“If Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost, and yet we can somehow become unsaved – and therefore undo what Christ came to do – WOULD IT NOT BE WISE FOR GOD TO TAKE US ON TO HEAVEN THE MOMENT WE ARE SAVED IN ORDER TO INSURE WE MAKE IT? ISN’T IT UNNECESSARILY RISKY TO FORCE US TO STAY HERE?” – Charles Stanley
I’ve spent the last few posts writing on dispensationalism and covenantal theology, the new hot topic here at the blog. Today, though, I’ll provide a little intermission to the new topic with a post that places us back into the old---the Calvinism-Arminianism debate.
The above Charles Stanley quote is one that I found on a church website regarding the doctrine of eternal security. I’ve examined the doctrine itself here in over 30 posts, which I recommend my readership examine in great detail (see “Doctrine of Perseverance/Eternal Security” and “Hermeneutics” as sections to the right of the main page for more information).
Stanley’s argument above is one used to argue for eternal security: that is, that if one could “lose their salvation,” God would not allow that person to stay here and throw away their security in Christ. Rather, He would take them before they threw it away because His mission was “to seek and save that which was lost,” meaning “people” or “individuals.”
There is a problem, however, with Stanley’s approach. He “stacks the deck” when he says that God wants to “insure we make it.” I can admit: God does desire for every single individual to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). However, will God ensure that EVERY SINGLE PERSON will be saved? In the end, will heaven be full of every human ever born and hell emptied of every single soul? I think not. And this is the issue: that God coming to save means that every single person will be guaranteed eternal life.
I’m sure that Charles Stanley believes that Christ came for all people, for every single individual---man, woman, boy, and girl. And because of this, all are given the opportunity to accept Christ as Lord and Savior. If this offer is genuine, and without force, then some will come to Him, such as the Samaritan woman, while others will walk away (such as the rich young ruler and some of the disciples of John 6).
But some will say to me, “Charles Stanley is not talking about those who are unsaved, but those who are saved, God’s own. Doesn’t God wanna insure that THEY are saved in the end?” I would then respond with the words, “What about the Israelites, the Jews? Were they not ‘God’s chosen people?’ Yes. However, not every ethnic Jew experienced the blessings of the Promised Land. In fact, only two Jews of the wilderness generation---Joshua and Caleb---made it to the Promised Land, while the rest of the nation died in the wilderness. Was God not committed to blessing them? No---HE WAS COMMITTED! The issue then, was not the commitment of God, but the faithlessness of the Jewish nation.
So, if God were committed to “insuring” the success of anyone, don’t you think we would see that guaranteed success with God’s own chosen people, the Jews? And yet, we do not see God “guaranteeing” the Promised Land for them. The reason is that God requires constant, enduring faith (Hebrews 4:2), something that the Israelites failed to possess. Instead, the Israelites “hardened their hearts” and refused to obey the voice of God (Heb. 3:8-11, 16-18).
Why then, won’t the Lord take us before we throw away our faith? Because “such is the nature of choice.” A choice involves two or more options, not one option that is determined in nature. Ken Keathley writes in his work “Salvation and Sovereignty” that the definition of perseverance is really “perseverance in faith”:
“After I wrote this chapter [‘E is for Eternal Life’, added chapter title], Dr. Schreiner was kind enough to send me a draft of his upcoming book ‘Run to Win the Prize’ (InterVarsity). In it he clarifies his position and provides a helpful response to many concerns expressed by me and others. Most helpful is his description of perseverance, WHICH HE DEFINES AS ‘PERSEVERING IN FAITH’---A DEFINITION WITH WHICH I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY” (Ken Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, page 185).
The problem with the Israelites is that they failed to “persevere in faith,” and Keathley (a Molinist) and Tom Schreiner (a Calvinist) agree on this point with me (a Classical Arminian). All three camps (Arminian, Calvinist, and Molinist) agree on the issue of perseverance as NOT being a perseverance in works, but a perseverance in faith (Heb. 11:6). I would say this to Charles Stanley in response to his question:
“Why would God not take a believer out before they failed to lose their salvation? Why would God not insure that all of His children endure to the end, but enable them to endure? Because such is the nature of choice. After all, God did not even spare the soil that believed ‘for a time’ (Mark 4:17; Luke 8:13).”
Showing posts with label Preservation and Apostasy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Preservation and Apostasy. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Monday, December 21, 2009
God's Fault?
“Fruitfulness, therefore, is evidence of salvation and preservation, and fruitfulness is evidence of the opposite. So, ‘every branch that does not bear fruit’ is cut off, discarded, ‘thrown into the fire, and burned’ (John 15:2, 6). Fruitlessness reveals no eternal life, because God’s salvation is real and shows up in fruit (Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:7-8). This is the problem in passage after passage in Paul’s condemnation of the false teachers in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. In a word, ‘they profess to know God, but deny him by their works’ (Titus 1:16). If professed Christians do not persevere, this is a very bad sign. IT MAY POINT TO THE FACT THAT GOD HAS NOT SAVED AND PRESERVED THEM” (Robert A. Peterson, “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2009, page 203).
