“The evil acts of the created will are subject as well to DIVINE PREDETERMINATION and providence to the extent that the causes from which they emanate and the general concurrence on God’s part required to elicit them are granted through divine predetermination and providence—though not in order that these particular acts should emanate from them, but rather in order that other, far different, acts might come to be, and in order that the innate freedom of the things endowed with a will might be preserved for their maximum benefit; in addition evil acts are subject to that same divine predetermination and providence to the extent that they cannot exist in particular unless God by His providence permits them in particular IN THE SERVICE OF SOME GREATER GOOD. It clearly follows from the above that all things without exception are individually subject to God’s will and providence, which INTEND certain of them as particulars and PERMIT the rest as particulars” (Luis Molina, quoted by Terrance Tiessen, “Providence and Prayer: How Does God Work In The World?” Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2000, pp. 169-170).
Having read William Lane Craig’s defense of Molinism, as well as Tiessen’s chapter on Molinism, I’ve become somewhat familiar with the Molinist argument. Here though, I wanna examine the two systems of Molinism and Calvinism. Molinists claim that their system is unique and distinct from Calvinism; but is it?
I quoted Luis Molina (the proponent of what has been named “Molinism,” so named after himself) above to give us an idea of Molinism as Molina believed it to be. He states that God permits evil acts “in the service of some greater good.” But this is no different than the Calvinist stance! Calvinists believe that, since God exercises meticulous providence over the world, including all choices, that God only allows certain evils because He will use them for His “greater good.” But does all evil REALLY bring glory to God? Peter gives us the answer in 1 Peter 2:
“For this is commendable if, because of conscience toward God one endures grief, SUFFERING WRONGFULLY. FOR WHAT CREDIT IS IT if, WHEN YOU ARE BEATEN FOR YOUR FAULTS, you take it patiently? BUT WHEN YOU DO GOOD AND SUFFER, if you take it patiently, THIS IS COMMENDABLE BEFORE GOD. For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, THAT YOU SHOULD FOLLOW HIS STEPS” (1 Peter 2:19-21, NKJV).
Peter tells us that the only suffering that is godly is when we SUFFER WRONGFULLY—we pay the price for things that we did not do, and do not deserve. There is no “glory” towards God when we suffer for things we have done and are responsible for.
Peter makes this statement more boldly in 1 Peter 4:
“IF YOU ARE REPROACHED FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you...but let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people’s matters. Yet IF ANYONE SUFFERS AS A CHRISTIAN, LET HIM NOT BE ASHAMED, but let him glorify God in this matter” (1 Peter 4:14-16, NKJV).
Only when a person suffers because of godliness can they “not be ashamed.” But when a person suffers for their own evil acts, there can be nothing but shame! This is because no glory goes to God when we commit sin and evil. This is what Paul meant when he wrote in Romans that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” If we “fall short” of God’s glory, then GOD’S GLORY IS NOT ACHIEVED IN OUR SIN! Rather, sin robs God of His glory.
Therefore, all sorts of questions come to mind. A year or so ago, a student by the name of Eve Carson was killed on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I heard stories of people who came to Christ on that campus because of Eve Carson’s death. However, does this mean that God used her murder for “His greater glory?” God could very well have used her murder to bring good out of such a tragic situation; but was it NECESSARY to do so? According to Peter’s words above, God was not bound to use this evil to bring about a good. Why was He not bound to so do? Because Eve Carson was murdered mercilessly by two men who had no reason for so doing. It was a purposeless murder, regardless of their own individual reasons. Cold-blooded murder never comes with a reason, regardless of motive. One of the killers was sentenced to death row, the other to life in prison. They did not suffer for “God’s greater glory,” but for their own sin—which did not bring glory to God, but robbed Him of the glory due His name. They should not have robbed God of His glory simply because they, like Christians, are made in the image and likeness of God. Every sin committed by a human robs God of His glory, whether they are a Christian or an atheist (for example). Humans were created to glorify God, and our sin does not give glory to God, but robs Him of it.
There is no credit, no “pat on the back,” no “high-five,” for the actions of the two gentlemen. Instead, there is only shame and despair...and sadness, and the ever-present reality of our broken and fallen world. As a result, if the actions of the two murderers were not for God’s greater glory, then neither was the death of Eve Carson for God’s glory. Rather, it was the sad consequence of heartless actions from two depraved gentleman who used their freedom to commit a horrible deed.
I say all this to make a statement: Molinists attempt to “correct” the issues of Calvinism. And I think they do in some sense because they affirm libertarian freedom and choice on a far greater level than Calvinists. However, while affirming choices in theory, they erase them in practice. Notice above that Molina said that God “permits” evil actions, not “intends” them. If this is the case, then God could not have had a predetermined purpose for evil actions, since purpose and intention go hand-in-hand. If there is no intention, then there is no purpose; if there is no purpose, then there is no intention. Since God does not intend for these evil acts to be committed, there is no “divine purpose” necessary within such actions for God to use them. He very well can choose to do so—but He is not motivated to do so by some secret desire to affirm the necessity of evil in His world. Molinists and Calvinists should think about this when they affirm the “greater-good” theodicy and the necessity of evil; for, why is evil necessary when in the beginning, God made everything “good”?
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
The Quicksand of "Tension"
For the last six months, I’ve been reading everything I could get my hands on about Calvinism and Arminianism. After six months, I’ve learned a great deal about both systems; but there’s also much to learn about the other systems in the theological world. I guess you could say I’ve come to learn that there’s more to learn...
I decided to pick up a new book last night (a book I will return to rather frequently), called “Providence and Prayer: How Does God Work in the World?” by Terrance Tiessen. The book itself contains 11 models of providence and prayer—that’s right, I said it: ELEVEN MODELS! I highly recommend this book as a reference work and encourage you to return to it again and again.
In this book, regarding the Molinist model, Tiessen writes:
“God thus providentially arranges for everything that does happen by either willing or permitting it, and He causes everything to happen insofar as He concurs with the decisions of free creatures in producing their effects, yet He does so in such a way as to preserve freedom and contingency. Hereby, RESOLUTION OF THE TENSION between divine sovereignty and human freedom is addressed through the appeal to middle knowledge” (Terrance Tiessen, “Providence and Prayer: How Does God Work In The World?” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000).
Notice the words I have capitalized above? “resolution of the tension.” This phrase reveals that there is an underlying assumption of tension between divine sovereignty and human freedom. But the most disappointing part of the Molinist model is the fact that the model itself never gives a reason for why these two concepts are in tension! I’ve read Beilby and Eddy’s work on “Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views,” and William Lane Craig, in his section on foreknowledge, doesn’t give us a reason as to why such a tension exists! We are never given the justification for tension between these two biblical concepts. But I believe that such “tension” should be proven before it is assumed.
Tension is at the foundation of the Molinist model. This, to begin with, is a bad sign. It usually means that the rest of the Molinist system will be built on a shaky foundation...and without a sturdy foundation, no theological system can stand...
I decided to pick up a new book last night (a book I will return to rather frequently), called “Providence and Prayer: How Does God Work in the World?” by Terrance Tiessen. The book itself contains 11 models of providence and prayer—that’s right, I said it: ELEVEN MODELS! I highly recommend this book as a reference work and encourage you to return to it again and again.
In this book, regarding the Molinist model, Tiessen writes:
“God thus providentially arranges for everything that does happen by either willing or permitting it, and He causes everything to happen insofar as He concurs with the decisions of free creatures in producing their effects, yet He does so in such a way as to preserve freedom and contingency. Hereby, RESOLUTION OF THE TENSION between divine sovereignty and human freedom is addressed through the appeal to middle knowledge” (Terrance Tiessen, “Providence and Prayer: How Does God Work In The World?” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000).
Notice the words I have capitalized above? “resolution of the tension.” This phrase reveals that there is an underlying assumption of tension between divine sovereignty and human freedom. But the most disappointing part of the Molinist model is the fact that the model itself never gives a reason for why these two concepts are in tension! I’ve read Beilby and Eddy’s work on “Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views,” and William Lane Craig, in his section on foreknowledge, doesn’t give us a reason as to why such a tension exists! We are never given the justification for tension between these two biblical concepts. But I believe that such “tension” should be proven before it is assumed.
Tension is at the foundation of the Molinist model. This, to begin with, is a bad sign. It usually means that the rest of the Molinist system will be built on a shaky foundation...and without a sturdy foundation, no theological system can stand...
"A Schizophrenic Godhead"
“Finally, exhaustive divine sovereignty appears to pit Jesus against the Father. Jesus washed the disciples’ feet and instructed them that Christian leaders were to emulate this style of leadership. In my opinion, the church leadership has not done a good job of fulfilling Jesus’ intention. But if the Father gets exactly what he wants, then what has transpired in the history of the church is PRECISELY WHAT THE FATHER INTENDED. If Jesus desires that Christians love and forgive one another instead of domineering over one another but the Father desires that we lord our power over each other (as witnessed by what actually happens), then THE DESIRES OF THE SON AND THE FATHER ARE AT ODDS, PRODUCING A SCHIZOPHRENIC GODHEAD. (If one posits a hidden will of God the Father behind the revealed will of God the Son, then the ‘revelation’ of God in Jesus is undermined)” (John Sanders, “The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007, page 225).
Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary provides the following definition of “schizophrenic”:
2 : contradictory or antagonistic qualities or attitudes.
What John Sanders wants us to do is evaluate the argument. You cannot have two opposite things adjacent to one another, in the same respect at the same time. For example, a person cannot be both “short” and “tall” at the same time in the same way. “Short” and “tall” cannot remain unqualified absolute statements. To leave the phrase as “short and tall” is contradictory. If you revise the phrase as “shorter than her aunt, taller than her mother” you have solved the problem.
If Jesus’ visit on earth was about UNSELFISHNESS, while the Father promoted SELFISHNESS, then what does that say about the Trinity? As Sanders tells us, the Trinity becomes “schizophrenic”—divided in its nature. “Is Christ divided?” (1 Corinthians 1:13, NKJV) I think not. If Christ is not divided, then neither is the Trinity.
Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary provides the following definition of “schizophrenic”:
2 : contradictory or antagonistic qualities or attitudes.
What John Sanders wants us to do is evaluate the argument. You cannot have two opposite things adjacent to one another, in the same respect at the same time. For example, a person cannot be both “short” and “tall” at the same time in the same way. “Short” and “tall” cannot remain unqualified absolute statements. To leave the phrase as “short and tall” is contradictory. If you revise the phrase as “shorter than her aunt, taller than her mother” you have solved the problem.
If Jesus’ visit on earth was about UNSELFISHNESS, while the Father promoted SELFISHNESS, then what does that say about the Trinity? As Sanders tells us, the Trinity becomes “schizophrenic”—divided in its nature. “Is Christ divided?” (1 Corinthians 1:13, NKJV) I think not. If Christ is not divided, then neither is the Trinity.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
A House United
“If Jesus is the paradigm of providence, then God is fundamentally opposed to sin, evil, and suffering. Jesus is NOT REVERSING WHAT GOD HAD PREVIOUSLY BROUGHT ABOUT (for example, disease and suffering). If Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, then never again can Christians justify destroying people...the teaching of Jesus stands opposed to the theology that EVERYTHING HAPPENS JUST AS GOD DECREES IT SHOULD AND THAT GOD’S PURPOSES ARE NEVER FRUSTRATED” (John Sanders, “The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence” (Second Edition). Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007, page 116).
I started reading John Sanders’ work several months ago; but life got in the way (as usual) and threw me off the trail. I put down Sanders’ book with the hopes of returning to it soon. After several months, I am returning once more to Sanders’ book, “The God Who Risks.”
Reading his quote above about sickness and disease renewed my passion for the problem of evil. How do we deal with the fact that evil exists in a world created by a good God? According to Sanders, “Jesus is not reversing what God had previously brought about.” I think Sanders’ words parallel Matthew’s words in his Gospel:
“Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, ‘this fellow does not cast out demons EXCEPT BY BEELZEBUB, THE RULER OF THE DEMONS.’ But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: ‘EVERY KINGDOM DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF WILL NOT STAND. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matthew 12:24-28, NKJV).
Jesus was considered to have casts out demons by the ruler of the demons. And Jesus said that, should He do that, He would then be dividing the demons, not uniting them. In other words, He would be tearing down the same thing He was supposed to be building up!
Jesus is not casting out demons by demons here; He is simply entertaining the accusation of the Pharisees, and showing them how nonsensical it is. Their accusation of Christ would be the equivalent today of a football player from one team running to score a touchdown FOR THE OTHER TEAM! That makes no sense! If two teams are playing a football game, then doesn’t it make sense to believe that each player wants HIS OWN TEAM to win—not the OTHER team?
When Jesus engages their accusation, He does so to show them that no one in their right mind would do what they are claiming He’s doing; but the reason why they’re making such ridiculous claims is because they will claim He is ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE SON OF GOD! Even when such claims are nonsensical, the Pharisees will resort to them in order to continue their denial of Christ’s Messiahship.
Surprisingly, though, the Pharisaical spirit lives on in the twenty-first century...except today, it’s not literal Pharisees making such claims about Jesus—instead, it’s Christians who are making such claims. Our Calvinist brothers and sisters do this when they claim that, like Sanders said, God sends Jesus to reverse evil and disease THAT HE DESIGNED for His greater glory!! It is foreign to the idea of God. God is consistent in His nature and in His Word, and the idea that God would come to earth and “undo” what He did from the beginning is absurd. But if Christ were undoing what God had designed, then He would be working against the will of His Father...and now, Calvinists have created a fight amongst the members of the Trinity. This then, becomes unbiblical, as the Trinity members always have one mind and one will. Never is there a deliberation between them. They all act in agreement, all the time. Because they all act in agreement, the Trinity shows us a case of “A House United,” not divided. For if they be divided against one another, the Trinity as we know it would not stand.
There is more of Sanders to come; so stay tuned...
I started reading John Sanders’ work several months ago; but life got in the way (as usual) and threw me off the trail. I put down Sanders’ book with the hopes of returning to it soon. After several months, I am returning once more to Sanders’ book, “The God Who Risks.”
Reading his quote above about sickness and disease renewed my passion for the problem of evil. How do we deal with the fact that evil exists in a world created by a good God? According to Sanders, “Jesus is not reversing what God had previously brought about.” I think Sanders’ words parallel Matthew’s words in his Gospel:
“Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, ‘this fellow does not cast out demons EXCEPT BY BEELZEBUB, THE RULER OF THE DEMONS.’ But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: ‘EVERY KINGDOM DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF WILL NOT STAND. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matthew 12:24-28, NKJV).
Jesus was considered to have casts out demons by the ruler of the demons. And Jesus said that, should He do that, He would then be dividing the demons, not uniting them. In other words, He would be tearing down the same thing He was supposed to be building up!
Jesus is not casting out demons by demons here; He is simply entertaining the accusation of the Pharisees, and showing them how nonsensical it is. Their accusation of Christ would be the equivalent today of a football player from one team running to score a touchdown FOR THE OTHER TEAM! That makes no sense! If two teams are playing a football game, then doesn’t it make sense to believe that each player wants HIS OWN TEAM to win—not the OTHER team?
