempting to harmonize Acts 13:48 with their view of predestination. First, some have simply declared dogmatically, ‘Surely in this context Luke does not intend to restrict the application of salvation only to those appointed’...second, William G. MacDonald, aware that the word translated ‘appointed’ could be rendered as a passive (‘were appointed’) or as a middle (‘appointed themselves’), opts for the latter possibility and translates: ‘and as many as were PUTTING THEMSELVES IN A POSITION FOR ETERNAL LIFE believed.’ Notice the switch from ‘appointed themselves’ to ‘were putting themselves in a position for eternal life.’ MacDonald claims that the Gentile believers in Pisidian Antioch ORDAINED THEMSELVES FOR ETERNAL LIFE! It is not surprising, then, that other Arminian biblical scholars do not follow his lead. Third, Marshall reads into this passage the assumption that the Gentiles spoken of ‘were already proselytes and worshippers of God.’ There is no evidence in the text for this; Marshall merely assumes mitigating circumstances to rescue his view” (Robert A. Peterson, “Election and Free Will: God’s Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2007, page 70).
In the debate on the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man, I’ve yet to see an author that doesn’t attack the other side. I’ve read over forty books on the subject, both Calvinist and Arminian literature, and each author (and every author) always attacks the other side. That is nothing new.
But I have a question that is pending on my heart: when will believers and theologians alike come to a place where they examine the views of others before attacking them? This seems to be the problem I have with some of Peterson’s claims. The claims themselves seem to be based on the idea that Arminians argue for free will----and are not even based on whether the argument is sound or not. One thing I’d love to see between the two camps is that each view can applaud a sound argument from the other side when they see it. Of course, this doesn’t mean that every side is right...but what it does mean, however, is that we can always place ourselves in a position to see a new side of things. I recently did that in my post on “Unconditional/Conditional Election.” I tried to examine the idea in Ephesians 1 that God’s saving humanity was based on His good will----He decided to save us because He wanted to. However, I did split with Calvinists when I wrote that while God’s good will is at stake, this does not EXCLUDE certain people----but instead, offers the gift of eternal life to all who believe. I engaged Calvinists in Ephesians 1 while still ending up with an Arminian conclusion. And, while I’m certainly no expert on this subject, I think this type of thing should be done in the literature that many believers are going to read. Surely, there’s something good to be seen in both views (although I won’t go any further...I’m too biased...).
Let’s assess the Arminian views Peterson puts up and see whether or not his assessment of them is correct. First, he uses Klein’s argument in his book, “The New Chosen People”; in this argument, Klein simply labels the Calvinist view as absurd. I have not read Klein’s work, but I have seen this claim in much Arminian literature. What will not be surprising to my viewers is that I think there are good reasons for having this thought (of absurdity)...but what I don’t think is good is to just simply state that the thought is absurd WITHOUT giving sound biblical evidence for why I think the thought is absurd. The key to winning any argument is evidence.
Next is MacDonald’s remarks in the above quote. Now, I don’t think that anyone can “ordain” themselves to eternal life. I do believe, however, that a person can accept the plan of salvation that God has ordained (which is faith in His Son, Jesus) and that, by confession and belief (Rom. 10:9), a person can be saved. In looking at the context of Acts 13:48, we find that the Jews were opposing Paul and Barnabas:
“But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy; and contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 13:45, NKJV).
It was an all-out attack on the men of God and the Word of God itself.
How does the pair respond?
“It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but SINCE YOU REJECT IT, and JUDGE YOURSELVES UNWORTHY OF EVERLASTING LIFE, behold, we turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46).
The Jews “judged themselves unworthy of everlasting life.” This statement by Paul clearly shows us that God Himself did not reject the Jews, but wanted them to be saved. After all, if God didn’t desire all of His people Israel to be saved, why then would it be “necessary that the word of God should be spoken” to them first (v.46)? The very fact that the Lord chose twelve apostles and first sent them “to the lost house of Israel” reveals the Lord’s desire to save His own people. After all, was He not called Jesus because “He will save His people [the Jews] from their sins” (Matt. 1:21)?
To make matters worse, read verses 38 and 39 of the same chapter of Acts:
“Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and BY HIM EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES IS JUSTIFIED from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39).
Before the Jews rejected the message, the opportunity had been given to them to receive the gift of eternal life.
I would say that, while MacDonald’s translation of the participle is somewhat incorrect, the concept evident in MacDonald’s translation of the participle is not: that the Gentiles themselves of their own choice are responsible for belief. And this is what fits the context of Acts 13:48----that the Jews “judge themselves unworthy of eternal life.” By so doing, they deny themselves in the election that leads to eternal life (through faith).