The sentence in the above quote (capitalized) is probably the most shocking statement I’ve read in any book in regards to the Calvinist-Arminian debate (second to the idea that God reprobates men and women to hell from before the foundation of the world). I think what is most shocking about the quote is that it blames God for the fact that some believers do not persevere.
Most Calvinists that I know will argue that God picks people; but they will then turn around and blame the person for not persevering. In fact, I engaged in a conversation with a Calvinist friend of mine once. She told me that if a person does not persevere, that they were not sincere about their faith. What I told her is, that if the person was saved at some point, and God chose the person to be saved (which is the Calvinist presupposition), then it is “God’s fault” that the person did not persevere. According to the Calvinist perspective, God “let the rug out from under” the person, and so stole their perseverance. Augustine argues in a work called “The Gift of Perseverance” that EVEN SOME OF THE ELECT do not get perseverance! In Augustine’s view, there are the non-elect, the elect with perseverance, and the elect without perseverance. So even if you’re part of the “elect,” you can still not be sure that you will finally reach eternal life.
Calvin follows this same train of thought in his “Institutes of the Christian Religion”:
“Perseverance is the gift of God, which he does not lavish promiscuously on all, but imparts to whom he pleases. If it is asked how the difference arises---why some steadily persevere, and others prove deficient in steadfastness, we can give no other reason than that the Lord, by his mighty power, strengthens and sustains the former, so that they perish not, while he does not furnish the same assistance to the latter, but leaves them to be monuments of instability” (Book 2, Chap. 5, Paragraph 3).
In another place, Calvin distinguishes the “superior grace” of the elect from the “inferior grace” of the non-elect:
“Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only forever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an INFERIOR OPERATION OF THE SPIRIT from taking its course in the reprobate...the reprobate NEVER HAVE ANY OTHER THAN A CONFUSED SENSE OF GRACE, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only...the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. HE ONLY GIVES THEM A MANIFESTATION OF HIS PRESENT MERCY...THUS WE DISPOSE OF THE OBJECTION THAT IF GOD TRULY DISPLAYS HIS GRACE, IT MUST ENDURE FOREVER. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterward proves evanescent” (Book 3, Chap. 2, paragraph 11).
Last but not least, this is probably the most well-known of Calvin’s shocking statements:
“There is a special call which, FOR THE MOST PART, God bestows on believers only, when by the internal illumination of the Spirit he causes the word preached to take deep root in their hearts. SOMETIMES, HOWEVER, HE COMMUNICATES IT ALSO TO THOSE WHOM HE ENLIGHTENS ONLY FOR A TIME, and whom afterwards, IN JUST PUNISHMENT FOR THEIR INGRATITUDE, HE ABANDONS AND SMITES WITH GREATER BLINDNESS” (Book 3, Chap. 14, Paragraph 8).
So even some of the non-elect receive the special call. Then, “in just punishment for their ingratitude” (whatever this means), the Lord ABANDONS THEM!
I wanted to quote Calvin here after Peterson to let you, the readers, see that Peterson is being a cold, but consistent Calvinist. Calvin himself explained away the soil that believed for a while (Luke 8) by saying that God removed his grace from the person. Remember his words above about grace? “Thus we dispose of the objection that if God truly displays His grace, it must endure forever.”
As hard as it is for most people to believe, Peterson is being consistent in his theology. If someone doesn’t persevere to the end, whose fault is it? God’s. Most people will respond and say, “well, it was that person’s fault”; but in the Calvinist system, people are picked by God to be saved...and, should they fall, they fall because God “lets the trampoline go from under them.” God “pulls out the rug from under them” and kicks them to destruction. In the Calvinist system, the person’s responsibility is absent from the scene altogether!
And this is what is so dangerous about Peterson’s conclusions regarding perseverance and apostasy. If God preserves a person no matter what he or she does (because He has handpicked him or her for salvation), then how does their choice work? How does man’s responsibility and action work? If man will infallibly persevere because God picked him, then man’s choices and responsibility play no role in the Bible whatsoever---or in man’s relationship with God. Peterson, like many Calvinists, cannot claim that divine sovereignty and human responsibility work (Peterson’s book “Election and Free Will”) and then turn around and argue that God necessarily keeps us to the end (which negates man’s responsibility of perseverance). If God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are actual and real BEFORE coming to faith (God completes the work of salvation and man believes in Christ), then divine sovereignty and human responsibility also matter AFTER a person is in the faith (God supplies the strength man needs, while man continues to have faith and perseverance until the end). In both the PRE- and POST- salvation states, God gives us what we need (faith and the fruit of the Spirit post-conversion) to please Him; and we use what He gives us for His glory, to live lives according to His Word.