When Jesus engages their accusation, He does so to show them that no one in their right mind would do what they are claiming He’s doing; but the reason why they’re making such ridiculous claims is because they will claim He is ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE SON OF GOD! Even when such claims are nonsensical, the Pharisees will resort to them in order to continue their denial of Christ’s Messiahship.
Surprisingly, though, the Pharisaical spirit lives on in the twenty-first century...except today, it’s not literal Pharisees making such claims about Jesus—instead, it’s Christians who are making such claims. Our Calvinist brothers and sisters do this when they claim that, like Sanders said, God sends Jesus to reverse evil and disease THAT HE DESIGNED for His greater glory!! It is foreign to the idea of God. God is consistent in His nature and in His Word, and the idea that God would come to earth and “undo” what He did from the beginning is absurd. But if Christ were undoing what God had designed, then He would be working against the will of His Father...and now, Calvinists have created a fight amongst the members of the Trinity. This then, becomes unbiblical, as the Trinity members always have one mind and one will. Never is there a deliberation between them. They all act in agreement, all the time. Because they all act in agreement, the Trinity shows us a case of “A House United,” not divided. For if they be divided against one another, the Trinity as we know it would not stand.
There is more of Sanders to come; so stay tuned...
Monday, November 16, 2009
"God's Lesser Glory" in "God's Greater Glory"
“Despite the appeal of Molinism for some today, there are at least two significant problems with it, as seen from a Reformed perspective. First, it is not at all clear how God can know by middle knowledge just what choices free creatures would make in various sets of possible circumstances. The problem here is that since freedom in the libertarian sense is defined as the ability, all things being just what they are, to choose differently, it is impossible to know what decision will be made simply by controlling the circumstances within which is it made. Because, all conditions being just what they are, one can choose otherwise, control of the conditions exerts no regulative power over the actual choice made within those conditions. Therefore, it is impossible to know what decision would be made just by knowing the conditions within which it is made. In short, nothing grounds God’s knowledge of what free creatures would do in various possible sets of circumstances, and hence, God cannot know what middle knowledge advocates claim he knows: what free creatures would do in any and all possible sets of circumstances.
Second, Molinism’s insistence on libertarian freedom is itself problematic. For reasons argued in the previous chapter, libertarian freedom simply fails as a viable understanding of human freedom for both philosophical and biblical reasons. Since libertarian freedom reduces human choosing to arbitrariness, and since libertarian freedom is fully incompatible with the strong view of divine sovereignty taught in Scripture, therefore the very notion that humans have the power of contrary choice (as understood in the libertarian model of freedom) simply must be rejected. Hence, the Molinist model as it stands cannot and should not be adopted by Reformed thinkers” (Bruce Ware, “God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and the Christian Faith.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004, page 112).
I promised that I would return with Ware’s two reasons against Molinism. The above quote tells us what they are.
Let’s tackle Ware’s first reason: “it is not at all clear how God can know by middle knowledge just what choices free creatures would make in various sets of possible circumstances...because all conditions being just what they are, no one can choose otherwise, control of the conditions EXERTS NO REGULATIVE POWER over the actual choice made within those conditions.”
But this contradicts the Bible. The fact that the Lord limits our choices doesn’t mean that He is incapable of knowing which of the choices we will make. A good example of this comes from 2 Samuel 24, where the Lord punishes David for numbering the troops of Israel and Judah. David prays and asks the Lord to forgive him of his sin of numbering the people. The Lord sends the prophet Gad to David with a response to his prayer of forgiveness:
“Now when David arose in the morning, the word of the LORD came to the prophet Gad, David’s seer, saying, ‘Go and tell David, ‘Thus says the LORD: “I OFFER YOU THREE THINGS; CHOOSE ONE OF THEM FOR YOURSELF, THAT I MAY DO IT TO YOU” (2 Samuel 24:11-12, NKJV).
The Lord tells Gad to tell David to choose one of three options regarding a punishment for his sin. What were the three options?
“So Gad came to David and told him; and he said to him, ‘Shall seven years of famine come to you in your land? Or shall you flee three months before your enemies, while they pursue you? Or shall there be three days’ plague in your land? Now consider and see what answer I should take back to Him who sent me” (2 Sam. 24:13).
David has been given three options: seven years of famine, three months running from enemies, or three days of plague. The Lord gives David three options to choose from—and doesn’t appear threatened to the reader in the biblical text. So, if the Lord chooses to grant choice, then how does this indicate that He doesn’t know what I (or anyone else) will choose? The very fact that God limited David’s choices show His sovereignty over all; in the same way, the fact that we have libertarian freedom demonstrates that, while we are free, our freedom comes “within constraints,” within boundaries set by God. If anything, God’s establishment of boundaries and limits displays His sovereignty far more than if He dictated what action I would take. The God who gave David three options concerning His sin demonstrates that the God of the Bible is a God who owns everything. Only those who own a lot can give a lot. And since God owns everything, He can choose how the process of selection works (in regards to choices, punishments, etc.).
This argument of Ware’s, however, is very much like that of the Open Theist. The Open Theist says that, “if God knows my choice, then how is it free?” As a result, the Open Theist claims that God doesn’t know my future choices. The problem with this theological conclusion is that it clearly denies Scripture (Psalm 139) and makes God “in our image, after our likeness” instead of us being made “in His image, after His likeness” (Genesis 1:26).
Bruce Ware writes a counterpart to this book, “God’s Greater Glory”; the opposing book is called “God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism.” I just read chapter one of this book, and in the first chapter Ware discusses how Open Theists believe that if God foreknows all things, then every action and choice is determined, not free. The only way (according to the Open Theist) for a choice to be truly free is that God is ignorant of it...knows nothing about the choice until it happens. With Ware’s entertainment of this accusation against Molinism, it seems that he’s given into the Open Theist trap.
It seems then, that Bruce Ware advocates quite a bit of “God’s Lesser Glory,” as much as the open theist does. And this is in a book titled “God’s Greater Glory!”
I would go into Bruce Ware’s second reason to oppose Molinism...but it would infringe on my next post. In that case, you’ll just have to keep reading...
Second, Molinism’s insistence on libertarian freedom is itself problematic. For reasons argued in the previous chapter, libertarian freedom simply fails as a viable understanding of human freedom for both philosophical and biblical reasons. Since libertarian freedom reduces human choosing to arbitrariness, and since libertarian freedom is fully incompatible with the strong view of divine sovereignty taught in Scripture, therefore the very notion that humans have the power of contrary choice (as understood in the libertarian model of freedom) simply must be rejected. Hence, the Molinist model as it stands cannot and should not be adopted by Reformed thinkers” (Bruce Ware, “God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and the Christian Faith.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004, page 112).
I promised that I would return with Ware’s two reasons against Molinism. The above quote tells us what they are.
Let’s tackle Ware’s first reason: “it is not at all clear how God can know by middle knowledge just what choices free creatures would make in various sets of possible circumstances...because all conditions being just what they are, no one can choose otherwise, control of the conditions EXERTS NO REGULATIVE POWER over the actual choice made within those conditions.”
But this contradicts the Bible. The fact that the Lord limits our choices doesn’t mean that He is incapable of knowing which of the choices we will make. A good example of this comes from 2 Samuel 24, where the Lord punishes David for numbering the troops of Israel and Judah. David prays and asks the Lord to forgive him of his sin of numbering the people. The Lord sends the prophet Gad to David with a response to his prayer of forgiveness:
“Now when David arose in the morning, the word of the LORD came to the prophet Gad, David’s seer, saying, ‘Go and tell David, ‘Thus says the LORD: “I OFFER YOU THREE THINGS; CHOOSE ONE OF THEM FOR YOURSELF, THAT I MAY DO IT TO YOU” (2 Samuel 24:11-12, NKJV).
The Lord tells Gad to tell David to choose one of three options regarding a punishment for his sin. What were the three options?
“So Gad came to David and told him; and he said to him, ‘Shall seven years of famine come to you in your land? Or shall you flee three months before your enemies, while they pursue you? Or shall there be three days’ plague in your land? Now consider and see what answer I should take back to Him who sent me” (2 Sam. 24:13).
David has been given three options: seven years of famine, three months running from enemies, or three days of plague. The Lord gives David three options to choose from—and doesn’t appear threatened to the reader in the biblical text. So, if the Lord chooses to grant choice, then how does this indicate that He doesn’t know what I (or anyone else) will choose? The very fact that God limited David’s choices show His sovereignty over all; in the same way, the fact that we have libertarian freedom demonstrates that, while we are free, our freedom comes “within constraints,” within boundaries set by God. If anything, God’s establishment of boundaries and limits displays His sovereignty far more than if He dictated what action I would take. The God who gave David three options concerning His sin demonstrates that the God of the Bible is a God who owns everything. Only those who own a lot can give a lot. And since God owns everything, He can choose how the process of selection works (in regards to choices, punishments, etc.).
This argument of Ware’s, however, is very much like that of the Open Theist. The Open Theist says that, “if God knows my choice, then how is it free?” As a result, the Open Theist claims that God doesn’t know my future choices. The problem with this theological conclusion is that it clearly denies Scripture (Psalm 139) and makes God “in our image, after our likeness” instead of us being made “in His image, after His likeness” (Genesis 1:26).
Bruce Ware writes a counterpart to this book, “God’s Greater Glory”; the opposing book is called “God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism.” I just read chapter one of this book, and in the first chapter Ware discusses how Open Theists believe that if God foreknows all things, then every action and choice is determined, not free. The only way (according to the Open Theist) for a choice to be truly free is that God is ignorant of it...knows nothing about the choice until it happens. With Ware’s entertainment of this accusation against Molinism, it seems that he’s given into the Open Theist trap.
It seems then, that Bruce Ware advocates quite a bit of “God’s Lesser Glory,” as much as the open theist does. And this is in a book titled “God’s Greater Glory!”
I would go into Bruce Ware’s second reason to oppose Molinism...but it would infringe on my next post. In that case, you’ll just have to keep reading...
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Middle Knowledge and 1 Samuel 23
“And Saul summoned all the people to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men. David knew that Saul was plotting harm against him. And he said to Abiathar the priest, ‘Bring the ephod here.’ Then said David, ‘O LORD, the God of Israel, your servant has surely heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah, to destroy the city on my account. Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O LORD, the God of Israel, please tell your servant.’ And the LORD said, ‘He will come down.’ Then David said, ‘Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?’ And the LORD said, ‘They will surrender you.’ Then David and his men...departed from Keilah....And Saul sought him every day, but God did not give him into his hand” (1 Samuel 23:8-14).
Bruce Ware, in his book, “God’s Greater Glory,” provides a description of middle knowledge:
“Molina, a Jesuit theologian in the post-Reformation period, argued that God has three logical moments of knowledge prior to creating the universe. God not only possesses knowledge of what COULD be, i.e., knowledge of all bare possibilities and logical necessities (what Molina calls ‘natural knowledge’), and knowledge of what WILL be, i.e., knowledge of all future actualities, or exact and detailed knowledge of the way the world, when created, will be (what Molina calls ‘free knowledge’), but importantly, God also possesses knowledge of what WOULD be if circumstances were different from what they in fact will be in the actual world, i.e., knowledge of those possible states of affairs which would have become actual had circumstances other than those in the real world obtained (what Molina calls ‘middle knowledge’)” (“God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and the Christian Faith.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004, page 110).
According to the middle knowledge view, God has three types of knowledge: (a) natural, (b) free, and (c) middle. Middle knowledge relates to what “could have happened” in another world.
Taking middle knowledge into account, God demonstrates His middle knowledge when He tells David that “you will be handed over and killed.” David doesn’t actually get killed, but God tells him what would have happened if he had stayed in Keilah, thereby demonstrating His knowledge of possibilities.
However, the question that we should ask ourselves is, “Why does David go to the Lord in the first place?” Why does he even ask the Lord about the news he’s heard? Because he desires to save his life. David asks about the news he’s heard because he wants to know what he needs to do—whether to STAY or GO.
So he prays to God to know WHICH ACTION TO TAKE—in other words, he had two options or alternatives as courses of action; he needed to choose one course of action, and he prays to God so that he can know which option would be the right one. But why would David pray if his decision was already DETERMINED?
And this brings up another point: why did David not just go to God and say, “Lord, tell me what to do”? Why did he just ask God about what the men of Keilah and Saul would do? Why did he even care about their decisions, if it was determined? The very fact that David asks God for knowledge of the future, which would require an action from him, demonstrates libertarian freedom (which requires more than one option). In this respect, Bruce Ware’s belief in “freedom of inclination” is quite misguided.
This view of middle knowledge actually leaves room for libertarian freedom. As Bruce Ware states,
“According to this theory(sometimes referred to as Molinism), God knows all possible states of affairs, and he also knows what free creatures WOULD do in various possible sets of circumstances. Although God does not and cannot control what free creatures do in any set of circumstances (they retain libertarian freedom in Molinism), he is able to control certain aspects of the circumstances themselves and by this he can regulate which choices and actions ACTUALLY obtain from among all those that are possible. Now while God can control these sets of circumstances, He cannot necessarily guarantee that the choice of action he wants a free creature to perform will be done” (111).
Bruce Ware disagrees with libertarian freedom. He is an advocate of Middle Knowledge, but not the kind that includes libertarian freedom. Why does he disagree? I’ll reveal that in tomorrow’s post.
Bruce Ware, in his book, “God’s Greater Glory,” provides a description of middle knowledge:
“Molina, a Jesuit theologian in the post-Reformation period, argued that God has three logical moments of knowledge prior to creating the universe. God not only possesses knowledge of what COULD be, i.e., knowledge of all bare possibilities and logical necessities (what Molina calls ‘natural knowledge’), and knowledge of what WILL be, i.e., knowledge of all future actualities, or exact and detailed knowledge of the way the world, when created, will be (what Molina calls ‘free knowledge’), but importantly, God also possesses knowledge of what WOULD be if circumstances were different from what they in fact will be in the actual world, i.e., knowledge of those possible states of affairs which would have become actual had circumstances other than those in the real world obtained (what Molina calls ‘middle knowledge’)” (“God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and the Christian Faith.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004, page 110).
According to the middle knowledge view, God has three types of knowledge: (a) natural, (b) free, and (c) middle. Middle knowledge relates to what “could have happened” in another world.
Taking middle knowledge into account, God demonstrates His middle knowledge when He tells David that “you will be handed over and killed.” David doesn’t actually get killed, but God tells him what would have happened if he had stayed in Keilah, thereby demonstrating His knowledge of possibilities.
However, the question that we should ask ourselves is, “Why does David go to the Lord in the first place?” Why does he even ask the Lord about the news he’s heard? Because he desires to save his life. David asks about the news he’s heard because he wants to know what he needs to do—whether to STAY or GO.
So he prays to God to know WHICH ACTION TO TAKE—in other words, he had two options or alternatives as courses of action; he needed to choose one course of action, and he prays to God so that he can know which option would be the right one. But why would David pray if his decision was already DETERMINED?
And this brings up another point: why did David not just go to God and say, “Lord, tell me what to do”? Why did he just ask God about what the men of Keilah and Saul would do? Why did he even care about their decisions, if it was determined? The very fact that David asks God for knowledge of the future, which would require an action from him, demonstrates libertarian freedom (which requires more than one option). In this respect, Bruce Ware’s belief in “freedom of inclination” is quite misguided.