In my analysis, I think one can translate the participle “tetagmenoi” as “were appointed,” while still keeping the phrase “and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” Why? because this verse must still reconcile with all the other numerous verses in the Bible. Even if the Calvinist were to win the debate on Acts 13:48 (and I’m not saying he is), he still must see whether or not this “foreordination” exists in other passages. A good case in point would be John 3:16—
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM should not perish but HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE.”
This verse is literally translated as “the one believing in Him should not perish,” which lets us know that faith in the Son of God is a necessary condition for salvation. If then, faith is a necessary condition for eternal life, then there can be no appointment to eternal life without faith.
Last but not least is the view of Marshall: the Gentiles spoken of ‘were already proselytes and worshippers of God.’
Within the context itself, we see that “the Gentiles begged that these words [of the Old Testament, see Acts 13:16-41] might be preached to them the next Sabbath” (Acts 13:42). Not only did they want the words to be preached to them, there were some Gentiles (called “devout proselytes,” NKJV) who “followed Paul and Barnabas” (v.43). Therefore, I don’t see the point in bringing this up. I. Howard Marshall’s comments conform to the context. If anyone is overlooking context, then it would have to be Peterson.
Peterson (and other Calvinists) have one reason and one reason only for using this verse in the debate: “Luke presents a divine classification or appointment to eternal life. And that appointment to eternal life PRECEDES FAITH ON THE PART OF THE BELIEVERS” (69, 70). While Peterson’s claim may sound consistent, it isn’t. The word “tetagmenoi” here does mean “ordained,” but it does not mean “foreordained.” If the appointment PRECEDES (or goes before) faith, then the word used here should have been “foreordained.” We don’t see this, however, nor do we see any markers of “before the creation of the world,” etc., to make us believe otherwise. A sound hermeneutic requires that Acts 13:48 be matched up against John 3:16, Romans 5:17, and a host of other passages. Once that happens, we see that there is no foreordination at all...only the wishful thinking of theologians of a particular persuasion...
In the debate on the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man, I’ve yet to see an author that doesn’t attack the other side. I’ve read over forty books on the subject, both Calvinist and Arminian literature, and each author (and every author) always attacks the other side. That is nothing new.
But I have a question that is pending on my heart: when will believers and theologians alike come to a place where they examine the views of others before attacking them? This seems to be the problem I have with some of Peterson’s claims. The claims themselves seem to be based on the idea that Arminians argue for free will----and are not even based on whether the argument is sound or not. One thing I’d love to see between the two camps is that each view can applaud a sound argument from the other side when they see it. Of course, this doesn’t mean that every side is right...but what it does mean, however, is that we can always place ourselves in a position to see a new side of things. I recently did that in my post on “Unconditional/Conditional Election.” I tried to examine the idea in Ephesians 1 that God’s saving humanity was based on His good will----He decided to save us because He wanted to. However, I did split with Calvinists when I wrote that while God’s good will is at stake, this does not EXCLUDE certain people----but instead, offers the gift of eternal life to all who believe. I engaged Calvinists in Ephesians 1 while still ending up with an Arminian conclusion. And, while I’m certainly no expert on this subject, I think this type of thing should be done in the literature that many believers are going to read. Surely, there’s something good to be seen in both views (although I won’t go any further...I’m too biased...).
Let’s assess the Arminian views Peterson puts up and see whether or not his assessment of them is correct. First, he uses Klein’s argument in his book, “The New Chosen People”; in this argument, Klein simply labels the Calvinist view as absurd. I have not read Klein’s work, but I have seen this claim in much Arminian literature. What will not be surprising to my viewers is that I think there are good reasons for having this thought (of absurdity)...but what I don’t think is good is to just simply state that the thought is absurd WITHOUT giving sound biblical evidence for why I think the thought is absurd. The key to winning any argument is evidence.
Next is MacDonald’s remarks in the above quote. Now, I don’t think that anyone can “ordain” themselves to eternal life. I do believe, however, that a person can accept the plan of salvation that God has ordained (which is faith in His Son, Jesus) and that, by confession and belief (Rom. 10:9), a person can be saved. In looking at the context of Acts 13:48, we find that the Jews were opposing Paul and Barnabas:
“But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy; and contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 13:45, NKJV).
It was an all-out attack on the men of God and the Word of God itself.
How does the pair respond?
“It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but SINCE YOU REJECT IT, and JUDGE YOURSELVES UNWORTHY OF EVERLASTING LIFE, behold, we turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46).