The sentence in the above quote (capitalized) is probably the most shocking statement I’ve read in any book in regards to the Calvinist-Arminian debate (second to the idea that God reprobates men and women to hell from before the foundation of the world). I think what is most shocking about the quote is that it blames God for the fact that some believers do not persevere.
Most Calvinists that I know will argue that God picks people; but they will then turn around and blame the person for not persevering. In fact, I engaged in a conversation with a Calvinist friend of mine once. She told me that if a person does not persevere, that they were not sincere about their faith. What I told her is, that if the person was saved at some point, and God chose the person to be saved (which is the Calvinist presupposition), then it is “God’s fault” that the person did not persevere. According to the Calvinist perspective, God “let the rug out from under” the person, and so stole their perseverance. Augustine argues in a work called “The Gift of Perseverance” that EVEN SOME OF THE ELECT do not get perseverance! In Augustine’s view, there are the non-elect, the elect with perseverance, and the elect without perseverance. So even if you’re part of the “elect,” you can still not be sure that you will finally reach eternal life.
Calvin follows this same train of thought in his “Institutes of the Christian Religion”:
“Perseverance is the gift of God, which he does not lavish promiscuously on all, but imparts to whom he pleases. If it is asked how the difference arises---why some steadily persevere, and others prove deficient in steadfastness, we can give no other reason than that the Lord, by his mighty power, strengthens and sustains the former, so that they perish not, while he does not furnish the same assistance to the latter, but leaves them to be monuments of instability” (Book 2, Chap. 5, Paragraph 3).
In another place, Calvin distinguishes the “superior grace” of the elect from the “inferior grace” of the non-elect:
“Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only forever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an INFERIOR OPERATION OF THE SPIRIT from taking its course in the reprobate...the reprobate NEVER HAVE ANY OTHER THAN A CONFUSED SENSE OF GRACE, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only...the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. HE ONLY GIVES THEM A MANIFESTATION OF HIS PRESENT MERCY...THUS WE DISPOSE OF THE OBJECTION THAT IF GOD TRULY DISPLAYS HIS GRACE, IT MUST ENDURE FOREVER. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterward proves evanescent” (Book 3, Chap. 2, paragraph 11).
Last but not least, this is probably the most well-known of Calvin’s shocking statements:
“There is a special call which, FOR THE MOST PART, God bestows on believers only, when by the internal illumination of the Spirit he causes the word preached to take deep root in their hearts. SOMETIMES, HOWEVER, HE COMMUNICATES IT ALSO TO THOSE WHOM HE ENLIGHTENS ONLY FOR A TIME, and whom afterwards, IN JUST PUNISHMENT FOR THEIR INGRATITUDE, HE ABANDONS AND SMITES WITH GREATER BLINDNESS” (Book 3, Chap. 14, Paragraph 8).
So even some of the non-elect receive the special call. Then, “in just punishment for their ingratitude” (whatever this means), the Lord ABANDONS THEM!
I wanted to quote Calvin here after Peterson to let you, the readers, see that Peterson is being a cold, but consistent Calvinist. Calvin himself explained away the soil that believed for a while (Luke 8) by saying that God removed his grace from the person. Remember his words above about grace? “Thus we dispose of the objection that if God truly displays His grace, it must endure forever.”
As hard as it is for most people to believe, Peterson is being consistent in his theology. If someone doesn’t persevere to the end, whose fault is it? God’s. Most people will respond and say, “well, it was that person’s fault”; but in the Calvinist system, people are picked by God to be saved...and, should they fall, they fall because God “lets the trampoline go from under them.” God “pulls out the rug from under them” and kicks them to destruction. In the Calvinist system, the person’s responsibility is absent from the scene altogether!
And this is what is so dangerous about Peterson’s conclusions regarding perseverance and apostasy. If God preserves a person no matter what he or she does (because He has handpicked him or her for salvation), then how does their choice work? How does man’s responsibility and action work? If man will infallibly persevere because God picked him, then man’s choices and responsibility play no role in the Bible whatsoever---or in man’s relationship with God. Peterson, like many Calvinists, cannot claim that divine sovereignty and human responsibility work (Peterson’s book “Election and Free Will”) and then turn around and argue that God necessarily keeps us to the end (which negates man’s responsibility of perseverance). If God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are actual and real BEFORE coming to faith (God completes the work of salvation and man believes in Christ), then divine sovereignty and human responsibility also matter AFTER a person is in the faith (God supplies the strength man needs, while man continues to have faith and perseverance until the end). In both the PRE- and POST- salvation states, God gives us what we need (faith and the fruit of the Spirit post-conversion) to please Him; and we use what He gives us for His glory, to live lives according to His Word.