This view of middle knowledge actually leaves room for libertarian freedom. As Bruce Ware states,
“According to this theory(sometimes referred to as Molinism), God knows all possible states of affairs, and he also knows what free creatures WOULD do in various possible sets of circumstances. Although God does not and cannot control what free creatures do in any set of circumstances (they retain libertarian freedom in Molinism), he is able to control certain aspects of the circumstances themselves and by this he can regulate which choices and actions ACTUALLY obtain from among all those that are possible. Now while God can control these sets of circumstances, He cannot necessarily guarantee that the choice of action he wants a free creature to perform will be done” (111).
Bruce Ware disagrees with libertarian freedom. He is an advocate of Middle Knowledge, but not the kind that includes libertarian freedom. Why does he disagree? I’ll reveal that in tomorrow’s post.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Explicit Contradiction
Tonight I read chapter 4, titled “Ruling Through Creation: Divine-Human Concurrence,” from Bruce Ware’s book, “God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and the Christian Faith.” (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004).
Bruce Ware tells us from the outset:
“Since God’s control of evil does not extend from his own nature, it cannot be ‘direct’ in the way his control of good is. That is, evil does not extend from God as good does, and hence, evil never is produced, as it were, ‘out of’ God’s own being and nature. Furthermore, GOD CANNOT WILL DIRECTLY AND IMMEDIATELY TO CAUSE EVIL, SINCE ALL THAT GOD WILLS TO DO HIMSELF (IMMEDIATELY) IS GOOD (e.g., Gen. 1:31; James 1:13, 17), AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO DO EVIL OF ANY KIND” (106).
Ware then presents us with an analogy of how God provides opportunity for “freedom of inclination”:
“Undercover police often use the mechanism of a ‘sting operation’ for catching criminals in the act of committing a crime. When this is done correctly, the police do not cause or coerce the criminal to commit the crime, but they do intentionally provide a setting in which the criminal, out of his own nature, will have the opportunity to develop a strongest inclination to commit the crime. Undercover policemen may pose, for example, as buyers seeking to purchase illegal drugs, and by so doing they place before the nature of the drug dealer a set of factors that may lead him to want most strongly to sell drugs to the men posing as interested buyers. When the drug dealer hands over the drugs to the buyers and receives payment for them, the crime has been committed and he is arrested and will be held morally (and legally) responsible for his crime. When this operation is done correctly, the criminal is not coerced, nor is he caused to commit the crime. Rather, he is presented with a setting to which his own nature responds the way that it does, wanting most strongly to carry out the illegal activity. The criminal, then, was free; he did what he wanted most to do, and he was not forced or coerced in the process. Yet the situation was ‘controlled’; factors of a situation were DESIGNED AND INTENTIONALLY PRESENTED to the criminal so that his nature would be given opportunity to manifest what it truly wanted to do. The cause of the choice was the nature of the criminal; some key factors leading to the choice were provided by others who sought to expose the criminal’s nature for what it was. When he made his choice, he showed what truly was in his heart, and in this he was free, and for this he is morally responsible” (123).
In this sting operation, however, the purpose behind it is a righteous one—to catch a criminal, someone who is disobeying the laws of their society. This is in no way an evil act, because righteous judgment in society consists of criminals being caught and “paying the price” for their deeds.
However, this is remotely different when it comes to the problem of evil. This is what Bruce Ware writes about God’s “meticulous” and absolute control:
“Finally, is it not clear that God is able not only to know what impact a certain set of influences will have upon our decisions, but that SINCE HE IS GOD, HE IS ABLE TO ADJUST AND REGULATE THE INFLUENCES THAT COME INTO OUR LIVES, so that by controlling the influences HE CAN REGULATE THE CHOICES WE WILL MAKE?” (82)
Notice that Bruce Ware believes that God can “adjust and regulate” influences in our lives so as to produce certain decisions from us that are in accordance with His plan. And for those who don’t believe this involves evil, let’s keep reading:
“God is always able to permit ONLY THOSE OCCURRENCES OF EVIL THAT HE KNOWS WILL SERVE HIS PURPOSES AND NEVER THWART OR HINDER THOSE PURPOSES. He is able to do this because, for any evil that may occur, it is always in God’s power to prevent that specific evil from happening” (107).
So now, the only evil used is that which “He knows will serve His purposes and never thwart or hinder those purposes.” Evidently, there is an evil that can thwart the purposes and plan of God that God doesn’t allow. If ANY evil can thwart God’s purposes, then how can He even prevent it from happening (since the evil itself is powerful enough to overcome God’s very own purposes)? If such an evil exists, then evil becomes eternal, just as God is eternal. Now, Bruce Ware has now made evil a “necessity,” and evil itself as eternal as God (and more powerful, since some evil can trump God’s plans).
I’ve established, that, according to Bruce Ware, God uses only that evil that He needs to accomplish His purposes; secondly, I showed that Ware believes that, like the sting operation, God sets up situations and “regulates influences” in our lives that move us to act according to our own desires.
If this is the case, then what about evil? If God sets up conditions such that we will commit evil, and He needs us to commit evil because it serves His purposes, then HOW CAN GOD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVIL? This is what Ware writes regarding the Joseph story of Genesis 50:
“This Ishmaelite caravan just ‘happens’ to show up right exactly at the time needed. Recall, Reuben HAD TO BE GONE! And GOD HAD TO GET JOSEPH TO EGYPT. Clearly, the brothers didn’t care at all where Joseph might be taken. But God cared. So, IN PART BY GOD’S DIRECT-CAUSATIVE AGENCY,NO DOUBT...GOD ACTED TO ENSURE THAT JOSEPH GOT SENT TO EGYPT” (129).
The phrase I want us to observe is: “in part by God’s direct-causative agency...God acted to ensure that Joseph got sent to Egypt.” Remember Ware’s words earlier:
“Since God’s control of evil does not extend from his own nature, it cannot be ‘direct’ in the way his control of good is. That is, evil does not extend from God as good does, and hence, evil never is produced, as it were, ‘out of’ God’s own being and nature. Furthermore, GOD CANNOT WILL DIRECTLY AND IMMEDIATELY TO CAUSE EVIL, SINCE ALL THAT GOD WILLS TO DO HIMSELF (IMMEDIATELY) IS GOOD (e.g., Gen. 1:31; James 1:13, 17), AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO DO EVIL OF ANY KIND” (106).
Ware just told us that God cannot be “directly” responsible for evil. Yet, in his analysis of Genesis 50, God had to get the brothers to sell Joseph so that he would go to Egypt ("direct-causative agency)! According to Ware, since God wanted Joseph in Egypt, the ONLY WAY He could bring it about was through the cruel act of selling Joseph into slavery. By the way, the Lord prohibits slavery in His words to the Israelites (Leviticus 25:39-42).
Ware attempts to get God off the hook by merely claiming that He is not responsible for evil. But then, he turns around and claims that God ordains the means by which evil will be committed, not to mention that He “regulates and adjusts” the influences of men and women so that they will do EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS (whether good or evil). Yet and still, he can turn around and claim that “in regard to human volition, because the freedom given us is the freedom of inclination, God is able to control those factors influencing a person’s strongest inclination or deepest desire, and by this he can control the choices and actions that a person will make or do” (109). What kind of a God does Bruce Ware worship, where God does all the “controlling,” but places blame on man for the inevitable sin and evil that God has designed?
Ware’s remarks are not only contradictory to what he said earlier; they also contradict one of the passages he cited, James 1:
“Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, NOR DOES HE HIMSELF TEMPT ANYONE” (James 1:13, NKJV).
Let’s use an example: a Pastor who has been married for 15 years commits adultery. According to Bruce Ware, the pastor committed adultery because of “freedom of inclination”—the pastor did it because he wanted to. Bruce Ware would then turn around and make the man responsible for his act. However, there’s a problem with this claim: Ware would make the pastor responsible, but he would then claim that GOD REGULATED AND ADJUSTED THE INFLUENCES AND SET UP THE CONDITIONS in order to get the pastor to commit adultery. And why? because, as his book title states, for “God’s Greater Glory.” In Ware’s thought, God needed the pastor to commit adultery in order to bring about a greater good—that “greater good” being that the church could see that the pastor and his wife were having problems in their marriage and, as a result, offer counseling for married couples contemplating separation.
But does God REALLY have to have this pastor cheat on his wife in order to get the church to offer counseling for married couples having problems? Of course not! But if you’re Bruce Ware, or share his theological beliefs, evil is necessary to the plan of God. But how can God not be responsible, if evil is NEEDED in His plan?
We would all agree that the pastor bears blame for his actions. Would the pastor get off the hook if he said, “I cheated because I NEEDED understanding...and my wife wasn’t listening to me’”? Of course not! Everyone would blame the pastor for his adulterous act. But when it gets to God, and God NEEDS evil, suddenly, God is in no way, shape, or form responsible! How can this be?
Ware’s argumentation also contradicts common sense. Discussing one of the most atrocious events in world history, Edward Meadors of Taylor University writes,
“For while it may be true that Hitler never personally killed a single Jew, no one can question legitimately that he was morally responsible for the atrocious holocaust that he conceived with his henchmen. Hitler is thus universally recognized by all sane people as an evil figure in world history, even though he merely conceived but did not personally implement the holocaust. By analogy, something of this sort would indeed be true of God if he were the ‘BEHIND THE SCENES’ primary agent of the moral evils that his created secondary agents perform” [“‘It Never Entered My Mind’: The Problematic Theodicy of Theistic Determinism.” Bulletin for Biblical Research, vol. 19, no. 2 (2009): page 203 (total article is 185-214)].
Bruce Ware commits here what I call an “explicit contradiction.” He claims that God is not responsible for evil, but then turns around and makes God responsible for evil. All he does is give “lip service” to the goodness of God; but his arguments say otherwise...
Bruce Ware tells us from the outset:
“Since God’s control of evil does not extend from his own nature, it cannot be ‘direct’ in the way his control of good is. That is, evil does not extend from God as good does, and hence, evil never is produced, as it were, ‘out of’ God’s own being and nature. Furthermore, GOD CANNOT WILL DIRECTLY AND IMMEDIATELY TO CAUSE EVIL, SINCE ALL THAT GOD WILLS TO DO HIMSELF (IMMEDIATELY) IS GOOD (e.g., Gen. 1:31; James 1:13, 17), AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO DO EVIL OF ANY KIND” (106).
Ware then presents us with an analogy of how God provides opportunity for “freedom of inclination”:
“Undercover police often use the mechanism of a ‘sting operation’ for catching criminals in the act of committing a crime. When this is done correctly, the police do not cause or coerce the criminal to commit the crime, but they do intentionally provide a setting in which the criminal, out of his own nature, will have the opportunity to develop a strongest inclination to commit the crime. Undercover policemen may pose, for example, as buyers seeking to purchase illegal drugs, and by so doing they place before the nature of the drug dealer a set of factors that may lead him to want most strongly to sell drugs to the men posing as interested buyers. When the drug dealer hands over the drugs to the buyers and receives payment for them, the crime has been committed and he is arrested and will be held morally (and legally) responsible for his crime. When this operation is done correctly, the criminal is not coerced, nor is he caused to commit the crime. Rather, he is presented with a setting to which his own nature responds the way that it does, wanting most strongly to carry out the illegal activity. The criminal, then, was free; he did what he wanted most to do, and he was not forced or coerced in the process. Yet the situation was ‘controlled’; factors of a situation were DESIGNED AND INTENTIONALLY PRESENTED to the criminal so that his nature would be given opportunity to manifest what it truly wanted to do. The cause of the choice was the nature of the criminal; some key factors leading to the choice were provided by others who sought to expose the criminal’s nature for what it was. When he made his choice, he showed what truly was in his heart, and in this he was free, and for this he is morally responsible” (123).
In this sting operation, however, the purpose behind it is a righteous one—to catch a criminal, someone who is disobeying the laws of their society. This is in no way an evil act, because righteous judgment in society consists of criminals being caught and “paying the price” for their deeds.
However, this is remotely different when it comes to the problem of evil. This is what Bruce Ware writes about God’s “meticulous” and absolute control:
“Finally, is it not clear that God is able not only to know what impact a certain set of influences will have upon our decisions, but that SINCE HE IS GOD, HE IS ABLE TO ADJUST AND REGULATE THE INFLUENCES THAT COME INTO OUR LIVES, so that by controlling the influences HE CAN REGULATE THE CHOICES WE WILL MAKE?” (82)
Notice that Bruce Ware believes that God can “adjust and regulate” influences in our lives so as to produce certain decisions from us that are in accordance with His plan. And for those who don’t believe this involves evil, let’s keep reading:
“God is always able to permit ONLY THOSE OCCURRENCES OF EVIL THAT HE KNOWS WILL SERVE HIS PURPOSES AND NEVER THWART OR HINDER THOSE PURPOSES. He is able to do this because, for any evil that may occur, it is always in God’s power to prevent that specific evil from happening” (107).
So now, the only evil used is that which “He knows will serve His purposes and never thwart or hinder those purposes.” Evidently, there is an evil that can thwart the purposes and plan of God that God doesn’t allow. If ANY evil can thwart God’s purposes, then how can He even prevent it from happening (since the evil itself is powerful enough to overcome God’s very own purposes)? If such an evil exists, then evil becomes eternal, just as God is eternal. Now, Bruce Ware has now made evil a “necessity,” and evil itself as eternal as God (and more powerful, since some evil can trump God’s plans).
I’ve established, that, according to Bruce Ware, God uses only that evil that He needs to accomplish His purposes; secondly, I showed that Ware believes that, like the sting operation, God sets up situations and “regulates influences” in our lives that move us to act according to our own desires.
If this is the case, then what about evil? If God sets up conditions such that we will commit evil, and He needs us to commit evil because it serves His purposes, then HOW CAN GOD NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVIL? This is what Ware writes regarding the Joseph story of Genesis 50:
“This Ishmaelite caravan just ‘happens’ to show up right exactly at the time needed. Recall, Reuben HAD TO BE GONE! And GOD HAD TO GET JOSEPH TO EGYPT. Clearly, the brothers didn’t care at all where Joseph might be taken. But God cared. So, IN PART BY GOD’S DIRECT-CAUSATIVE AGENCY,NO DOUBT...GOD ACTED TO ENSURE THAT JOSEPH GOT SENT TO EGYPT” (129).
The phrase I want us to observe is: “in part by God’s direct-causative agency...God acted to ensure that Joseph got sent to Egypt.” Remember Ware’s words earlier:
“Since God’s control of evil does not extend from his own nature, it cannot be ‘direct’ in the way his control of good is. That is, evil does not extend from God as good does, and hence, evil never is produced, as it were, ‘out of’ God’s own being and nature. Furthermore, GOD CANNOT WILL DIRECTLY AND IMMEDIATELY TO CAUSE EVIL, SINCE ALL THAT GOD WILLS TO DO HIMSELF (IMMEDIATELY) IS GOOD (e.g., Gen. 1:31; James 1:13, 17), AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO DO EVIL OF ANY KIND” (106).