The Jews “judged themselves unworthy of everlasting life.” This statement by Paul clearly shows us that God Himself did not reject the Jews, but wanted them to be saved. After all, if God didn’t desire all of His people Israel to be saved, why then would it be “necessary that the word of God should be spoken” to them first (v.46)? The very fact that the Lord chose twelve apostles and first sent them “to the lost house of Israel” reveals the Lord’s desire to save His own people. After all, was He not called Jesus because “He will save His people [the Jews] from their sins” (Matt. 1:21)?
To make matters worse, read verses 38 and 39 of the same chapter of Acts:
“Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and BY HIM EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES IS JUSTIFIED from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39).
Before the Jews rejected the message, the opportunity had been given to them to receive the gift of eternal life.
I would say that, while MacDonald’s translation of the participle is somewhat incorrect, the concept evident in MacDonald’s translation of the participle is not: that the Gentiles themselves of their own choice are responsible for belief. And this is what fits the context of Acts 13:48----that the Jews “judge themselves unworthy of eternal life.” By so doing, they deny themselves in the election that leads to eternal life (through faith).
In my analysis, I think one can translate the participle “tetagmenoi” as “were appointed,” while still keeping the phrase “and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” Why? because this verse must still reconcile with all the other numerous verses in the Bible. Even if the Calvinist were to win the debate on Acts 13:48 (and I’m not saying he is), he still must see whether or not this “foreordination” exists in other passages. A good case in point would be John 3:16—
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM should not perish but HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE.”
This verse is literally translated as “the one believing in Him should not perish,” which lets us know that faith in the Son of God is a necessary condition for salvation. If then, faith is a necessary condition for eternal life, then there can be no appointment to eternal life without faith.
Last but not least is the view of Marshall: the Gentiles spoken of ‘were already proselytes and worshippers of God.’
Within the context itself, we see that “the Gentiles begged that these words [of the Old Testament, see Acts 13:16-41] might be preached to them the next Sabbath” (Acts 13:42). Not only did they want the words to be preached to them, there were some Gentiles (called “devout proselytes,” NKJV) who “followed Paul and Barnabas” (v.43). Therefore, I don’t see the point in bringing this up. I. Howard Marshall’s comments conform to the context. If anyone is overlooking context, then it would have to be Peterson.
Peterson (and other Calvinists) have one reason and one reason only for using this verse in the debate: “Luke presents a divine classification or appointment to eternal life. And that appointment to eternal life PRECEDES FAITH ON THE PART OF THE BELIEVERS” (69, 70). While Peterson’s claim may sound consistent, it isn’t. The word “tetagmenoi” here does mean “ordained,” but it does not mean “foreordained.” If the appointment PRECEDES (or goes before) faith, then the word used here should have been “foreordained.” We don’t see this, however, nor do we see any markers of “before the creation of the world,” etc., to make us believe otherwise. A sound hermeneutic requires that Acts 13:48 be matched up against John 3:16, Romans 5:17, and a host of other passages. Once that happens, we see that there is no foreordination at all...only the wishful thinking of theologians of a particular persuasion...
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
"Not Because Of Our Works..."
“Paul teaches that God granted people grace before creation: ‘God...saved us...not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began (2 Tim. 1:8-9). That is, before we even existed, let alone did anything good or bad, God placed his love upon us. The same passage teaches that election is based on God’s purpose and grace, NOT ON ANYTHING HUMAN BEINGS DO. This teaching does not fit with the Arminian idea that GOD CHOOSES BASED ON HIS FOREKNOWLEDGE OF FAITH IN HIS SON” (Robert A. Peterson, “Election and Free Will: God’s Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2007, pp. 101-102).
Today’s post will tackle head-on a charge that has been leveled against all Arminians (whether Classical Arminian, modern Arminian, or Open Theist). The charge that Arminians have been given is that they believe that salvation comes as a result of human merit.
As Peterson states above, election is “not [based] on anything human beings do.” And then he says that God does not elect “based on His foreknowledge of faith in His Son.” The connection between work and faith is so clear here that one would have to be all too optimistic to see it in the Calvinist stance.
I’m all for seeing the holes in arguments; after all, I maintain a blog here on theological studies----and I attack bad argumentation all the time. However, what I desire most is to see true attacks that make a good case against one side or another...not bad attacks. If you’re gonna attack an argument, have a good exegetical reason to do so.