Inclusive Language
“If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me” (Luke 9:23, NKJV).
To whom does Jesus refer in Luke 9:23? The only way of knowing the answer to this question is to look at the language Jesus uses. He refers to “anyone,” which is the indefinite pronoun “tis.” An indefinite pronoun uses inclusive language, or “language that includes everyone.” Because “tis” is an indefinite pronoun, everyone is involved here. So when Jesus says “if anyone” wants to follow Him, He is alerting the disciples that everyone CAN follow Him, but those who so choose MUST do the following things that He lists in the verse above. Following Jesus comes with conditions; either we accept those or nothing at all.
“Tis,” as stated above, is an indefinite pronoun. If this is the case, why then, does Robert Peterson make the indefinite pronoun DEFINITE? In his work on “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy,” he makes the following comment regarding Hebrews:
“This emphasis on individuals fits with my view that although the writer is assured of the spiritual status of the preponderance of his audience, he has real concerns for a SHAKY MINORITY in the congregation. It is individuals in this minority who are addressed in the texts above” (Robert A. Peterson, “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2009, page 174).
Peterson advocates a view of Hebrews where a “shaky minority” is thinking about turning back to Judaism. However, upon close reading of the verses Peterson mentions, one will see that the language includes everybody and does not single out one person over another. Let’s look at Peterson’s evidence:
“Beware brethren, lest there be in ANY OF YOU an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God” (Hebrews 3:12-13, NKJV).
How is the language of Hebrews 3 singling out a minority? The writer refers to “any of you.” Now, imagine that a friend sits five monetary bills in front of me ($5, $10, $20, $50, $100) and says, “you can pick any one of these bills for a Christmas gift.” I can pick the $5 so as to not offend their generosity...or I can pick the $100 bill and walk away extremely happy! If the person says that I can pick “ANY ONE” of the bills placed in front of me, then all five bills are available to be chosen. None of the five bills are excluded.
If this is the case, then with Hebrews 3, “any of you” refers to ANY MEMBER of the entire congregation, not a shaky minority.
Peterson points out another verse:
“Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest ANY OF YOU seem to have come short of it” (Hebrews 4:1, NKJV).
Once again, we see the words “any of you,” referring to “anyone of you.” The word for “any” here is “tis,” which, as I stated above (with Luke 9), is an indefinite pronoun. If the word is an INDEFINITE pronoun, then how can it be referring to a DEFINITE group of the congregation (and not the entire congregation itself)?
What about Hebrews 6:11?
“And we desire that EACH (Gk. hekaston) ONE OF YOU show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope until the end” (Heb. 6:11, NKJV).
Go back to my dollar bill example. If “each one of these bills” or “any one of these bills” I can take, then the $100 bill is just as much an option as the $5 or $10 bill. None of the bills are excluded. Once again, I don’t see here how the writer of Hebrews is distinguishing between a “saved majority” and a “shaky minority.” He refers to “each one of you,” which means that he is giving great care to EVERY PERSON in the congregation.
The next example Peterson uses comes from Hebrews 12:
“Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which NO ONE will see the Lord; looking carefully lest ANYONE fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled” (Heb. 12:14-15, NKJV).
The Greek word for “anyone” is our favorite word again---“TIS”! Once again, as an indefinite pronoun, the word refers to ANY MEMBER OF THE CONGREGATION! There is no “shaky minority” here. Look at verse 15: “any root of bitterness” can cause “many” to “become defiled.” This shows that one person hardened by sin can lead many others down a destructive path. Many can “become defiled,” which means that they were not defiled before. No one is immune from sin and its deleterious effects.
Peterson claims that the warnings refer to certain people in the congregation...but as we’ve seen, the words refer to “anyone” and “each one” of the members of the congregation. No one seriously believes that Jesus’ reference in Luke 9 refers to “a believing minority” of those who choose to follow Christ (and excluding others). If Luke 9’s “anyone” refers to any person, then why not Hebrews? Why must Hebrews refer to a “shaky minority” instead of the entire congregation (whether shaky or not)?
I think it’s good to defend what you believe; but when Scripture works against it, we should acknowledge that our belief is our “preference” and not “scripturally prescribed.” I think Peterson would do well to acknowledge his preference here. Other Calvinists have done so (as did Buist Fanning; see my posts on the “Four Views of the Warning Passages in Hebrews”)...and Peterson does not have to be an exception to the rule.
To whom does Jesus refer in Luke 9:23? The only way of knowing the answer to this question is to look at the language Jesus uses. He refers to “anyone,” which is the indefinite pronoun “tis.” An indefinite pronoun uses inclusive language, or “language that includes everyone.” Because “tis” is an indefinite pronoun, everyone is involved here. So when Jesus says “if anyone” wants to follow Him, He is alerting the disciples that everyone CAN follow Him, but those who so choose MUST do the following things that He lists in the verse above. Following Jesus comes with conditions; either we accept those or nothing at all.