Ware just told us that God cannot be “directly” responsible for evil. Yet, in his analysis of Genesis 50, God had to get the brothers to sell Joseph so that he would go to Egypt ("direct-causative agency)! According to Ware, since God wanted Joseph in Egypt, the ONLY WAY He could bring it about was through the cruel act of selling Joseph into slavery. By the way, the Lord prohibits slavery in His words to the Israelites (Leviticus 25:39-42).
Ware attempts to get God off the hook by merely claiming that He is not responsible for evil. But then, he turns around and claims that God ordains the means by which evil will be committed, not to mention that He “regulates and adjusts” the influences of men and women so that they will do EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS (whether good or evil). Yet and still, he can turn around and claim that “in regard to human volition, because the freedom given us is the freedom of inclination, God is able to control those factors influencing a person’s strongest inclination or deepest desire, and by this he can control the choices and actions that a person will make or do” (109). What kind of a God does Bruce Ware worship, where God does all the “controlling,” but places blame on man for the inevitable sin and evil that God has designed?
Ware’s remarks are not only contradictory to what he said earlier; they also contradict one of the passages he cited, James 1:
“Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, NOR DOES HE HIMSELF TEMPT ANYONE” (James 1:13, NKJV).
Let’s use an example: a Pastor who has been married for 15 years commits adultery. According to Bruce Ware, the pastor committed adultery because of “freedom of inclination”—the pastor did it because he wanted to. Bruce Ware would then turn around and make the man responsible for his act. However, there’s a problem with this claim: Ware would make the pastor responsible, but he would then claim that GOD REGULATED AND ADJUSTED THE INFLUENCES AND SET UP THE CONDITIONS in order to get the pastor to commit adultery. And why? because, as his book title states, for “God’s Greater Glory.” In Ware’s thought, God needed the pastor to commit adultery in order to bring about a greater good—that “greater good” being that the church could see that the pastor and his wife were having problems in their marriage and, as a result, offer counseling for married couples contemplating separation.
But does God REALLY have to have this pastor cheat on his wife in order to get the church to offer counseling for married couples having problems? Of course not! But if you’re Bruce Ware, or share his theological beliefs, evil is necessary to the plan of God. But how can God not be responsible, if evil is NEEDED in His plan?
We would all agree that the pastor bears blame for his actions. Would the pastor get off the hook if he said, “I cheated because I NEEDED understanding...and my wife wasn’t listening to me’”? Of course not! Everyone would blame the pastor for his adulterous act. But when it gets to God, and God NEEDS evil, suddenly, God is in no way, shape, or form responsible! How can this be?
Ware’s argumentation also contradicts common sense. Discussing one of the most atrocious events in world history, Edward Meadors of Taylor University writes,
“For while it may be true that Hitler never personally killed a single Jew, no one can question legitimately that he was morally responsible for the atrocious holocaust that he conceived with his henchmen. Hitler is thus universally recognized by all sane people as an evil figure in world history, even though he merely conceived but did not personally implement the holocaust. By analogy, something of this sort would indeed be true of God if he were the ‘BEHIND THE SCENES’ primary agent of the moral evils that his created secondary agents perform” [“‘It Never Entered My Mind’: The Problematic Theodicy of Theistic Determinism.” Bulletin for Biblical Research, vol. 19, no. 2 (2009): page 203 (total article is 185-214)].
Bruce Ware commits here what I call an “explicit contradiction.” He claims that God is not responsible for evil, but then turns around and makes God responsible for evil. All he does is give “lip service” to the goodness of God; but his arguments say otherwise...
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Divine Sovereignty, Human Responsibility, and Middle Knowledge Calvinism
“God is comprehensively in control of the world, accomplishing purposes that he has determined in eternity. Because His will is always accomplished, it is evident that God’s creatures (human and angelic) do not have libertarian freedom” (“Providence and Prayer” by Terrence Tiessen. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000, page 289).
I know that “Middle Knowledge Calvinism” is a subject that has NEVER been discussed here at the Center for Theological Studies. However, I stumbled across this article some months ago and added it to my desktop (as I do so many articles that it’ll take the next year to read!!). In any case, Tiessen was quoted in an article, and I find the quote from Tiessen’s own work to be one worth examining here.
First, see how Tiessen expands sovereignty and diminishes human choice: “Because His will is always accomplished, it is evident that God’s creatures (human and angelic) do not have libertarian freedom.”
Tiessen, however, has not read Genesis 1-2, where we find God sharing power with His creation. Terrence Fretheim explains:
“...readers have often suggested an image of the Creator God that is in absolute control of the developing creation, working independently and unilaterally. In fact, such an understanding has been the dominant image of the Creator God through the centuries in the religious traditions for which these texts are authoritative. But, is this theological understanding fully appropriate to an explication of the creation passages?
A closer look suggests that such a perspective needs to be modified. From a negative perspective, if this understanding of God in creation is correct, then those created in God’s image could properly understand their role regarding the rest of creation in comparable terms—power over, absolute control, and independence. By definition, if nonhuman creatures are understood to be but passive putty in the hands of God, then the natural world becomes available for comparable handling by those who go by the name ‘image of God.’
From a positive perspective, the creation accounts make available another point of view regarding the Creator God. WHAT IF THE GOD OF THE CREATION TEXTS IS UNDERSTOOD TO BE IMAGED MORE AS ONE WHO, IN CREATING, CHOOSES TO SHARE POWER IN RELATIONSHIP? Then the way in which the human as image of God exercises dominion is to be shaped by that model.
Evidence for this understanding is more widespread in these accounts than is commonly suggested. One might cite, in particular, the way in which these texts speak of the mode in which God chooses to create. Four models may be suggested: God creates out of already existing materials (for example, the human being out of the dust of the ground, Gen. 2:7); God invites the divine assembly to participate in furthering creative activity (for example, the earth and the waters, 1:11-13, 20, 24); God invites the divine assembly to participate in the creation of the human (‘let us,’ 1:26-27); God draws the human being into further creative activity (for example, 4:1, where creating language, ‘qanah,’ used again for God in Gen. 14:19-22, is used with Eve as the subject). God’s approach to creating in these examples is communal and relational. In the wake of God’s initiating creativity, the Creator God again and again works from within the world in creating, rather than on the world from without—God EMPLOYING CREATURES AS GENUINE AGENTS, RATHER THAN WORKING INDEPENDENTLY. Certainly all creatures, including human beings, are deeply dependent upon God for their creation and continuing life. At the same time, these texts show that God has chosen to establish an INTERDEPENDENT relationship with them with respect to both originating and continuing creation.
This interdependent divine way with the world may also be observed in the command to the human: ‘be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion.’ This action on God’s part, the first divine words spoken to the newly created human beings, may be considered a POWER-SHARING MOVE. God here chooses not to retain all power, but to SHARE IT WITH HUMAN BEINGS: I am giving you specific tasks to accomplish and, by definition, the power with which to carry out those responsibilities. GOD THEREBY CHOOSES NOT TO DO EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD ‘ALL BY HIMSELF’” (Terence Fretheim, “Preaching Creation: Genesis 1-2.” From “Word and World,” Vol. 29, no. 1 (Winter 2009): 77-78.
As can be seen from Fretheim’s quote, humans have been given power by God; therefore, humans have true libertarian freedom. Genesis 2 also shows us true libertarian freedom, as Adam is allowed to bestow upon the animals whatever name he desires:
“Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and BROUGHT THEM TO ADAM TO SEE WHAT HE WOULD CALL THEM. AND WHATEVER ADAM CALLED EACH LIVING CREATURE, THAT WAS ITS NAME” (Gen. 2:19, NKJV).
In Genesis 2:19, the Lord doesn’t tell Adam what to name the creatures; He simply gives them to Adam and says, “You name them.” Up until this point, the Lord Himself has named creation (sun, moon, stars, water, earth, sky, etc.). At this point, however, Adam is allowed to operate with the dominion that God has given him.
Secondly, Tiessen’s notion of absolute sovereignty: “Because His will is ALWAYS ACCOMPLISHED...”
But is this really true? I would love to be able to admit that everything God desires done is always done. However, if I did that, I would be denying Scripture:
“And when all the people heard Him [Jesus], 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 7:29-30, NKJV).
We see that the Pharisees and lawyers “rejected the will of God for themselves.” This tells us that, in at least one instance of Scripture (although there are more), that God’s will is rejected.
For another example, I’ll go to a passage that we’re all familiar with:
“The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?’And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’‘and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”?‘So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate’” (Matthew 19:3-6, NKJV).
The storyline here involves the Pharisees asking Jesus about the justifiability of divorce. The Lord tells them that from the beginning, man and woman were meant to never separate.
But then, Jesus says something else that should take us by surprise IF, as Terrance Tiessen tells us, God’s will cannot fail to come to pass. When asked about Moses issuing a writ of divorce, Jesus responded:
“Moses, BECAUSE OF THE HARDNESS OF YOUR HEARTS, permitted you to divorce your wives, BUT FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO” (Matthew 19:8, NKJV).
When Jesus says that “from the beginning it was not so,” He is claiming something profound—that divorce was not in God’s original plan. When God made the world, He made everything “good,” according to Genesis 1. Divorce, however, according to Jesus, is “bad,” so divorce could not have been part of the original plan of world history.
There are only two ways to approach sovereignty and human freedom: either by expanding the sovereignty of God and eliminating human freedom...or by granting human freedom with the sharing of sovereignty, as Genesis 1:26-28 and Genesis 2:19 demonstrate. I will write more in the coming days.
I know that “Middle Knowledge Calvinism” is a subject that has NEVER been discussed here at the Center for Theological Studies. However, I stumbled across this article some months ago and added it to my desktop (as I do so many articles that it’ll take the next year to read!!). In any case, Tiessen was quoted in an article, and I find the quote from Tiessen’s own work to be one worth examining here.
First, see how Tiessen expands sovereignty and diminishes human choice: “Because His will is always accomplished, it is evident that God’s creatures (human and angelic) do not have libertarian freedom.”
Tiessen, however, has not read Genesis 1-2, where we find God sharing power with His creation. Terrence Fretheim explains:
“...readers have often suggested an image of the Creator God that is in absolute control of the developing creation, working independently and unilaterally. In fact, such an understanding has been the dominant image of the Creator God through the centuries in the religious traditions for which these texts are authoritative. But, is this theological understanding fully appropriate to an explication of the creation passages?
A closer look suggests that such a perspective needs to be modified. From a negative perspective, if this understanding of God in creation is correct, then those created in God’s image could properly understand their role regarding the rest of creation in comparable terms—power over, absolute control, and independence. By definition, if nonhuman creatures are understood to be but passive putty in the hands of God, then the natural world becomes available for comparable handling by those who go by the name ‘image of God.’
From a positive perspective, the creation accounts make available another point of view regarding the Creator God. WHAT IF THE GOD OF THE CREATION TEXTS IS UNDERSTOOD TO BE IMAGED MORE AS ONE WHO, IN CREATING, CHOOSES TO SHARE POWER IN RELATIONSHIP? Then the way in which the human as image of God exercises dominion is to be shaped by that model.
Evidence for this understanding is more widespread in these accounts than is commonly suggested. One might cite, in particular, the way in which these texts speak of the mode in which God chooses to create. Four models may be suggested: God creates out of already existing materials (for example, the human being out of the dust of the ground, Gen. 2:7); God invites the divine assembly to participate in furthering creative activity (for example, the earth and the waters, 1:11-13, 20, 24); God invites the divine assembly to participate in the creation of the human (‘let us,’ 1:26-27); God draws the human being into further creative activity (for example, 4:1, where creating language, ‘qanah,’ used again for God in Gen. 14:19-22, is used with Eve as the subject). God’s approach to creating in these examples is communal and relational. In the wake of God’s initiating creativity, the Creator God again and again works from within the world in creating, rather than on the world from without—God EMPLOYING CREATURES AS GENUINE AGENTS, RATHER THAN WORKING INDEPENDENTLY. Certainly all creatures, including human beings, are deeply dependent upon God for their creation and continuing life. At the same time, these texts show that God has chosen to establish an INTERDEPENDENT relationship with them with respect to both originating and continuing creation.
This interdependent divine way with the world may also be observed in the command to the human: ‘be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion.’ This action on God’s part, the first divine words spoken to the newly created human beings, may be considered a POWER-SHARING MOVE. God here chooses not to retain all power, but to SHARE IT WITH HUMAN BEINGS: I am giving you specific tasks to accomplish and, by definition, the power with which to carry out those responsibilities. GOD THEREBY CHOOSES NOT TO DO EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD ‘ALL BY HIMSELF’” (Terence Fretheim, “Preaching Creation: Genesis 1-2.” From “Word and World,” Vol. 29, no. 1 (Winter 2009): 77-78.
As can be seen from Fretheim’s quote, humans have been given power by God; therefore, humans have true libertarian freedom. Genesis 2 also shows us true libertarian freedom, as Adam is allowed to bestow upon the animals whatever name he desires:
“Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and BROUGHT THEM TO ADAM TO SEE WHAT HE WOULD CALL THEM. AND WHATEVER ADAM CALLED EACH LIVING CREATURE, THAT WAS ITS NAME” (Gen. 2:19, NKJV).
In Genesis 2:19, the Lord doesn’t tell Adam what to name the creatures; He simply gives them to Adam and says, “You name them.” Up until this point, the Lord Himself has named creation (sun, moon, stars, water, earth, sky, etc.). At this point, however, Adam is allowed to operate with the dominion that God has given him.
Secondly, Tiessen’s notion of absolute sovereignty: “Because His will is ALWAYS ACCOMPLISHED...”
But is this really true? I would love to be able to admit that everything God desires done is always done. However, if I did that, I would be denying Scripture:
“And when all the people heard Him [Jesus], 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 7:29-30, NKJV).
We see that the Pharisees and lawyers “rejected the will of God for themselves.” This tells us that, in at least one instance of Scripture (although there are more), that God’s will is rejected.
For another example, I’ll go to a passage that we’re all familiar with:
“The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?’And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’‘and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”?‘So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate’” (Matthew 19:3-6, NKJV).
The storyline here involves the Pharisees asking Jesus about the justifiability of divorce. The Lord tells them that from the beginning, man and woman were meant to never separate.
But then, Jesus says something else that should take us by surprise IF, as Terrance Tiessen tells us, God’s will cannot fail to come to pass. When asked about Moses issuing a writ of divorce, Jesus responded:
“Moses, BECAUSE OF THE HARDNESS OF YOUR HEARTS, permitted you to divorce your wives, BUT FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO” (Matthew 19:8, NKJV).
When Jesus says that “from the beginning it was not so,” He is claiming something profound—that divorce was not in God’s original plan. When God made the world, He made everything “good,” according to Genesis 1. Divorce, however, according to Jesus, is “bad,” so divorce could not have been part of the original plan of world history.