I think this is where Calvinists fail. When they come to the issue of faith, they label it as “human merit.” However, Scripture is very clear about the distinction between work and faith:
“Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who DOES NOT WORK but BELIEVES ON HIM WHO JUSTIFIES THE UNGODLY, his faith is accounted for righteousness” (Romans 4:4-5, NKJV).
In the verses prior to four and five of Romans chapter 4, Paul discusses the justification of Abraham and makes it clear that Abraham was not justified by works (v.2). Instead, he was justified by faith: “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness” (Rom. 4:3, Gen. 15:6). Faith is clearly presented here as something which is OPPOSED TO WORK, so faith cannot be a work (for they are not the same thing).
Abraham believed God, and this happened BEFORE HE WAS CIRCUMCISED. Paul’s point is to say that the law is not what justified Abraham, but faith in God to make good on His promise to Abraham.
If God has promised that our faith will “is accounted for righteousness,” (Rom. 4:5), and faith is a work, then the Lord has not been honest with those who believe. However, God is true, and if He is, then we can trust that there is a distinction between faith and work.
God in His sovereignty comes to man bringing salvation; but He will not make any man receive it against His will. I hope that, in the future, Reformed writers such as Robert Peterson and others will think twice before they continue to label “faith” as a “work.”
Today’s post will tackle head-on a charge that has been leveled against all Arminians (whether Classical Arminian, modern Arminian, or Open Theist). The charge that Arminians have been given is that they believe that salvation comes as a result of human merit.
As Peterson states above, election is “not [based] on anything human beings do.” And then he says that God does not elect “based on His foreknowledge of faith in His Son.” The connection between work and faith is so clear here that one would have to be all too optimistic to see it in the Calvinist stance.
I’m all for seeing the holes in arguments; after all, I maintain a blog here on theological studies----and I attack bad argumentation all the time. However, what I desire most is to see true attacks that make a good case against one side or another...not bad attacks. If you’re gonna attack an argument, have a good exegetical reason to do so.
I think this is where Calvinists fail. When they come to the issue of faith, they label it as “human merit.” However, Scripture is very clear about the distinction between work and faith:
“Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who DOES NOT WORK but BELIEVES ON HIM WHO JUSTIFIES THE UNGODLY, his faith is accounted for righteousness” (Romans 4:4-5, NKJV).
In the verses prior to four and five of Romans chapter 4, Paul discusses the justification of Abraham and makes it clear that Abraham was not justified by works (v.2). Instead, he was justified by faith: “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness” (Rom. 4:3, Gen. 15:6). Faith is clearly presented here as something which is OPPOSED TO WORK, so faith cannot be a work (for they are not the same thing).
Abraham believed God, and this happened BEFORE HE WAS CIRCUMCISED. Paul’s point is to say that the law is not what justified Abraham, but faith in God to make good on His promise to Abraham.
If God has promised that our faith will “is accounted for righteousness,” (Rom. 4:5), and faith is a work, then the Lord has not been honest with those who believe. However, God is true, and if He is, then we can trust that there is a distinction between faith and work.
God in His sovereignty comes to man bringing salvation; but He will not make any man receive it against His will. I hope that, in the future, Reformed writers such as Robert Peterson and others will think twice before they continue to label “faith” as a “work.”
Sunday, December 6, 2009
The World, Elected In Christ
Peterson quotes Paul R. House in his book, “Election and Free Will: God’s Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility”:
“God chooses Abram as an individual, but ‘election in this case proves God’s merciful kindness TO THE WORLD, not just to Abram’” [Robert Peterson, quoting Paul R. House, “Old Testament Theology.” (Downers Grove: IVP, 1998, page 78)Peterson quotes this on page 47 of his book. Emphasis mine.]
Paul House’s quote of God showing kindness to the world echoes what Paul writes in Galatians:
“And the Scripture, FORESEEING THAT GOD WOULD JUSTIFY THE GENTILES BY FAITH, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, ‘In you ALL THE NATIONS shall be blessed’” (Galatians 3:8 NKJV, citing Genesis 12:3).
When Abram was chosen, he wasn’t just chosen for himself or for the nation of Israel---- but for all nations, all people. But what was this blessing given to all people? Paul writes further in Galatians 3:
“that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles IN CHRIST JESUS, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith” (Gal. 3:14).
Notice then, that all the nations of the world would be blessed “in Christ Jesus,” that Christ would come for everyone, for all. When the apostle John writes, “For God SO LOVED THE WORLD, that He gave His only begotten Son,” (John 3:16a), he does so to tell us that the world was elected in Christ! Christ really came for every person!
I find it fascinating, then, when Calvinists attempt to go to Romans 9 and argue for “unconditional” election. Peterson writes:
“It is important to note that God’s choice of his people is based on his will and his love” (46-47).