“Tis,” as stated above, is an indefinite pronoun. If this is the case, why then, does Robert Peterson make the indefinite pronoun DEFINITE? In his work on “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy,” he makes the following comment regarding Hebrews:
“This emphasis on individuals fits with my view that although the writer is assured of the spiritual status of the preponderance of his audience, he has real concerns for a SHAKY MINORITY in the congregation. It is individuals in this minority who are addressed in the texts above” (Robert A. Peterson, “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2009, page 174).
Peterson advocates a view of Hebrews where a “shaky minority” is thinking about turning back to Judaism. However, upon close reading of the verses Peterson mentions, one will see that the language includes everybody and does not single out one person over another. Let’s look at Peterson’s evidence:
“Beware brethren, lest there be in ANY OF YOU an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God” (Hebrews 3:12-13, NKJV).
How is the language of Hebrews 3 singling out a minority? The writer refers to “any of you.” Now, imagine that a friend sits five monetary bills in front of me ($5, $10, $20, $50, $100) and says, “you can pick any one of these bills for a Christmas gift.” I can pick the $5 so as to not offend their generosity...or I can pick the $100 bill and walk away extremely happy! If the person says that I can pick “ANY ONE” of the bills placed in front of me, then all five bills are available to be chosen. None of the five bills are excluded.
If this is the case, then with Hebrews 3, “any of you” refers to ANY MEMBER of the entire congregation, not a shaky minority.
Peterson points out another verse:
“Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest ANY OF YOU seem to have come short of it” (Hebrews 4:1, NKJV).
Once again, we see the words “any of you,” referring to “anyone of you.” The word for “any” here is “tis,” which, as I stated above (with Luke 9), is an indefinite pronoun. If the word is an INDEFINITE pronoun, then how can it be referring to a DEFINITE group of the congregation (and not the entire congregation itself)?
What about Hebrews 6:11?
“And we desire that EACH (Gk. hekaston) ONE OF YOU show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope until the end” (Heb. 6:11, NKJV).
Go back to my dollar bill example. If “each one of these bills” or “any one of these bills” I can take, then the $100 bill is just as much an option as the $5 or $10 bill. None of the bills are excluded. Once again, I don’t see here how the writer of Hebrews is distinguishing between a “saved majority” and a “shaky minority.” He refers to “each one of you,” which means that he is giving great care to EVERY PERSON in the congregation.
The next example Peterson uses comes from Hebrews 12:
“Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which NO ONE will see the Lord; looking carefully lest ANYONE fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled” (Heb. 12:14-15, NKJV).
The Greek word for “anyone” is our favorite word again---“TIS”! Once again, as an indefinite pronoun, the word refers to ANY MEMBER OF THE CONGREGATION! There is no “shaky minority” here. Look at verse 15: “any root of bitterness” can cause “many” to “become defiled.” This shows that one person hardened by sin can lead many others down a destructive path. Many can “become defiled,” which means that they were not defiled before. No one is immune from sin and its deleterious effects.
Peterson claims that the warnings refer to certain people in the congregation...but as we’ve seen, the words refer to “anyone” and “each one” of the members of the congregation. No one seriously believes that Jesus’ reference in Luke 9 refers to “a believing minority” of those who choose to follow Christ (and excluding others). If Luke 9’s “anyone” refers to any person, then why not Hebrews? Why must Hebrews refer to a “shaky minority” instead of the entire congregation (whether shaky or not)?
I think it’s good to defend what you believe; but when Scripture works against it, we should acknowledge that our belief is our “preference” and not “scripturally prescribed.” I think Peterson would do well to acknowledge his preference here. Other Calvinists have done so (as did Buist Fanning; see my posts on the “Four Views of the Warning Passages in Hebrews”)...and Peterson does not have to be an exception to the rule.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
More Certain Than Not
“Fairness leads me to conclude from Paul’s making final sanctification dependent upon Christians’ perseverance in faith that one could deduce the possibility of their losing salvation. But it is important to note that the apostle himself does not draw that conclusion here. Frankly, Colossians 1:21-23 CAN BE INTEGRATED INTO EITHER AN ARMINIAN OR CALVINIST SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. THE PASSAGE BY ITSELF DOES NOT PROVE OR DISPROVE EITHER THEOLOGICAL SYSTEM” (Robert A. Peterson, “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2009, page 133; caps mine).
I’ve been blogging excessively on Peterson’s book titled “Election and Free Will: God’s Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility.” However, I’ve started reading his newest book in the “Explorations in Biblical Theology” series, titled “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy.”