There are only two ways to approach sovereignty and human freedom: either by expanding the sovereignty of God and eliminating human freedom...or by granting human freedom with the sharing of sovereignty, as Genesis 1:26-28 and Genesis 2:19 demonstrate. I will write more in the coming days.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Confessions Of An "Irresistible Gracer"
“...the doctrine of irresistible grace DOES NOT PROPOSE THAT EACH AND EVERY GRACIOUS WORK OR INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IS IRRESISTIBLE. Clearly, there is biblical warrant for affirming a doctrine of resistible grace, if by this one means that people may resist certain gracious influences of the Spirit. The grieving and quenching of the Spirit (Eph. 4:30 and 1 Thess. 5:19 respectively) are examples of such resistance, as is the explicit statement by Stephen that the Jewish leaders ‘always resist[ed] the Holy Spirit,’ just as their fathers did (Acts 7:51). And when believers are admonished to ‘live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature’ (Gal. 5:16), clearly the implication is that THEY MAY CHOOSE NOT TO LIVE BY THE SPIRIT’S POWER, thus resisting the gracious and transforming work he wishes to accomplish in their lives. NOT ALL GRACE, THEN, IS IRRESISTIBLE. When Calvinists refer to irresistible grace, they mean to say that the Holy Spirit is able, when he so chooses, to overcome all human resistance and so cause his gracious work to be utterly effective and ultimately irresistible” (Bruce A. Ware, “Effectual Calling and Grace,” from “Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace” by Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware, eds. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000, page 211).
I just love it when Calvinists come clean about the truths of Scripture. Bruce Ware is at his finest here. If I had heard him say this in person, I think I would’ve given the man a “standing ovation” for theological honesty.
Now that my initial shock is over with (smile), let’s deal with the above quote. Bruce Ware mentions that the Scriptures support a concept of resistible grace: Ephesians 4:30, 1 Thessalonians 5:19, and Acts 7:51. In addition, Bruce Ware even affirms that believers can resist the Spirit: “they [believers] may choose not to live by the Spirit’s power, thus RESISTING the gracious and transforming work he wishes to accomplish in their lives.” He concludes this section with “not all grace...is irresistible.” He then explains what he means by irresistible grace—which is, that when the Lord so chooses, He can effectually work in someone for His own purposes. Bruce Ware then gives his evidence for irresistible grace: John 6:22-65, 1 Corinthians 1:18-31, and Romans 8:28-30.
Notice that Ware’s exegesis is dead on regarding 1 Corinthians 1:
“The burning question, for our purposes, is why some consider it [gospel of message of the cross, 1:18] God’s power and wisdom while others reject it as weakness and foolishness...Paul gives two answers to this question. First, he says that although the world in its wisdom did not come to know God, God was pleased to use the gospel to ‘SAVE THOSE WHO BELIEVE’ (1:21). So what accounts for these two conflicting responses to the gospel? Answer: SOME RESIST THE MESSAGE AND SOME BELIEVE IT. Paul affirms what Jesus had likewise taught in JOHN 6, (see 6:35, 40, 47), namely, that ALL WHO BELIEVE THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST WILL BE SAVED” (“Still Sovereign,” page 221).
But then, Ware’s Calvinist commitments return to the surface:
“But, we wonder, is there any accounting for why some believe and others do not?...the gospel elicits conflicting responses because God calls some from among Jews and Gentiles who, as a group, reject the gospel, so that these (i.e., the called) accept the cross as God’s power and wisdom while others (i.e., the Jews and Gentiles generally, WHO ARE NOT CALLED) remain in their prideful unbelief and resistance” (221, 222).
And in another place he writes,
“It is true that other texts speak clearly of the gospel going to all so that whoever believes may come and be saved (e.g., Rom. 10:12-13), BUT THIS CLEARLY CANNOT BE WHAT OUR PRESENT TEXT IS ABOUT” (222).
What Ware forgets is that Paul discusses his justification for this earlier in the text:
“For it is written:
‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.’” (1 Cor. 1:19, NKJV)
What Paul is saying here is that the Lord promised to create a “reversal of fortunes”; and that’s what the preached message is all about—showing the wise that they are foolish and showing the foolish to be wise!
But Paul goes back even further than this and states that “those who are called, both Jews and Greeks” (v. 24) refers to also those who call on the Lord’s name:
“To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, CALLED TO BE SAINTS, WITH ALL WHO IN EVERY PLACE CALL ON THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, both theirs and ours...” (1 Cor. 1:2, NKJV)
We see here a connection between those who are “called” and those who “call.” Only when the Lord calls us can we call upon His name in response. Once He calls us, we then have a responsibility to respond.
In addition, look at verse 21: “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God THROUGH THE FOOLISHNESS OF THE MESSAGE PREACHED TO SAVE THOSE WHO BELIEVE” (1 Cor. 1:21, NKJV).
So those who succumb to the “foolishness” of the preached Word are saved, while those who hang on to the “wisdom of the world” are still lost and “stumble” over Christ, “the chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2).
Let’s look at Bruce Ware’s quote once more:
"Clearly, there is biblical warrant for affirming a doctrine of resistible grace, if by this one means that people may resist certain gracious influences of the Spirit. The grieving and quenching of the Spirit (Eph. 4:30 and 1 Thess. 5:19 respectively) are examples of such resistance, as is the explicit statement by Stephen that the Jewish leaders ‘always resist[ed] the Holy Spirit,’ just as their fathers did (Acts 7:51). And when believers are admonished to ‘live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature’ (Gal. 5:16), clearly the implication is that THEY MAY CHOOSE NOT TO LIVE BY THE SPIRIT’S POWER, thus resisting the gracious and transforming work he wishes to accomplish in their lives. NOT ALL GRACE, THEN, IS IRRESISTIBLE.”
Ware would have us believe that his doctrine of irresistible grace has biblical warrant; but if irresistible grace is how God works, then why is it that only “resistible” grace is named in the Scriptures?
I just love it when Calvinists come clean about the truths of Scripture. Bruce Ware is at his finest here. If I had heard him say this in person, I think I would’ve given the man a “standing ovation” for theological honesty.
Now that my initial shock is over with (smile), let’s deal with the above quote. Bruce Ware mentions that the Scriptures support a concept of resistible grace: Ephesians 4:30, 1 Thessalonians 5:19, and Acts 7:51. In addition, Bruce Ware even affirms that believers can resist the Spirit: “they [believers] may choose not to live by the Spirit’s power, thus RESISTING the gracious and transforming work he wishes to accomplish in their lives.” He concludes this section with “not all grace...is irresistible.” He then explains what he means by irresistible grace—which is, that when the Lord so chooses, He can effectually work in someone for His own purposes. Bruce Ware then gives his evidence for irresistible grace: John 6:22-65, 1 Corinthians 1:18-31, and Romans 8:28-30.
Notice that Ware’s exegesis is dead on regarding 1 Corinthians 1:
“The burning question, for our purposes, is why some consider it [gospel of message of the cross, 1:18] God’s power and wisdom while others reject it as weakness and foolishness...Paul gives two answers to this question. First, he says that although the world in its wisdom did not come to know God, God was pleased to use the gospel to ‘SAVE THOSE WHO BELIEVE’ (1:21). So what accounts for these two conflicting responses to the gospel? Answer: SOME RESIST THE MESSAGE AND SOME BELIEVE IT. Paul affirms what Jesus had likewise taught in JOHN 6, (see 6:35, 40, 47), namely, that ALL WHO BELIEVE THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST WILL BE SAVED” (“Still Sovereign,” page 221).
But then, Ware’s Calvinist commitments return to the surface:
“But, we wonder, is there any accounting for why some believe and others do not?...the gospel elicits conflicting responses because God calls some from among Jews and Gentiles who, as a group, reject the gospel, so that these (i.e., the called) accept the cross as God’s power and wisdom while others (i.e., the Jews and Gentiles generally, WHO ARE NOT CALLED) remain in their prideful unbelief and resistance” (221, 222).
And in another place he writes,
“It is true that other texts speak clearly of the gospel going to all so that whoever believes may come and be saved (e.g., Rom. 10:12-13), BUT THIS CLEARLY CANNOT BE WHAT OUR PRESENT TEXT IS ABOUT” (222).
What Ware forgets is that Paul discusses his justification for this earlier in the text:
“For it is written:
‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.’” (1 Cor. 1:19, NKJV)
What Paul is saying here is that the Lord promised to create a “reversal of fortunes”; and that’s what the preached message is all about—showing the wise that they are foolish and showing the foolish to be wise!
But Paul goes back even further than this and states that “those who are called, both Jews and Greeks” (v. 24) refers to also those who call on the Lord’s name:
“To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, CALLED TO BE SAINTS, WITH ALL WHO IN EVERY PLACE CALL ON THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, both theirs and ours...” (1 Cor. 1:2, NKJV)
We see here a connection between those who are “called” and those who “call.” Only when the Lord calls us can we call upon His name in response. Once He calls us, we then have a responsibility to respond.
In addition, look at verse 21: “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God THROUGH THE FOOLISHNESS OF THE MESSAGE PREACHED TO SAVE THOSE WHO BELIEVE” (1 Cor. 1:21, NKJV).
So those who succumb to the “foolishness” of the preached Word are saved, while those who hang on to the “wisdom of the world” are still lost and “stumble” over Christ, “the chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2).
Let’s look at Bruce Ware’s quote once more:
"Clearly, there is biblical warrant for affirming a doctrine of resistible grace, if by this one means that people may resist certain gracious influences of the Spirit. The grieving and quenching of the Spirit (Eph. 4:30 and 1 Thess. 5:19 respectively) are examples of such resistance, as is the explicit statement by Stephen that the Jewish leaders ‘always resist[ed] the Holy Spirit,’ just as their fathers did (Acts 7:51). And when believers are admonished to ‘live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature’ (Gal. 5:16), clearly the implication is that THEY MAY CHOOSE NOT TO LIVE BY THE SPIRIT’S POWER, thus resisting the gracious and transforming work he wishes to accomplish in their lives. NOT ALL GRACE, THEN, IS IRRESISTIBLE.”
Ware would have us believe that his doctrine of irresistible grace has biblical warrant; but if irresistible grace is how God works, then why is it that only “resistible” grace is named in the Scriptures?
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The Defense of God
“Now we are ready to ask whether the apostle Paul fears that he might lose his salvation. Before we answer, it is important to note that this passage [1 Cor.9:23-27] is distinctive because Paul has plainly placed himself in the midst of his warning metaphor. The significance of this should not escape us, for this passage should function as a paradigm for understanding all similar warnings in Paul’s letters. Here is the question: Does the apostle Paul fear that it is possible that God will reject him as a reprobate on the day of judgment? IF WE ANSWER YES, WE MUST BE PREPARED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT PAUL ALSO DOUBTS GOD’S FAITHFULNESS TO HIS PROMISE TO PRESERVE HIS PEOPLE TO THE END...HE MUST DOUBT GOD’S FAITHFULNESS SO THAT HE CAN BELIEVE GOD’S WARNING. OF COURSE, THIS IS INCORRECT, for Paul is the one who calls on the Corinthians to believe in God’s steadfastness to confirm his own children to the end (1 Cor. 1:8-9). Yet this is precisely what we must affirm if we hold that Paul fears that God might reject him as a reprobate on the day of judgment” (Thomas R. Schreiner, “The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001, pages 182-183).
Schreiner gives us what I call “the classic defense of God.” This is what happens when a person claims God’s promises and focuses all on God instead of God and mankind. I’ve made it known here at the site that Schreiner seems to place such a major emphasis on the positive connotations of every warning—although he claims theological objectivity. He’ll tell us that “once saved, always saved” is wrong; but then, he’ll argue “once saved, always saved” in his conclusions.
In the quote above, Schreiner does what all Calvinists do: they point to verses about God and say, “See, we’ll go to heaven because God will do this and that.” The problem here is, however, that Paul also says in chapter one of 1 Corinthians that “God is faithful” (1 Cor. 1:9, NKJV).
God’s faithfulness, however, has nothing to do with man’s faithfulness. The “God who is faithful” not only tells us of His nature in Scripture, but also requires us to be faithful (Revelation 2:10).
Paul, writing about the Jews and his anguish over their salvation, records the following in his letter to the Romans:
“For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the FAITHFULNESS OF GOD without effect? CERTAINLY NOT! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written:
‘That You may be justified in Your words, and may overcome when You are judged.’
But if OUR UNRIGHTEOUSNESS demonstrates the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD, what shall we say? IS GOD UNJUST WHO INFLICTS WRATH? (I speak as a man.) CERTAINLY NOT! FOR THEN HOW WILL GOD JUDGE THE WORLD?” (Romans 3:3-6, NKJV)
Paul asks the question, “if some did not believe...will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect?” If some of the Jews fail to believe, is God’s faithfulness absent? Paul responds, “Certainly not!” He seems to DIVIDE man’s faithfulness from God’s faithfulness, man’s unbelief from God’s faithfulness.
Next, he talks of the fact that although Israel has failed to believe, God is still faithful to her regardless. His faithfulness is unconditional; but does this “erase” man’s need to be righteous before God? Paul’s response is “Certainly not!” Is God unjust to punish if He is magnified through Israel’s unbelief? Paul says that God is just; for if He isn’t, “how then will God judge the world?”
God’s faithfulness is the standard BY WHICH HE WILL JUDGE THE WORLD! His faithfulness will convict the world because of their unbelief and unfaithfulness to Him.
Here is what Schreiner wrote a few paragraphs before the current quote above:
“The whole context makes it clear that to be ‘adokimos’ (reprobate) is the OPPOSITE OF BEING A ‘FELLOW PARTAKER’(SYNKOINONOS) OF THE GOSPEL...for the apostle, then, ‘adokimos’ METAPHORICALLY REPRESENTS REPROBATION, ETERNAL LOSS. Paul uses the athletic imagery, therefore, to make it clear to the Corinthians that FOR HIM ALSO THERE IS NO SALVATION WITHOUT PERSEVERANCE” (181).
At the time Paul writes 1 Corinthians 9, he realizes that even he can be cast away into eternal damnation if he didn’t stay the course and keep enduring. If there wasn’t a real actual possibility of Paul being “disqualified” from the heavenly reward, why write this? Was it just “hypothetical,” for the purpose of scaring the Corinthians into doing the right thing?
Paul uses the word ‘adokimos’ elsewhere in his letters, particularly his letter to the Romans:
“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a DEBASED mind, to do those things which are not fitting” (Romans 1:28, NKJV).
The Greek word for “debased” here is “adokimon,” from “adokimos,” meaning “reprobate.” So we find here that it is the same word that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 9 to talk about a very real possibility of eternal loss.
I want to point out something else, though. Romans 1 tells us that such people “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18) and, although knowing God, refuse to give Him the glory He deserves (v.21). They decide to serve the creature rather than the Creator (v.25), and what does God do? “Therefore God ALSO GAVE THEM UP TO UNCLEANNESS...” (v.24). These ungodly people begin to worship anything except for God Himself, and what does God do? “God GAVE THEM UP TO VILE PASSIONS” (v.26). They begin to commit all sorts of immorality, with no limit in sight. If that isn’t bad enough, we find that such people reject God to the point that they don’t even wanna keep the knowledge of God (for this is what convicts them, v.28); as a result, “God gave them over to a debased mind” (v.28).
We see here in Romans 1 that God does “give people over” to their choices, despite their knowledge of right and wrong. God does this because they know God through the things He has made, being without excuse (Rom. 1:19-20).
There are those who sin willingly after receiving the knowledge of the truth (Hebrews 10: 26). For those who do so, however, “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries” (Heb. 10:26-27, NKJV). And it is true as it is written: “The Lord will judge His people” (Deut. 32:26, Heb. 10:30b).