I would agree. Christ’s election is “unconditional” in that He was not bound to save anyone. Because all sinned in Adam (Romans 5), all deserved the penalty of eternal damnation. Peterson and I agree on that one thing.
However, there is a point at which Peterson and I no longer agree. Think about what I’ve said above:
Premise 1: If Christ was the blessing that “all the nations” would receive, then all people were blessed by the coming of Christ into the world.
Premise 2: God giving His Son was “unconditional” in that God chose to do so freely out of His love for mankind.
On top of my two premises, add a third: that Christ’s coming signified the bestowal of grace upon all of humanity:
“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men” (Titus 2:11, NKJV).
There are many Calvinists who take Romans 9 and argue for “individual election”; yet and still, when they get to Titus 2:11, they want to argue “corporate election.” To be consistent, however, they must argue that Titus 2:11, like Romans 9, argues for individual election.
If every individual is elected (Titus 2:11) by God in Christ, and God is the one who “picks and chooses” (as in the Calvinist system), then everyone will be saved, right?
Well, this is where Calvinists and I give different answers. Calvinists will say that everyone is not saved BECAUSE GOD DID NOT CHOOSE TO SAVE EVERYONE; but this contradicts what Scripture (shown above) has demonstrated: that EVERY person is elected in Christ, that Christ came for “all the nations,” every single person born on the earth. John 3:17 even tells us that God sent His Son into the world “so that the world might be saved.” How then, could God send His Son for EVERYONE, but then turn around and only choose to save SOME? That is the inconsistency in the Calvinist system that every Calvinist has to answer for. If God sends His Son for ALL, and then chooses to save only SOME, then God has contradicted Himself...and He has a lot of explaining to do.
Contra Calvinists, I believe that God is true to everything He says: “Let God be TRUE, but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4, NKJV)! Therefore, to resolve the “seeming” contradiction of God electing all and yet electing “some,” we must return to Scripture and find out why salvation is only given to some.
Paul states that there is an “exclusion” principle at play in Romans 9:
“For they are not all Israel who are OF ISRAEL. Nor all they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called’. That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed” (Romans 9:6-8, NKJV).
Who are the children of the promise? Paul tells us in Galatians 3:
“Therefore know that ONLY THOSE WHO ARE OF FAITH are sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7, NKJV).
So if the “children of the flesh” are not children of promise, and the children of promise are those who are of faith, then “the children of the flesh” are those who “are not of faith.” The children of the promise then, in Romans 9, consist of those who are “of faith”----for “only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7).
Romans 9 then, comes to tell us of a conditional election. While all the world is elected in Christ, and God chose to give His Son for the world freely (unconditional election),not everyone will receive that election----because they choose not to believe. Election then, while unconditional in God’s giving of His Son, is “conditional” in its appropriation to each person (by faith in Christ).
What about the case of Jacob and Esau? I will deal with that soon...
“God chooses Abram as an individual, but ‘election in this case proves God’s merciful kindness TO THE WORLD, not just to Abram’” [Robert Peterson, quoting Paul R. House, “Old Testament Theology.” (Downers Grove: IVP, 1998, page 78)Peterson quotes this on page 47 of his book. Emphasis mine.]
Paul House’s quote of God showing kindness to the world echoes what Paul writes in Galatians:
“And the Scripture, FORESEEING THAT GOD WOULD JUSTIFY THE GENTILES BY FAITH, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, ‘In you ALL THE NATIONS shall be blessed’” (Galatians 3:8 NKJV, citing Genesis 12:3).
When Abram was chosen, he wasn’t just chosen for himself or for the nation of Israel---- but for all nations, all people. But what was this blessing given to all people? Paul writes further in Galatians 3:
“that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles IN CHRIST JESUS, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith” (Gal. 3:14).
Notice then, that all the nations of the world would be blessed “in Christ Jesus,” that Christ would come for everyone, for all. When the apostle John writes, “For God SO LOVED THE WORLD, that He gave His only begotten Son,” (John 3:16a), he does so to tell us that the world was elected in Christ! Christ really came for every person!
I find it fascinating, then, when Calvinists attempt to go to Romans 9 and argue for “unconditional” election. Peterson writes:
“It is important to note that God’s choice of his people is based on his will and his love” (46-47).
I would agree. Christ’s election is “unconditional” in that He was not bound to save anyone. Because all sinned in Adam (Romans 5), all deserved the penalty of eternal damnation. Peterson and I agree on that one thing.