In the above quote, Peterson is giving his analysis of Colossians 1:21-23, as he has presented various opinions on this passage. He presents the view of I. Howard Marshall:
“The need for perseverance in faith is also stressed in Colossians 1:23...here the construction, ‘provided that...’ (ei ge) allows, but by no means demands, THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE CONDITION MAY NOT BE FULFILLED” (132).
Then Peterson presents the view of P.T. O’Brien, who disagrees with Marshall’s conclusion:
“The Greek construction ‘ei ge’, translated ‘provided that,’ DOES NOT EXPRESS DOUBT...The words in this sentence may be paraphrased: ‘at any rate if you stand firm in the faith--- AND I AM SURE THAT YOU WILL’” (132).
With whom does Peterson agree? Neither. Instead, he sides with the opinion of Douglas Moo:
“...Pauline evidence POINTS IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, Galatians 3:4 falling into the former category and 2 Corinthians 5:3 and Ephesians 3:2; 4:21 into the latter...nevertheless, THE CONDITION IS A REAL ONE, and it is very important NOT TO ROB THE WORDS OF THEIR INTENDED RHETORICAL FUNCTION” (133).
In the analysis that Peterson provides from O’Brien, for example, there are problems. According to O’Brien, the Greek particle “ge” (gei) emphasizes assurance: “and I am sure that you will.”
According to some lexical sources, the word “ge” means “indeed, truly.” The word “ge” however, placed within the verse of Colossians 1:23, is meant to give assurance of the concept itself, not of the perseverance of the Colossians.
Let’s look at some other examples where “ge” is used:
“And he said, ‘Well done, good servant; because we faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities” (Luke 19:17, NKJV).
The word for “well done” in the Greek text here is “euge,” where the prefix “eu” stands for “good” or “well.” The word “ge” means “indeed.” So the master, when he says “well done,” is really saying “well indeed” or “good indeed.” By saying “good indeed,” the master is affirming the good job of the servant. He’s simply affirming what is done---not adding anything to the servant’s work.
The next verse from Luke is Luke 11:8—
“I say to you, though he will not rise and give to him because he is his friend, YET because of his persistence he will rise and give him as many as he needs” (Luke 11:8, NKJV).
The word for “ge” in this verse is the English word “yet.” Here Jesus is affirming the response of the friend to a friend outside of his house who has a need. He is talking about persistence in prayer, and He is telling the disciples that if they continue to pray, they can be ASSURED or CERTAIN that the Lord will grant what they ask for. There is nothing that the word “ge” adds to the text---except certainty of what Jesus is saying. Jesus is saying this with assurance.
The last example is Luke 18:5—
“YET because widow troubles me I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me” (Lk. 18:5, NKJV).
Jesus is telling the story of the judge and the widow. The widow continually kept coming to the judge, until one day the judge decided to grant her request (so she could stop bothering him). This is why he says, “though I do not fear God nor regard man, YET because this widow troubles me...” (Lk. 18:4, 5) The judge decides here to give consent to the widow’s request, even though he felt no reason to do so (except that the woman worried him to death). So here, the word “ge” overturns the previous clause, “though I do not fear God nor regard man.” Because he is fearless, he was not worried about granting the woman’s request; but because he doesn’t want her to keep bothering him, he grants her request. It is her annoyance that gets her the blessing, not his good-heartedness or kindness...or even his willingness to help...but instead, her constant pestering.
Looking at Colossians 1:23 again, we can now put the word “ge” into proper perspective (looking at two senses in which it is used in the Gospel of Luke).
When Paul says, “if INDEED you continue in the faith,” he is affirming the truth of this statement. In the immediate context, he discusses what God has done for them (v. 21) and what God’s goal is for them (v.22); but in verse 23, he does two things. First, he encourages them with the words, “continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel...” Next, Paul affirms the need to continue: “if INDEED you continue...” He is sounding confident in their continuance in the faith while still urging them to remain nonetheless. His assurance of their walk in the faith doesn’t cancel out his need to exhort them to “continue” in the things they have walked in.
Last but not least, I want to talk on the issue of assurance. According to O’Brien, Paul seems assured that they will continue in the faith. But why is Paul assured? Is he assured because their continuance in the faith is GUARANTEED---or is he assured because of their fruit? The answer? Because of their fruit. Let’s read Paul’s words to the Colossians:
“We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, SINCE WE HEARD OF YOUR FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS AND YOUR LOVE FOR ALL THE SAINTS; because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the WORD OF THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL, which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, AND IS BRINGING FORTH FRUIT, AS IT IS ALSO AMONG YOU SINCE THE DAY YOU HEARD AND KNEW THE GRACE OF GOD IN TRUTH” (Colossians 1:3-6, NKJV).