Schreiner gives us what I call “the classic defense of God.” This is what happens when a person claims God’s promises and focuses all on God instead of God and mankind. I’ve made it known here at the site that Schreiner seems to place such a major emphasis on the positive connotations of every warning—although he claims theological objectivity. He’ll tell us that “once saved, always saved” is wrong; but then, he’ll argue “once saved, always saved” in his conclusions.
In the quote above, Schreiner does what all Calvinists do: they point to verses about God and say, “See, we’ll go to heaven because God will do this and that.” The problem here is, however, that Paul also says in chapter one of 1 Corinthians that “God is faithful” (1 Cor. 1:9, NKJV).
God’s faithfulness, however, has nothing to do with man’s faithfulness. The “God who is faithful” not only tells us of His nature in Scripture, but also requires us to be faithful (Revelation 2:10).
Paul, writing about the Jews and his anguish over their salvation, records the following in his letter to the Romans:
“For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the FAITHFULNESS OF GOD without effect? CERTAINLY NOT! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written:
‘That You may be justified in Your words, and may overcome when You are judged.’
But if OUR UNRIGHTEOUSNESS demonstrates the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD, what shall we say? IS GOD UNJUST WHO INFLICTS WRATH? (I speak as a man.) CERTAINLY NOT! FOR THEN HOW WILL GOD JUDGE THE WORLD?” (Romans 3:3-6, NKJV)
Paul asks the question, “if some did not believe...will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect?” If some of the Jews fail to believe, is God’s faithfulness absent? Paul responds, “Certainly not!” He seems to DIVIDE man’s faithfulness from God’s faithfulness, man’s unbelief from God’s faithfulness.
Next, he talks of the fact that although Israel has failed to believe, God is still faithful to her regardless. His faithfulness is unconditional; but does this “erase” man’s need to be righteous before God? Paul’s response is “Certainly not!” Is God unjust to punish if He is magnified through Israel’s unbelief? Paul says that God is just; for if He isn’t, “how then will God judge the world?”
God’s faithfulness is the standard BY WHICH HE WILL JUDGE THE WORLD! His faithfulness will convict the world because of their unbelief and unfaithfulness to Him.
Here is what Schreiner wrote a few paragraphs before the current quote above:
“The whole context makes it clear that to be ‘adokimos’ (reprobate) is the OPPOSITE OF BEING A ‘FELLOW PARTAKER’(SYNKOINONOS) OF THE GOSPEL...for the apostle, then, ‘adokimos’ METAPHORICALLY REPRESENTS REPROBATION, ETERNAL LOSS. Paul uses the athletic imagery, therefore, to make it clear to the Corinthians that FOR HIM ALSO THERE IS NO SALVATION WITHOUT PERSEVERANCE” (181).
At the time Paul writes 1 Corinthians 9, he realizes that even he can be cast away into eternal damnation if he didn’t stay the course and keep enduring. If there wasn’t a real actual possibility of Paul being “disqualified” from the heavenly reward, why write this? Was it just “hypothetical,” for the purpose of scaring the Corinthians into doing the right thing?
Paul uses the word ‘adokimos’ elsewhere in his letters, particularly his letter to the Romans:
“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a DEBASED mind, to do those things which are not fitting” (Romans 1:28, NKJV).
The Greek word for “debased” here is “adokimon,” from “adokimos,” meaning “reprobate.” So we find here that it is the same word that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 9 to talk about a very real possibility of eternal loss.
I want to point out something else, though. Romans 1 tells us that such people “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18) and, although knowing God, refuse to give Him the glory He deserves (v.21). They decide to serve the creature rather than the Creator (v.25), and what does God do? “Therefore God ALSO GAVE THEM UP TO UNCLEANNESS...” (v.24). These ungodly people begin to worship anything except for God Himself, and what does God do? “God GAVE THEM UP TO VILE PASSIONS” (v.26). They begin to commit all sorts of immorality, with no limit in sight. If that isn’t bad enough, we find that such people reject God to the point that they don’t even wanna keep the knowledge of God (for this is what convicts them, v.28); as a result, “God gave them over to a debased mind” (v.28).
We see here in Romans 1 that God does “give people over” to their choices, despite their knowledge of right and wrong. God does this because they know God through the things He has made, being without excuse (Rom. 1:19-20).
There are those who sin willingly after receiving the knowledge of the truth (Hebrews 10: 26). For those who do so, however, “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries” (Heb. 10:26-27, NKJV). And it is true as it is written: “The Lord will judge His people” (Deut. 32:26, Heb. 10:30b).
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Romans 8:13
“But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, IF INDEED THE SPIRIT OF GOD DWELLS IN YOU. Now IF ANYONE DOES NOT HAVE THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST, he is not His. And IF CHRIST IS IN YOU, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For IF YOU LIVE ACCORDING TO THE FLESH you will die; but IF BY THE SPIRIT YOU PUT TO DEATH THE DEEDS OF THE BODY, you will live” (Romans 8:9-13, NKJV).
Today I’m dealing with Paul’s letter to the Romans, Romans chapter 8 as quoted above. I’m still working through Schreiner’s book on “The Race Set Before Us,” so this post will involve another one of Schreiner’s exegetical “blunders.” Regarding the above passage, Schreiner writes,
“Paul clearly addresses his warning to believers, for he assumes for the sake of his argument that his readers concur that his suppositions of Romans 8:9-11 are true of them. Therefore, he appeals to his readers as ‘brothers and sisters’(v.12). His conditional warning of verse 13 SUGGESTS NOTHING ABOUT POSSIBILITY OR PROBABILITY OF FULFILLING EITHER SUPPOSITION. Paul includes his warning for one fundamental purpose, namely, TO URGE US TO RESIST THE TEMPTATION TO LIVE ACCORDING TO THE WAY OF THE FLESH NOW AND DIE IN THE LAST DAY, AND INSTEAD, through the Spirit, TO DIE TO ONE’S DESIRES NOW IN ORDER THAT IN THE DAY TO COME WE MIGHT ATTAIN LIFE” (Thomas Schreiner, “The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001, page 175).
The first phrase capitalized above in Schreiner’s quote is that Romans 8:13 “suggests nothing about POSSIBILITY of PROBABILITY of fulfilling either supposition.” Before I attack Schreiner, let’s get some definitions going:
(1) “possibility”-- 1 : the condition or fact of being possible
(2) “possible”-- 1 a : being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization
(3) “probability”-- 3 : likely to be or become true or real
So when Schreiner says that Paul mentions nothing about “possibility” or “probability,” he’s saying that Paul doesn’t render judgment on the believers (probability); but neither does he suggest that they have the ability to “walk after the flesh,” one of the conditions of Romans 8:13. Instead, what function does Schreiner believe Romans 8:13 plays? In his mind, it is just a HYPOTHETICAL warning: “Paul includes his warning for one fundamental purpose...to urge us to resist the temptation to live according to the way of the flesh...and instead, through the Spirit, to die to one’s desires now in order that in the day to come we might attain life.”
Schreiner would agree with the words of Goodwin regarding the first-class condition: “When the [condition]...SIMPLY STATES a present or past...supposition, implying nothing as to the fulfilment [sic] of the condition, it takes a present or past tense of the indicative with ‘ei’.”
According to Goodwin, “nothing as to the fulfilment of the condition” is present in the “if” clause (“if you live according to the flesh,” for example). However, A.T. Robertson disagrees:
“This condition POINTEDLY IMPLIES the fulfilment of the condition. It is the CONDITION OF ACTUALITY, REALITY, Wirklichkeit, and not mere ‘possibility” (A.T. Robertson, “A Grammar of the Greek New Testament In Light of Historical Research,” Fourth Edition. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934, page 1006).
A.T. Robertson, a Baptist, would disagree with our Baptist friend, Thomas Schreiner here. Notice that Robertson labels this condition a “condition of actuality,” distinguishing it from “mere possibility.” Robertson would disagree with Schreiner and say that Paul’s warning in Romans 8:13, that “if you live according to the flesh you will die,” is a CONDITION OF ACTUALITY: a person who has the Spirit within can succumb to sin and live a sinful lifestyle. Paul’s warning is not hypothetical—as if to say, “well, technically you can live in sin...but, you won’t.” Paul doesn’t declare judgment on the Roman congregation, but makes it clear that “two realities,” not “a reality and a hypothetical possibility” lie before them: they can walk after the Spirit, be led by the Spirit, and live eternally, or they can walk after the flesh and live according to the deeds of the body...and perish eternally.
We understand why Schreiner gives his “hypothetical warning” view of Romans 8:13 when he goes into further analysis of this verse:
“...the warning is a significant means that God uses, through His Spirit, TO SECURE HIS PROMISED SALVATION IN US” (“The Race Set Before Us,” page 176).
As you can see, Schreiner’s presupposition crawls in again. The warnings never contain a serious caution of punishment—instead, they serve to “encourage” us, to push us forward in perseverance. I would say that the warnings do so, but they also caution us of eternal punishment if we fail to persevere. As I stated in a recent post, God did not warn Adam and Eve for the sake of motivating them to obey Him; He also cautioned them about REAL ACTUAL CONSEQUENCES for their disobedience. And Schreiner seems to assume that the consequences for disobedience are not possible for the believer.
Last but not least, notice what he says about this condition of Romans 8:13:
“The first-class condition (“if you live according to the flesh you will die”, example mine) in the Greek New Testament functions to express an assumption for the sake of the argument being made. IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT ITS LIKELIHOOD OF FAILURE OR SUCCESS” (footnote, page 173).
Notice that no “likelihood of failure or success” is mentioned in the above condition. But what Schreiner fails to see is, that if the likelihood of failure is not mentioned, then NEITHER IS THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS mentioned either!! This means, then, that Schreiner’s supposed assumption of God “encouraging us” to persevere cannot be completely believed as he espouses it. We’ve already seen in other texts that Schreiner immediately dispels the actual choice of being saved and living in sin; however, when it gets to warnings like that of Romans 8:13, God seems to always be “assuring us” that we can persevere to the end, and God is ALWAYS motivating us to do so. But why is it that Schreiner claims to be neutral in the warnings, but still affirms the same conclusion as John MacArthur—that salvation cannot be thrown away?
Today I’m dealing with Paul’s letter to the Romans, Romans chapter 8 as quoted above. I’m still working through Schreiner’s book on “The Race Set Before Us,” so this post will involve another one of Schreiner’s exegetical “blunders.” Regarding the above passage, Schreiner writes,
“Paul clearly addresses his warning to believers, for he assumes for the sake of his argument that his readers concur that his suppositions of Romans 8:9-11 are true of them. Therefore, he appeals to his readers as ‘brothers and sisters’(v.12). His conditional warning of verse 13 SUGGESTS NOTHING ABOUT POSSIBILITY OR PROBABILITY OF FULFILLING EITHER SUPPOSITION. Paul includes his warning for one fundamental purpose, namely, TO URGE US TO RESIST THE TEMPTATION TO LIVE ACCORDING TO THE WAY OF THE FLESH NOW AND DIE IN THE LAST DAY, AND INSTEAD, through the Spirit, TO DIE TO ONE’S DESIRES NOW IN ORDER THAT IN THE DAY TO COME WE MIGHT ATTAIN LIFE” (Thomas Schreiner, “The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001, page 175).
The first phrase capitalized above in Schreiner’s quote is that Romans 8:13 “suggests nothing about POSSIBILITY of PROBABILITY of fulfilling either supposition.” Before I attack Schreiner, let’s get some definitions going:
(1) “possibility”-- 1 : the condition or fact of being possible
(2) “possible”-- 1 a : being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization
(3) “probability”-- 3 : likely to be or become true or real
So when Schreiner says that Paul mentions nothing about “possibility” or “probability,” he’s saying that Paul doesn’t render judgment on the believers (probability); but neither does he suggest that they have the ability to “walk after the flesh,” one of the conditions of Romans 8:13. Instead, what function does Schreiner believe Romans 8:13 plays? In his mind, it is just a HYPOTHETICAL warning: “Paul includes his warning for one fundamental purpose...to urge us to resist the temptation to live according to the way of the flesh...and instead, through the Spirit, to die to one’s desires now in order that in the day to come we might attain life.”
Schreiner would agree with the words of Goodwin regarding the first-class condition: “When the [condition]...SIMPLY STATES a present or past...supposition, implying nothing as to the fulfilment [sic] of the condition, it takes a present or past tense of the indicative with ‘ei’.”
According to Goodwin, “nothing as to the fulfilment of the condition” is present in the “if” clause (“if you live according to the flesh,” for example). However, A.T. Robertson disagrees:
“This condition POINTEDLY IMPLIES the fulfilment of the condition. It is the CONDITION OF ACTUALITY, REALITY, Wirklichkeit, and not mere ‘possibility” (A.T. Robertson, “A Grammar of the Greek New Testament In Light of Historical Research,” Fourth Edition. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934, page 1006).
A.T. Robertson, a Baptist, would disagree with our Baptist friend, Thomas Schreiner here. Notice that Robertson labels this condition a “condition of actuality,” distinguishing it from “mere possibility.” Robertson would disagree with Schreiner and say that Paul’s warning in Romans 8:13, that “if you live according to the flesh you will die,” is a CONDITION OF ACTUALITY: a person who has the Spirit within can succumb to sin and live a sinful lifestyle. Paul’s warning is not hypothetical—as if to say, “well, technically you can live in sin...but, you won’t.” Paul doesn’t declare judgment on the Roman congregation, but makes it clear that “two realities,” not “a reality and a hypothetical possibility” lie before them: they can walk after the Spirit, be led by the Spirit, and live eternally, or they can walk after the flesh and live according to the deeds of the body...and perish eternally.
We understand why Schreiner gives his “hypothetical warning” view of Romans 8:13 when he goes into further analysis of this verse:
“...the warning is a significant means that God uses, through His Spirit, TO SECURE HIS PROMISED SALVATION IN US” (“The Race Set Before Us,” page 176).
As you can see, Schreiner’s presupposition crawls in again. The warnings never contain a serious caution of punishment—instead, they serve to “encourage” us, to push us forward in perseverance. I would say that the warnings do so, but they also caution us of eternal punishment if we fail to persevere. As I stated in a recent post, God did not warn Adam and Eve for the sake of motivating them to obey Him; He also cautioned them about REAL ACTUAL CONSEQUENCES for their disobedience. And Schreiner seems to assume that the consequences for disobedience are not possible for the believer.
Last but not least, notice what he says about this condition of Romans 8:13:
“The first-class condition (“if you live according to the flesh you will die”, example mine) in the Greek New Testament functions to express an assumption for the sake of the argument being made. IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT ITS LIKELIHOOD OF FAILURE OR SUCCESS” (footnote, page 173).
Notice that no “likelihood of failure or success” is mentioned in the above condition. But what Schreiner fails to see is, that if the likelihood of failure is not mentioned, then NEITHER IS THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS mentioned either!! This means, then, that Schreiner’s supposed assumption of God “encouraging us” to persevere cannot be completely believed as he espouses it. We’ve already seen in other texts that Schreiner immediately dispels the actual choice of being saved and living in sin; however, when it gets to warnings like that of Romans 8:13, God seems to always be “assuring us” that we can persevere to the end, and God is ALWAYS motivating us to do so. But why is it that Schreiner claims to be neutral in the warnings, but still affirms the same conclusion as John MacArthur—that salvation cannot be thrown away?