However, there is a point at which Peterson and I no longer agree. Think about what I’ve said above:
Premise 1: If Christ was the blessing that “all the nations” would receive, then all people were blessed by the coming of Christ into the world.
Premise 2: God giving His Son was “unconditional” in that God chose to do so freely out of His love for mankind.
On top of my two premises, add a third: that Christ’s coming signified the bestowal of grace upon all of humanity:
“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men” (Titus 2:11, NKJV).
There are many Calvinists who take Romans 9 and argue for “individual election”; yet and still, when they get to Titus 2:11, they want to argue “corporate election.” To be consistent, however, they must argue that Titus 2:11, like Romans 9, argues for individual election.
If every individual is elected (Titus 2:11) by God in Christ, and God is the one who “picks and chooses” (as in the Calvinist system), then everyone will be saved, right?
Well, this is where Calvinists and I give different answers. Calvinists will say that everyone is not saved BECAUSE GOD DID NOT CHOOSE TO SAVE EVERYONE; but this contradicts what Scripture (shown above) has demonstrated: that EVERY person is elected in Christ, that Christ came for “all the nations,” every single person born on the earth. John 3:17 even tells us that God sent His Son into the world “so that the world might be saved.” How then, could God send His Son for EVERYONE, but then turn around and only choose to save SOME? That is the inconsistency in the Calvinist system that every Calvinist has to answer for. If God sends His Son for ALL, and then chooses to save only SOME, then God has contradicted Himself...and He has a lot of explaining to do.
Contra Calvinists, I believe that God is true to everything He says: “Let God be TRUE, but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4, NKJV)! Therefore, to resolve the “seeming” contradiction of God electing all and yet electing “some,” we must return to Scripture and find out why salvation is only given to some.
Paul states that there is an “exclusion” principle at play in Romans 9:
“For they are not all Israel who are OF ISRAEL. Nor all they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called’. That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed” (Romans 9:6-8, NKJV).
Who are the children of the promise? Paul tells us in Galatians 3:
“Therefore know that ONLY THOSE WHO ARE OF FAITH are sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7, NKJV).
So if the “children of the flesh” are not children of promise, and the children of promise are those who are of faith, then “the children of the flesh” are those who “are not of faith.” The children of the promise then, in Romans 9, consist of those who are “of faith”----for “only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7).
Romans 9 then, comes to tell us of a conditional election. While all the world is elected in Christ, and God chose to give His Son for the world freely (unconditional election),not everyone will receive that election----because they choose not to believe. Election then, while unconditional in God’s giving of His Son, is “conditional” in its appropriation to each person (by faith in Christ).
What about the case of Jacob and Esau? I will deal with that soon...
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Isaac: The "faith child"
“The apostle is unambiguous: God chooses Jacob and rejects Esau before birth ‘in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call’ (Rom. 9:11)” (Robert A. Peterson, “Election and Free Will: God’s Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility (Explorations in Biblical Theology).” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2007, page 41).
I started reading Peterson’s book yesterday, and, as always, I’m fascinated at how many times Romans 9-11 is used in Calvinist literature to discuss the issue of God’s election. The use of Romans 9-11 is not a bad thing: after all, it is Scripture. The only down side to this is, as always, that the conflict occurs over how Scripture is to be interpreted. That is what Calvinists and Arminians have been fighting about since the beginning of human civilization (even before the times of Calvin and Arminius).
Although I’ve done a few posts on the subject of Romans 9-11, I will continue to examine these three chapters of the book of Romans from time to time. Whenever I read about the nature of God’s election, I am always motivated (whether by a Calvinist or Arminian author) to return to these three important chapters of Paul’s epistle. It seems that these chapters call me back again and again to the Word of God for answers. If no other good has surfaced from my study of Calvinism and Arminianism, I am glad to say that the debate has driven me more and more to the Word of God. And that zeal for more and more of God’s Word is not a bad thing at all...
Today, I will only deal with Isaac. These are Paul’s words regarding Isaac:
“But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, ‘IN ISAAC YOUR SEED SHALL BE CALLED.’ That is, THOSE WHO ARE CHILDREN OF THE FLESH, THESE ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD; BUT THE CHILDREN OF THE PROMISE ARE COUNTED AS THE SEED. For this is the word of promise: ‘At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son’” (Romans 9:6-9, NKJV).
At the beginning of Romans 9, Paul is expressing his anguish over his national brethren, Israel, because so many of them are not saved (Rom. 9:1-3).