Notice that the Colossians’ faith and love have been demonstrated. In addition, their hearing the gospel has “brought forth fruit...also among them” from the time they heard the word of the gospel up until this point (the writing of Paul’s letter). It is because of Epaphras’s report to Paul and Timothy, “for this reason,” that “we also, since the day we heard it, DO NOT CEASE TO PRAY FOR YOU...” (Col. 1:9)
Their work in the faith from their conversion until the time of Paul’s writing gives Paul and Timothy confidence regarding the spiritual growth of the congregation. Paul and Timothy are not praying for good things because they are guaranteed these things (unconditional guarantee); no---they are praying for the good things to come because of the constant good reports being given concerning the Colossians. The congregation seems to be headed in the right direction.
Paul does the exact same thing with the Philippians congregation. This is the statement of assurance Paul gives:
“being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:6, NKJV).
Calvinists often point to this verse and say, “See, Paul is confident of the Philippians’ final salvation.” But, notice that Paul gives reasons for his confidence in the congregation:
“just as it is right for me to think this of you all, BECAUSE I HAVE YOU IN MY HEART, INASMUCH AS both in my chains and in the defense of the gospel, YOU ALL ARE PARTAKERS WITH ME OF GRACE” (Phil. 1:7).
The Philippians are fellow partakers of afflictions with Paul. This is why he can write with confidence of their end. Paul also mentions their “fellowship in the gospel” in verse 5. Paul tells the Philippians that it is a privilege to suffer for the name of Christ (Phil. 1:29), and that they have “always obeyed” his instructions (2:12). These clues give us insight into Paul’s assurance of their faith as well as the proof of their faith. Paul even wrote that they should let their conduct “be worthy of the gospel of Christ,” so that, despite their enemies, their conduct would be proof of their salvation (Phil. 1:27, 28).
The assurance Paul has regarding both the Colossians and Philippians is not some “guaranteed” assurance of the Calvinists, but rather the “persevering assurance” of the Word of God. The Word of God grants assurance in perseverance, not a guarantee in laziness. There is no unconditional guarantee of continual belief in Christ, which is why Paul tells the Colossian congregation to “continue in the faith.” In addition, we have the parable of the soils in Luke 8, with one of the soils believing “for a while” in Christ (Lk. 8:13). Only the soil that “keeps the word and bears fruit” (Lk. 8:15) is the one that reaps the harvest and receives eternal life.
I’ve been blogging excessively on Peterson’s book titled “Election and Free Will: God’s Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility.” However, I’ve started reading his newest book in the “Explorations in Biblical Theology” series, titled “Our Secure Salvation: Preservation and Apostasy.”
In the above quote, Peterson is giving his analysis of Colossians 1:21-23, as he has presented various opinions on this passage. He presents the view of I. Howard Marshall:
“The need for perseverance in faith is also stressed in Colossians 1:23...here the construction, ‘provided that...’ (ei ge) allows, but by no means demands, THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE CONDITION MAY NOT BE FULFILLED” (132).
Then Peterson presents the view of P.T. O’Brien, who disagrees with Marshall’s conclusion:
“The Greek construction ‘ei ge’, translated ‘provided that,’ DOES NOT EXPRESS DOUBT...The words in this sentence may be paraphrased: ‘at any rate if you stand firm in the faith--- AND I AM SURE THAT YOU WILL’” (132).
With whom does Peterson agree? Neither. Instead, he sides with the opinion of Douglas Moo:
“...Pauline evidence POINTS IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, Galatians 3:4 falling into the former category and 2 Corinthians 5:3 and Ephesians 3:2; 4:21 into the latter...nevertheless, THE CONDITION IS A REAL ONE, and it is very important NOT TO ROB THE WORDS OF THEIR INTENDED RHETORICAL FUNCTION” (133).
In the analysis that Peterson provides from O’Brien, for example, there are problems. According to O’Brien, the Greek particle “ge” (gei) emphasizes assurance: “and I am sure that you will.”
According to some lexical sources, the word “ge” means “indeed, truly.” The word “ge” however, placed within the verse of Colossians 1:23, is meant to give assurance of the concept itself, not of the perseverance of the Colossians.
Let’s look at some other examples where “ge” is used:
“And he said, ‘Well done, good servant; because we faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities” (Luke 19:17, NKJV).
The word for “well done” in the Greek text here is “euge,” where the prefix “eu” stands for “good” or “well.” The word “ge” means “indeed.” So the master, when he says “well done,” is really saying “well indeed” or “good indeed.” By saying “good indeed,” the master is affirming the good job of the servant. He’s simply affirming what is done---not adding anything to the servant’s work.
The next verse from Luke is Luke 11:8—
“I say to you, though he will not rise and give to him because he is his friend, YET because of his persistence he will rise and give him as many as he needs” (Luke 11:8, NKJV).