Friday, November 6, 2009
Jesus: To Be Or Not To Be The Author Of Sin?
“To be, or not to be? That is the question.”
This is one of the most quoted Shakesperean lines ever written. While I don’t know much about these lines and where they fit in Shakespeare’s work (excuse me for my literary ignorance), I do know that this seems to be the question that Calvinists and Arminians debate these days...and have so done since the beginning of history as we know it. “To be the author of sin, or not to be the author of sin?” For believers, that is the question.
Is Jesus guilty? Well...I would say He isn’t; but there are some who believe He is guilty of sin. S.M. Baugh is among them; and in his chapter on “The Meaning of Foreknowledge” he writes:
“Acts 2:23 also implies another truth integral to Calvinism that must not be (and is too often) overlooked: HUMANS POSSESS GENUINE, UNFORCED VOLITION and are thereby MORALLY RESPONSIBLE. Although God accomplished his fixed purpose by handing Christ over to the cross, he himself did not crucify him: ‘You nailed up and killed this man through the agency of wicked men.’ Peter’s hearers and their agents were both the culpable participants in Christ’s death. GOD ORDAINS ALL THAT COMES TO PASS, BUT ‘NEITHER IS GOD THE AUTHOR OF SIN, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established’” (S.M. Baugh, “The Meaning of Foreknowledge,” from “Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace” by Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware, eds. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000, page 190).
First, notice that Baugh credits humans with free choices and moral responsibility: “humans possess genuine, unforced volition and are thereby morally responsible.” I applaud Baugh for this honest admittance. Most Calvinists would not be this gracious; but S.M. Baugh restored my confidence in Calvinist theologians a bit with this statement.
But later on in the above quote, Baugh provides us with a massive contradiction: “God ordains all that comes to pass, but neither is God the author of sin...” Now Baugh uses a passage, Acts 2:23, to provide this assessment. Let’s read the passage:
“Him [Jesus of Nazareth, v. 22], being delivered by the DETERMINED PURPOSE AND FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death...” (Acts 2:23, NKJV)
As Baugh notes above, man bears responsibility for his own actions; God is not responsible for the actions of men, although in His foreknowledge, He knew they would crucify Jesus. It was the Jews and Pilate who put Christ on the cross. However, Baugh also notes that God handed Jesus over because of His “determined purpose.” But what was the purpose for so doing? The purpose was to save mankind from their sins. This is why the angel Gabriel tells Joseph,
“And she [Mary] will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name ‘JESUS,’ FOR HE WILL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SINS” (Matthew 1:21, Luke 1:31).
And John declares this concerning Jesus:
“Behold! The Lamb of God WHO TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD!” (John 1:29, NKJV)
The purpose for the Father sending Jesus into the world was to pay the penalty for the sins of mankind. Jesus was sent to appease the wrath of God upon men, which is why when He is born in Bethlehem, the angels declare, “Peace on earth, goodwill toward men!” (Luke 2:14, NKJV)
But if God’s “determined purpose” was for Jesus to die, then what purpose did His “foreknowledge” serve? His foreknowledge is what accounts for His knowledge concerning the actions of men. It is His foreknowledge that already informed Him of the actions of the Jews and Pilate.
But if He didn’t force the men to kill Jesus, as Baugh says regarding Acts 2:23, then the only reason He “FOREORDAINED” or “PREDETERMINED” the death of Christ was for redemption. He didn’t cause the men to do what they did, but He did allow it to happen to Jesus because of His plan to redeem mankind (His creation).
Now we can see why Baugh’s words are so stunning: “God ordains ALL THAT COMES TO PASS, but ‘neither is God the author of sin...’” Baugh’s use of Acts 2:23 to justify his view of God “ordaining every action” is unjustifiable.
Acts 2:23 tells us of Christ’s coming for a salvific purpose: to redeem the world. However, IF “God ordains all that comes to pass,” as Baugh puts it, then God also ordained the sin that put Jesus on the cross. So now, we find that God not only ordained Adam and Eve to sin in the Garden, as well as all the other acts of evil (such as the sins of the men who drowned in the flood and the enslavement of His people, the Jews), but He then, AFTER ORDAINING SIN, turned around and made His Son come to die for THE SIN THAT HE ORDAINED AND CREATED TO START WITH!! What a masochist God that would be!!!
Here is a definition of the word “ordain” by Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary:
2 a : to establish or order by appointment, decree, or law
b : DESTINE, FOREORDAIN
If the Lord decrees all acts, then evil is necessary—for the Lord “incorporated” it, just as He did good, into His sovereign plan. And, because God decreed it, He becomes the author of sin. Here then, is the definition for “author”:
1 a : one that originates or creates : SOURCE
If God ordains evil, then He becomes the author of evil. He becomes the one responsible for evil because, if He had never “ordained” it, then it would never have existed. Do you see the problems with this analysis? It stains the character and name of the Lord God.
The reason why S.M. Baugh uses Acts 2:23 to justify God ordaining every action is because he doesn’t want you to see his underlying bias. In his mind, God ordained Jesus to die; if God ordained Jesus to die, then God ordained EVERY ACTION AND EVERY EVENT that led up to Jesus’ death; since Jesus’ dying involved evil actions, God ordained these evil actions; if God ordained these evil actions, then He ordained all the evil actions that led up to Jesus’ crucifixion, including Adam and Eve’s sin in the Garden. If God ordained the Fall of Genesis 3, then God ordains every action (whether good or evil).
The problem with this logic, however, is that Baugh does what he claims he doesn’t want to do—that is, to make God the author of sin and evil. It looks like, once again, Calvinists make God responsible. Sounds like the time has come for a theology change...
This is one of the most quoted Shakesperean lines ever written. While I don’t know much about these lines and where they fit in Shakespeare’s work (excuse me for my literary ignorance), I do know that this seems to be the question that Calvinists and Arminians debate these days...and have so done since the beginning of history as we know it. “To be the author of sin, or not to be the author of sin?” For believers, that is the question.
Is Jesus guilty? Well...I would say He isn’t; but there are some who believe He is guilty of sin. S.M. Baugh is among them; and in his chapter on “The Meaning of Foreknowledge” he writes:
“Acts 2:23 also implies another truth integral to Calvinism that must not be (and is too often) overlooked: HUMANS POSSESS GENUINE, UNFORCED VOLITION and are thereby MORALLY RESPONSIBLE. Although God accomplished his fixed purpose by handing Christ over to the cross, he himself did not crucify him: ‘You nailed up and killed this man through the agency of wicked men.’ Peter’s hearers and their agents were both the culpable participants in Christ’s death. GOD ORDAINS ALL THAT COMES TO PASS, BUT ‘NEITHER IS GOD THE AUTHOR OF SIN, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established’” (S.M. Baugh, “The Meaning of Foreknowledge,” from “Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace” by Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware, eds. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000, page 190).
First, notice that Baugh credits humans with free choices and moral responsibility: “humans possess genuine, unforced volition and are thereby morally responsible.” I applaud Baugh for this honest admittance. Most Calvinists would not be this gracious; but S.M. Baugh restored my confidence in Calvinist theologians a bit with this statement.
But later on in the above quote, Baugh provides us with a massive contradiction: “God ordains all that comes to pass, but neither is God the author of sin...” Now Baugh uses a passage, Acts 2:23, to provide this assessment. Let’s read the passage:
“Him [Jesus of Nazareth, v. 22], being delivered by the DETERMINED PURPOSE AND FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death...” (Acts 2:23, NKJV)
As Baugh notes above, man bears responsibility for his own actions; God is not responsible for the actions of men, although in His foreknowledge, He knew they would crucify Jesus. It was the Jews and Pilate who put Christ on the cross. However, Baugh also notes that God handed Jesus over because of His “determined purpose.” But what was the purpose for so doing? The purpose was to save mankind from their sins. This is why the angel Gabriel tells Joseph,
“And she [Mary] will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name ‘JESUS,’ FOR HE WILL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SINS” (Matthew 1:21, Luke 1:31).
And John declares this concerning Jesus:
“Behold! The Lamb of God WHO TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD!” (John 1:29, NKJV)
The purpose for the Father sending Jesus into the world was to pay the penalty for the sins of mankind. Jesus was sent to appease the wrath of God upon men, which is why when He is born in Bethlehem, the angels declare, “Peace on earth, goodwill toward men!” (Luke 2:14, NKJV)
But if God’s “determined purpose” was for Jesus to die, then what purpose did His “foreknowledge” serve? His foreknowledge is what accounts for His knowledge concerning the actions of men. It is His foreknowledge that already informed Him of the actions of the Jews and Pilate.
But if He didn’t force the men to kill Jesus, as Baugh says regarding Acts 2:23, then the only reason He “FOREORDAINED” or “PREDETERMINED” the death of Christ was for redemption. He didn’t cause the men to do what they did, but He did allow it to happen to Jesus because of His plan to redeem mankind (His creation).
Now we can see why Baugh’s words are so stunning: “God ordains ALL THAT COMES TO PASS, but ‘neither is God the author of sin...’” Baugh’s use of Acts 2:23 to justify his view of God “ordaining every action” is unjustifiable.
Acts 2:23 tells us of Christ’s coming for a salvific purpose: to redeem the world. However, IF “God ordains all that comes to pass,” as Baugh puts it, then God also ordained the sin that put Jesus on the cross. So now, we find that God not only ordained Adam and Eve to sin in the Garden, as well as all the other acts of evil (such as the sins of the men who drowned in the flood and the enslavement of His people, the Jews), but He then, AFTER ORDAINING SIN, turned around and made His Son come to die for THE SIN THAT HE ORDAINED AND CREATED TO START WITH!! What a masochist God that would be!!!
Here is a definition of the word “ordain” by Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary:
2 a : to establish or order by appointment, decree, or law
b : DESTINE, FOREORDAIN
If the Lord decrees all acts, then evil is necessary—for the Lord “incorporated” it, just as He did good, into His sovereign plan. And, because God decreed it, He becomes the author of sin. Here then, is the definition for “author”:
1 a : one that originates or creates : SOURCE
If God ordains evil, then He becomes the author of evil. He becomes the one responsible for evil because, if He had never “ordained” it, then it would never have existed. Do you see the problems with this analysis? It stains the character and name of the Lord God.
The reason why S.M. Baugh uses Acts 2:23 to justify God ordaining every action is because he doesn’t want you to see his underlying bias. In his mind, God ordained Jesus to die; if God ordained Jesus to die, then God ordained EVERY ACTION AND EVERY EVENT that led up to Jesus’ death; since Jesus’ dying involved evil actions, God ordained these evil actions; if God ordained these evil actions, then He ordained all the evil actions that led up to Jesus’ crucifixion, including Adam and Eve’s sin in the Garden. If God ordained the Fall of Genesis 3, then God ordains every action (whether good or evil).
The problem with this logic, however, is that Baugh does what he claims he doesn’t want to do—that is, to make God the author of sin and evil. It looks like, once again, Calvinists make God responsible. Sounds like the time has come for a theology change...
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Effectual Calling and Grace, Part I: John 6
“Jesus’ statement in [John] 6:45 (‘Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me’) only reinforces his point in 6:44 by stating again its complementary truth. As 6:44 had stressed that no one can come apart from the drawing of the Father, 6:45 reaffirms the truth Jesus already presented in 6:37, namely, THAT ALL THOSE GIVEN BY THE FATHER DO COME. As Augustine puts it:
‘What is the meaning of “Every man who has heard and learned from the Father comes unto me” [John 6:45] except that there is none who hears from the Father, and learns, who comes not to me? For if everyone who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes, certainly everyone who does not come has not heard from the Father or learned; for if he had heard and learned, he would come...’
These two truths (i.e., only those drawn can come, and all those drawn do come )serve together to require the ECG doctrine of Calvinism. Jesus’ repeated affirmations of both truths, along with his rejection of universalism, make this doctrine undeniable” (Bruce Ware, “Effectual Calling and Grace,” from “Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace” by Thomas R. Schreiner & Bruce A. Ware, eds. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000, pages 217-218).
Bruce Ware gives what seems to be an impressive take on John 6. However, there are a few errors in his assessment.
First, in using John 6:45, he leaves John 6:45a out of his analysis. John 6:45 in its entirety is:
“It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me” (John 6:45, NKJV).
What 6:45a emphasizes is that EVERYONE will be taught by God. This verse, referenced
from Isaiah 54:13, shows that “all your children,” meaning “Israel’s children,” the Jews, would be taught by God. Here, Bruce Ware leaves this little piece of information off of his analysis. This is so that when he arrives at 6:45b, he can claim, as he cites Augustine, that everyone is not taught and doesn’t learn from God. But to come to Ware’s conclusion is a direct contradiction of John 6:45a. EVERYONE is taught of God. Whether or not they come is another matter.
Verse 44 shows us that the Father draws people to Himself; but then Jesus states, “no one can come to Me.” We see here that the Father draws people to Himself, but then hands them to Jesus. This is why Jesus says in John 6:37,
“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out” (Jn. 6:37, NKJV).
What Jesus is saying is that if those people receive what the Father has given, they will then come to Jesus. When they come to Jesus, they will be part of the “all persons” that the Father hands over to Jesus.
When Jesus is telling them about being taught of God, He is doing so because in the midst of chapter 6, Jesus is teaching them about the words of the Old Testament, which he cites in John 5:39 as one of the witnesses to His Godhood. Jesus teaches them of the words of Scripture by discussing their example of manna in the wilderness:
“Therefore they said to Him, ‘What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? Our fathers ate THE MANNA IN THE DESERT; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat’” (Jn. 6:30-31, NKJV).
The crowd itself cites the example of manna in the wilderness, given to the Israelites by the Father Himself. This reference comes from Exodus 16:4.
Jesus responds to this example:
“Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world” (Jn. 6:32-33).
Exodus 16:4 confirms that the Lord God told Moses that He would send manna from heaven. Jesus confirms here in verses 32 and 33 that the Father gives “the true bread” from heaven. This bread, however, is not the “bread” of the wilderness: “for the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” The True Bread of which Jesus speaks is HIMSELF!
The crowd requests the true bread by saying, “Lord, give us this bread always” (6:34). Jesus responds by saying, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who BELIEVES IN ME shall never thirst” (v.35).
In verse 42, the Jews demonstrate their disbelief: “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’? This confirms what Jesus said about them earlier: “But I said to you that you have seen Me and YET DO NOT BELIEVE” (v.36). It seems, then, that the problem with the crowd is not that they haven’t received the truth, or haven’t been “taught of God” (v.45), but that they haven’t “heard” and “learned” or received Jesus’ teaching or that of the Scriptures.
Jesus goes into more detail about His identity:
“I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I AM THE LIVING BREAD WHICH CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world” (John 6:48-51, NKJV).
The Jews cannot understand this (“how can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”—verse 52); neither can some of Jesus’ own disciples (John 6:60-61).
Let’s look at verses 39 and 40. I want us to see the parallel structure between the two verses:
(1) This is the will of Father who sent Me (v.39)
(2) This is the will of Him who sent Me (v. 40)
First, we see that the beginning phrases are very similar: the “Father” of verse 39 is the “Him” of verse 40. Let’s look at the last two phrases and see how they add up:
(1) “that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing” (v.39)
(2) “that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life” (v.40).