However, I think there is something in verse 4 that is overlooked: and that is that the Israelites themselves have received “the promises.” The promises pertain to the nation of God’s choice (Israel)...and yet, so much of the nation is unsaved at the time of Paul’s letter. How can the promises belong to a nation that has yet to become “children of the promise”? Is this because of some “unconditional election” whereby God has chosen to reject most of His people? If we take the Calvinist stance, God has chosen to reject most of His people. But this directly contradicts Paul’s words later in Romans 11:2----“God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew”!
If God has not cast away His people, then the only other explanation for Israel’s current state in Paul’s letter is that the nation itself has rejected God (and not the other way around!).
This is why Paul writes in Romans 9:6, “For they are not all Israel who are of Israel.” Spiritual Israel consists of more than just the Jew, but also the Gentile. And this shows, according to Paul, that God’s Word has not failed.
In verse 6 Paul distinguishes ethnic Israel from spiritual Israel; in verse 8, he distinguishes the children of the flesh from the children of the promise: “those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.” Let me set up a syllogism (series of premises) for explanation:
Premise 1: the children of flesh are in opposition to the children of the promise.
Premise 2: the children of the flesh are not the children of God (v.8).
Premise 3: therefore, the children of the promise are the children of God.
Why then, are the children of the promise the children of God?
How is this demonstrated, that the children of God are the children of the promise? This is seen in Genesis, where God makes the promise to Abraham and Sarah:
“Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, ‘Shall a child be born to a man who is one hundred years old? And shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?’
And Abraham said to God, ‘Oh, THAT ISHMAEL MIGHT LIVE BEFORE YOU!’ Then God said, ‘NO, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him’” (Genesis 17:17-19, NKJV).
Here in Genesis 17, Abraham pleads for Ishmael to be the “promised seed,” but God refuses to grant Abraham’s wish. Why? Because Ishmael was a product of human planning, not the product of the plan of God (Gen. 16:1-3). God had promised a son to Abraham and Sarah, and they had to wait in faith for him. Abraham and Sarah were pass the age to bear children (Gen. 18:11), and to the couple, it seemed an impossible thing at first (Gen. 18:12); this is why the Lord responded, “Is anything too hard for the Lord?” (Gen. 18:14). What seemed to be an impossible thing with men would be not just possible with God, but certain...
Notice that God did not damn Ishmael: “And as for Ishmael, I have heard you...behold, I HAVE BLESSED HIM, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation” (Gen. 17:20). God honors Ishmael because he is a son of Abraham’s, although Ishmael was not the child God promised to the elderly couple.
Why is it that all of ethnic Israel is not spiritual Israel? Why are all of Abraham’s descendants not children of God? The answer lies in Paul’s conclusion to his argument in chapter 9:
“Why? Because they DID NOT SEEK IT[righteousness] BY FAITH, BUT AS IT WERE, BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW” (Rom. 9:32, NKJV).
When God selected Isaac instead of Ishmael, He does so because Isaac was “The Faith Child,” the one that it was impossible for Abraham and Sarah to physically conceive! Isaac was the child that Abraham and Sarah had to wait on God for. Ishmael was their decision---- but Isaac would be God’s! And when God chose Isaac, He was making the point that the only way the couple would please Him was by faith (not by human effort).
The example of Isaac, then, is one of faith. This echoes Paul’s later work in Galatians 3:
“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law...that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive THE PROMISE of the Spirit THROUGH FAITH” (Gal. 3:14).
The children of the promise (Gal. 4:8), then, are those who come to God by faith. The promise is administered “through faith” (Gal. 3:14).
Everyone knows that, when a promise is made, the recipients of the promise must keep the faith that the promise will be fulfilled. Thus, it is no different with the Lord (Gal. 3:7-9). The promise can be made; but “without faith, it is impossible to please Him” (Hebrews 11:6).
I started reading Peterson’s book yesterday, and, as always, I’m fascinated at how many times Romans 9-11 is used in Calvinist literature to discuss the issue of God’s election. The use of Romans 9-11 is not a bad thing: after all, it is Scripture. The only down side to this is, as always, that the conflict occurs over how Scripture is to be interpreted. That is what Calvinists and Arminians have been fighting about since the beginning of human civilization (even before the times of Calvin and Arminius).
Although I’ve done a few posts on the subject of Romans 9-11, I will continue to examine these three chapters of the book of Romans from time to time. Whenever I read about the nature of God’s election, I am always motivated (whether by a Calvinist or Arminian author) to return to these three important chapters of Paul’s epistle. It seems that these chapters call me back again and again to the Word of God for answers. If no other good has surfaced from my study of Calvinism and Arminianism, I am glad to say that the debate has driven me more and more to the Word of God. And that zeal for more and more of God’s Word is not a bad thing at all...