The word for “ge” in this verse is the English word “yet.” Here Jesus is affirming the response of the friend to a friend outside of his house who has a need. He is talking about persistence in prayer, and He is telling the disciples that if they continue to pray, they can be ASSURED or CERTAIN that the Lord will grant what they ask for. There is nothing that the word “ge” adds to the text---except certainty of what Jesus is saying. Jesus is saying this with assurance.
The last example is Luke 18:5—
“YET because widow troubles me I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me” (Lk. 18:5, NKJV).
Jesus is telling the story of the judge and the widow. The widow continually kept coming to the judge, until one day the judge decided to grant her request (so she could stop bothering him). This is why he says, “though I do not fear God nor regard man, YET because this widow troubles me...” (Lk. 18:4, 5) The judge decides here to give consent to the widow’s request, even though he felt no reason to do so (except that the woman worried him to death). So here, the word “ge” overturns the previous clause, “though I do not fear God nor regard man.” Because he is fearless, he was not worried about granting the woman’s request; but because he doesn’t want her to keep bothering him, he grants her request. It is her annoyance that gets her the blessing, not his good-heartedness or kindness...or even his willingness to help...but instead, her constant pestering.
Looking at Colossians 1:23 again, we can now put the word “ge” into proper perspective (looking at two senses in which it is used in the Gospel of Luke).
When Paul says, “if INDEED you continue in the faith,” he is affirming the truth of this statement. In the immediate context, he discusses what God has done for them (v. 21) and what God’s goal is for them (v.22); but in verse 23, he does two things. First, he encourages them with the words, “continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel...” Next, Paul affirms the need to continue: “if INDEED you continue...” He is sounding confident in their continuance in the faith while still urging them to remain nonetheless. His assurance of their walk in the faith doesn’t cancel out his need to exhort them to “continue” in the things they have walked in.
Last but not least, I want to talk on the issue of assurance. According to O’Brien, Paul seems assured that they will continue in the faith. But why is Paul assured? Is he assured because their continuance in the faith is GUARANTEED---or is he assured because of their fruit? The answer? Because of their fruit. Let’s read Paul’s words to the Colossians:
“We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, SINCE WE HEARD OF YOUR FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS AND YOUR LOVE FOR ALL THE SAINTS; because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the WORD OF THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL, which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, AND IS BRINGING FORTH FRUIT, AS IT IS ALSO AMONG YOU SINCE THE DAY YOU HEARD AND KNEW THE GRACE OF GOD IN TRUTH” (Colossians 1:3-6, NKJV).
Notice that the Colossians’ faith and love have been demonstrated. In addition, their hearing the gospel has “brought forth fruit...also among them” from the time they heard the word of the gospel up until this point (the writing of Paul’s letter). It is because of Epaphras’s report to Paul and Timothy, “for this reason,” that “we also, since the day we heard it, DO NOT CEASE TO PRAY FOR YOU...” (Col. 1:9)
Their work in the faith from their conversion until the time of Paul’s writing gives Paul and Timothy confidence regarding the spiritual growth of the congregation. Paul and Timothy are not praying for good things because they are guaranteed these things (unconditional guarantee); no---they are praying for the good things to come because of the constant good reports being given concerning the Colossians. The congregation seems to be headed in the right direction.
Paul does the exact same thing with the Philippians congregation. This is the statement of assurance Paul gives:
“being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:6, NKJV).
Calvinists often point to this verse and say, “See, Paul is confident of the Philippians’ final salvation.” But, notice that Paul gives reasons for his confidence in the congregation:
“just as it is right for me to think this of you all, BECAUSE I HAVE YOU IN MY HEART, INASMUCH AS both in my chains and in the defense of the gospel, YOU ALL ARE PARTAKERS WITH ME OF GRACE” (Phil. 1:7).
The Philippians are fellow partakers of afflictions with Paul. This is why he can write with confidence of their end. Paul also mentions their “fellowship in the gospel” in verse 5. Paul tells the Philippians that it is a privilege to suffer for the name of Christ (Phil. 1:29), and that they have “always obeyed” his instructions (2:12). These clues give us insight into Paul’s assurance of their faith as well as the proof of their faith. Paul even wrote that they should let their conduct “be worthy of the gospel of Christ,” so that, despite their enemies, their conduct would be proof of their salvation (Phil. 1:27, 28).
The assurance Paul has regarding both the Colossians and Philippians is not some “guaranteed” assurance of the Calvinists, but rather the “persevering assurance” of the Word of God. The Word of God grants assurance in perseverance, not a guarantee in laziness. There is no unconditional guarantee of continual belief in Christ, which is why Paul tells the Colossian congregation to “continue in the faith.” In addition, we have the parable of the soils in Luke 8, with one of the soils believing “for a while” in Christ (Lk. 8:13). Only the soil that “keeps the word and bears fruit” (Lk. 8:15) is the one that reaps the harvest and receives eternal life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)