Today, I will only deal with Isaac. These are Paul’s words regarding Isaac:
“But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, ‘IN ISAAC YOUR SEED SHALL BE CALLED.’ That is, THOSE WHO ARE CHILDREN OF THE FLESH, THESE ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD; BUT THE CHILDREN OF THE PROMISE ARE COUNTED AS THE SEED. For this is the word of promise: ‘At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son’” (Romans 9:6-9, NKJV).
At the beginning of Romans 9, Paul is expressing his anguish over his national brethren, Israel, because so many of them are not saved (Rom. 9:1-3).
However, I think there is something in verse 4 that is overlooked: and that is that the Israelites themselves have received “the promises.” The promises pertain to the nation of God’s choice (Israel)...and yet, so much of the nation is unsaved at the time of Paul’s letter. How can the promises belong to a nation that has yet to become “children of the promise”? Is this because of some “unconditional election” whereby God has chosen to reject most of His people? If we take the Calvinist stance, God has chosen to reject most of His people. But this directly contradicts Paul’s words later in Romans 11:2----“God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew”!
If God has not cast away His people, then the only other explanation for Israel’s current state in Paul’s letter is that the nation itself has rejected God (and not the other way around!).
This is why Paul writes in Romans 9:6, “For they are not all Israel who are of Israel.” Spiritual Israel consists of more than just the Jew, but also the Gentile. And this shows, according to Paul, that God’s Word has not failed.
In verse 6 Paul distinguishes ethnic Israel from spiritual Israel; in verse 8, he distinguishes the children of the flesh from the children of the promise: “those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.” Let me set up a syllogism (series of premises) for explanation:
Premise 1: the children of flesh are in opposition to the children of the promise.
Premise 2: the children of the flesh are not the children of God (v.8).
Premise 3: therefore, the children of the promise are the children of God.
Why then, are the children of the promise the children of God?
How is this demonstrated, that the children of God are the children of the promise? This is seen in Genesis, where God makes the promise to Abraham and Sarah:
“Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, ‘Shall a child be born to a man who is one hundred years old? And shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?’
And Abraham said to God, ‘Oh, THAT ISHMAEL MIGHT LIVE BEFORE YOU!’ Then God said, ‘NO, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him’” (Genesis 17:17-19, NKJV).
Here in Genesis 17, Abraham pleads for Ishmael to be the “promised seed,” but God refuses to grant Abraham’s wish. Why? Because Ishmael was a product of human planning, not the product of the plan of God (Gen. 16:1-3). God had promised a son to Abraham and Sarah, and they had to wait in faith for him. Abraham and Sarah were pass the age to bear children (Gen. 18:11), and to the couple, it seemed an impossible thing at first (Gen. 18:12); this is why the Lord responded, “Is anything too hard for the Lord?” (Gen. 18:14). What seemed to be an impossible thing with men would be not just possible with God, but certain...
Notice that God did not damn Ishmael: “And as for Ishmael, I have heard you...behold, I HAVE BLESSED HIM, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation” (Gen. 17:20). God honors Ishmael because he is a son of Abraham’s, although Ishmael was not the child God promised to the elderly couple.
Why is it that all of ethnic Israel is not spiritual Israel? Why are all of Abraham’s descendants not children of God? The answer lies in Paul’s conclusion to his argument in chapter 9:
“Why? Because they DID NOT SEEK IT[righteousness] BY FAITH, BUT AS IT WERE, BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW” (Rom. 9:32, NKJV).
When God selected Isaac instead of Ishmael, He does so because Isaac was “The Faith Child,” the one that it was impossible for Abraham and Sarah to physically conceive! Isaac was the child that Abraham and Sarah had to wait on God for. Ishmael was their decision---- but Isaac would be God’s! And when God chose Isaac, He was making the point that the only way the couple would please Him was by faith (not by human effort).
The example of Isaac, then, is one of faith. This echoes Paul’s later work in Galatians 3:
“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law...that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive THE PROMISE of the Spirit THROUGH FAITH” (Gal. 3:14).
The children of the promise (Gal. 4:8), then, are those who come to God by faith. The promise is administered “through faith” (Gal. 3:14).
Everyone knows that, when a promise is made, the recipients of the promise must keep the faith that the promise will be fulfilled. Thus, it is no different with the Lord (Gal. 3:7-9). The promise can be made; but “without faith, it is impossible to please Him” (Hebrews 11:6).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)