Before commenting on these two phrases, let’s look at the similarity or identical nature of the last two:
(1) “but should raise it up at the last day” (v. 39).
(2) “and I will raise him up at the last day” (v.40).
The last two phrases immediately above show us that “it” and “him” are the same thing, seeing that the phrases are identical.
Look at the middle two phrases: “all He has given Me” and “everyone who sees the Son and believes.” The Father gives those who have “heard and learned from the Father” to the Son as His possession (Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:9; Ephesians 1:11, 14). This is why Jesus says the “all the Father gives to Me will come to Me”—because all that have been taught, heard, and learned from the teachings of the Scriptures (then the OT) will be given by the Father to Christ. But then Christ says, “And the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out” (John 6:37). He says this because after being given to the Father through the Scriptures, they would next come to the Son and receive Him. As Jesus says in John 5,
“Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—MOSES, IN WHOM YOU TRUST. For if you believed Moses, YOU WOULD BELIEVE ME; FOR HE WROTE ABOUT ME. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:45-47, NKJV)
Bruce Ware would like for us to get preoccupied with all the verses about “learning” of the Father and being drawn by the Father, etc. However, within these verses in chapter 6 is also Jesus’ judgment on the crowd because they wouldn’t believe in Him.
The emphasis then, is belief, not some arbitrary election (6:29, 35, 36, 40, 47, 51, 53-58, 64, 69).
‘What is the meaning of “Every man who has heard and learned from the Father comes unto me” [John 6:45] except that there is none who hears from the Father, and learns, who comes not to me? For if everyone who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes, certainly everyone who does not come has not heard from the Father or learned; for if he had heard and learned, he would come...’
These two truths (i.e., only those drawn can come, and all those drawn do come )serve together to require the ECG doctrine of Calvinism. Jesus’ repeated affirmations of both truths, along with his rejection of universalism, make this doctrine undeniable” (Bruce Ware, “Effectual Calling and Grace,” from “Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace” by Thomas R. Schreiner & Bruce A. Ware, eds. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000, pages 217-218).
Bruce Ware gives what seems to be an impressive take on John 6. However, there are a few errors in his assessment.
First, in using John 6:45, he leaves John 6:45a out of his analysis. John 6:45 in its entirety is:
“It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me” (John 6:45, NKJV).
What 6:45a emphasizes is that EVERYONE will be taught by God. This verse, referenced
from Isaiah 54:13, shows that “all your children,” meaning “Israel’s children,” the Jews, would be taught by God. Here, Bruce Ware leaves this little piece of information off of his analysis. This is so that when he arrives at 6:45b, he can claim, as he cites Augustine, that everyone is not taught and doesn’t learn from God. But to come to Ware’s conclusion is a direct contradiction of John 6:45a. EVERYONE is taught of God. Whether or not they come is another matter.
Verse 44 shows us that the Father draws people to Himself; but then Jesus states, “no one can come to Me.” We see here that the Father draws people to Himself, but then hands them to Jesus. This is why Jesus says in John 6:37,
“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out” (Jn. 6:37, NKJV).
What Jesus is saying is that if those people receive what the Father has given, they will then come to Jesus. When they come to Jesus, they will be part of the “all persons” that the Father hands over to Jesus.
When Jesus is telling them about being taught of God, He is doing so because in the midst of chapter 6, Jesus is teaching them about the words of the Old Testament, which he cites in John 5:39 as one of the witnesses to His Godhood. Jesus teaches them of the words of Scripture by discussing their example of manna in the wilderness:
“Therefore they said to Him, ‘What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? Our fathers ate THE MANNA IN THE DESERT; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat’” (Jn. 6:30-31, NKJV).
The crowd itself cites the example of manna in the wilderness, given to the Israelites by the Father Himself. This reference comes from Exodus 16:4.
Jesus responds to this example:
“Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world” (Jn. 6:32-33).
Exodus 16:4 confirms that the Lord God told Moses that He would send manna from heaven. Jesus confirms here in verses 32 and 33 that the Father gives “the true bread” from heaven. This bread, however, is not the “bread” of the wilderness: “for the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” The True Bread of which Jesus speaks is HIMSELF!
The crowd requests the true bread by saying, “Lord, give us this bread always” (6:34). Jesus responds by saying, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who BELIEVES IN ME shall never thirst” (v.35).
In verse 42, the Jews demonstrate their disbelief: “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’? This confirms what Jesus said about them earlier: “But I said to you that you have seen Me and YET DO NOT BELIEVE” (v.36). It seems, then, that the problem with the crowd is not that they haven’t received the truth, or haven’t been “taught of God” (v.45), but that they haven’t “heard” and “learned” or received Jesus’ teaching or that of the Scriptures.
Jesus goes into more detail about His identity:
“I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I AM THE LIVING BREAD WHICH CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world” (John 6:48-51, NKJV).
The Jews cannot understand this (“how can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”—verse 52); neither can some of Jesus’ own disciples (John 6:60-61).
Let’s look at verses 39 and 40. I want us to see the parallel structure between the two verses:
(1) This is the will of Father who sent Me (v.39)
(2) This is the will of Him who sent Me (v. 40)
First, we see that the beginning phrases are very similar: the “Father” of verse 39 is the “Him” of verse 40. Let’s look at the last two phrases and see how they add up:
(1) “that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing” (v.39)
(2) “that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life” (v.40).
Before commenting on these two phrases, let’s look at the similarity or identical nature of the last two:
(1) “but should raise it up at the last day” (v. 39).
(2) “and I will raise him up at the last day” (v.40).
The last two phrases immediately above show us that “it” and “him” are the same thing, seeing that the phrases are identical.
Look at the middle two phrases: “all He has given Me” and “everyone who sees the Son and believes.” The Father gives those who have “heard and learned from the Father” to the Son as His possession (Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:9; Ephesians 1:11, 14). This is why Jesus says the “all the Father gives to Me will come to Me”—because all that have been taught, heard, and learned from the teachings of the Scriptures (then the OT) will be given by the Father to Christ. But then Christ says, “And the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out” (John 6:37). He says this because after being given to the Father through the Scriptures, they would next come to the Son and receive Him. As Jesus says in John 5,
“Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—MOSES, IN WHOM YOU TRUST. For if you believed Moses, YOU WOULD BELIEVE ME; FOR HE WROTE ABOUT ME. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:45-47, NKJV)
Bruce Ware would like for us to get preoccupied with all the verses about “learning” of the Father and being drawn by the Father, etc. However, within these verses in chapter 6 is also Jesus’ judgment on the crowd because they wouldn’t believe in Him.
The emphasis then, is belief, not some arbitrary election (6:29, 35, 36, 40, 47, 51, 53-58, 64, 69).
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Exhortations In Disguise
“Jesus reminds us of the nature of our pilgrimage in this present age. Jesus holds before us both his assuring promise to preserve the elect and his warning admonition that calls for vigilant perseverance in order to be saved. Is there an unbearable tension between them? What is the relationship between the two? Does election swallow up warning? Or does warning devour election?
It is precisely at this point that many slip to one side or the other. I. Howard Marshall opts for the latter as he claims, ‘for the Church as the heir of Israel’s election, her election is conditional upon her desire to retain it.’ For Marshall, God’s election of us is only as sure as our vigilance. Others want to adjust the warning by smothering it with election so that they transmute the warning into either a test of genuine faith or simply a warning for hypocrites. Neither view does justice to the biblical text, because Mark intends both warning and promise to retain their full functions for believers. What is the relationship, therefore? Election is not conditioned upon perseverance, nor does election nullify the necessity of perseverance. Rather, JESUS FULLY INTENDS FOR US TO UNDERSTAND THAT GOD, WHO ELECTED HIS OWN FOR SALVATION, SECURES THEM FROM APOSTASY AND PRESERVES THEM THROUGH AFFLICTIONS BY USE OF WARNINGS THAT CAUTION WATCHFULNESS, WARINESS, AND VIGILANT STEADFASTNESS” (Thomas Schreiner, “The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001, page 159).
Schreiner’s statement above is characteristic of what Schreiner will often do throughout his book.
He constantly tells the reader that “both warning and promise” must be held in tandem; that neither can be overwhelmed or outweighed by the other. But look at his remark regarding the warnings:
“Jesus fully intends for us to understand that God...secures them [believers] from apostasy and preserves them through afflictions by the use of warnings...”
We are first told that neither I. Howard Marshall’s approach, nor approaches like John MacArthur’s, are correct. Then, we are fed the idea of “once saved, always saved” and told that the warnings are really “exhortations in disguise,” a means by which God “secures” and “preserves” His people.
But if this is the case, why use a warning? Why not use encouragements only? Schreiner’s approach blurs the difference between an “exhortation” and a “warning.”
Let’s define both of these terms (from Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary):
Exhortation: 2 : language intended to incite and encourage
Warning: 2 : something that warns or serves to warn
Now we will see what it means to “exhort” and “warn”:
Warn: 1 a : to give notice to beforehand especially of danger or evil
Encourage: 1 a : to inspire with courage, spirit, or hope
An encouragement or exhortation is there to “inspire,” while a warning is there to “give notice...of danger or evil.” The function of an encouragement is to say, “keep going,” while the function of a warning is to say, “watch out.” These are two different responses altogether, so both must be taken into account when arriving at an interpretation of a passage.
Schreiner, though, can’t seem to admit his bias. Here then, is his most telling statement of the entire quote above:
“Jesus fully intends for us to understand that God, who elected his own for salvation, secures them from apostasy and preserves them through afflictions by use of warnings that caution watchfulness, wariness, and vigilant steadfastness” (159).
First, he tells us that he’s Calvinist:
“God, who ELECTED HIS OWN FOR SALVATION...”
Secondly, he tells us that the warnings are really “exhortations in disguise”:
“God...secures them from apostasy and preserves them...by use of warnings...”
In Schreiner’s Calvinist system, there is no way that the saved CAN FAIL to endure until the end! However, this contradicts what Paul says of the possibility of his own disqualification in the race for eternal life (1 Cor. 9:25-27).
In the Calvinist system, failure to endure is never an option; and yet, Jesus felt the need to warn His disciples in Matthew 10, Matthew 24, and Mark 13 about “false prophets and false Christs” who would attempt to lead the elect astray.
In addition, look at what Schreiner says about election:
“Election is not conditioned upon perseverance, nor does election nullify the necessity of perseverance.”
I’d say that he’s right with the second phrase, but WRONG with the first one. The Bible teaches that election IS CONDITIONED upon perseverance. In 2 Peter, Peter tells us that we must add perseverance to our faith and this is to be done so as to secure our calling and election:
“But also for this very reason, GIVING ALL DILIGENCE, ADD TO YOUR FAITH virtue...knowledge...self-control...PERSEVERANCE...godliness...brotherly kindness...love...therefore, brethren, BE EVEN MORE DILIGENT TO MAKE YOUR CALL AND ELECTION SURE, FOR IF YOU DO THESE THINGS YOU WILL NEVER STUMBLE; for so AN ENTRANCE will be supplied to you abundantly INTO THE EVERLASTING KINGDOM OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST” (2 Peter 1:5-7, 10-11, NKJV).
Why does Peter write to “make your call and election sure,” if God secures every believer’s election? There would be no need for neither you nor me to attempt to “add” to God’s secure election—IF it’s a guaranteed election!!
Peter goes on to say the following to the believers:
“consider that the longsuffering of our Lord IS SALVATION...you therefore, beloved, SINCE YOU KNOW THIS BEFOREHAND, BEWARE LEST YOU ALSO FALL FROM YOUR OWN STEADFASTNESS, BEING LED AWAY WITH THE ERROR OF THE WICKED” (2 Peter 3:15, 17).
Peter notes here that there is a possibility that the believers themselves could fall away and be “led away with the error of the wicked,” into everlasting punishment. This is why he warns them “beforehand,” as Jesus does in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:25).
As my last piece of biblical evidence in this post, I will use Paul’s words to the church at Rome:
“And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and DOING THE SAME, THAT YOU WILL ESCAPE THE JUDGMENT OF GOD?
Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, FORBEARANCE, and LONGSUFFERING, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
But in accordance with your HARDNESS AND YOUR IMPENITENT HEART YOU ARE TREASURING UP FOR YOURSELF WRATH IN THE DAY OF WRATH AND REVELATION OF THE RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENT OF GOD, who ‘will render to each one according to his deeds.’: eternal life to those who by PATIENT CONTINUANCE IN DOING GOOD seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—INDIGNATION AND WRATH, TRIBULATION AND ANGUISH, ON EVERY SOUL OF MAN WHO DOES EVIL...but GLORY, HONOR, AND PEACE TO EVERYONE WHO WORKS WHAT IS GOOD...FOR THERE IS NO PARTIALITY WITH GOD” (Romans 2:3-11, NKJV).
Schreiner may attempt to make the warnings sound like exhortations, but warnings can’t be exhortations and exhortations cannot be warnings. One encourages, while the other admonishes. In the words of Paul, while “all Scripture” is used for “doctrine” and “instruction in righteousness,” Scripture is also used for “reproof,” correction, rebuke when someone sins (2 Tim. 3:16, NKJV). There is a serious tone to Jesus’ words about enduring to the end...and I think we need to start paying attention...
It is precisely at this point that many slip to one side or the other. I. Howard Marshall opts for the latter as he claims, ‘for the Church as the heir of Israel’s election, her election is conditional upon her desire to retain it.’ For Marshall, God’s election of us is only as sure as our vigilance. Others want to adjust the warning by smothering it with election so that they transmute the warning into either a test of genuine faith or simply a warning for hypocrites. Neither view does justice to the biblical text, because Mark intends both warning and promise to retain their full functions for believers. What is the relationship, therefore? Election is not conditioned upon perseverance, nor does election nullify the necessity of perseverance. Rather, JESUS FULLY INTENDS FOR US TO UNDERSTAND THAT GOD, WHO ELECTED HIS OWN FOR SALVATION, SECURES THEM FROM APOSTASY AND PRESERVES THEM THROUGH AFFLICTIONS BY USE OF WARNINGS THAT CAUTION WATCHFULNESS, WARINESS, AND VIGILANT STEADFASTNESS” (Thomas Schreiner, “The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001, page 159).
Schreiner’s statement above is characteristic of what Schreiner will often do throughout his book.
He constantly tells the reader that “both warning and promise” must be held in tandem; that neither can be overwhelmed or outweighed by the other. But look at his remark regarding the warnings:
“Jesus fully intends for us to understand that God...secures them [believers] from apostasy and preserves them through afflictions by the use of warnings...”
We are first told that neither I. Howard Marshall’s approach, nor approaches like John MacArthur’s, are correct. Then, we are fed the idea of “once saved, always saved” and told that the warnings are really “exhortations in disguise,” a means by which God “secures” and “preserves” His people.
But if this is the case, why use a warning? Why not use encouragements only? Schreiner’s approach blurs the difference between an “exhortation” and a “warning.”
Let’s define both of these terms (from Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary):
Exhortation: 2 : language intended to incite and encourage
Warning: 2 : something that warns or serves to warn
Now we will see what it means to “exhort” and “warn”:
Warn: 1 a : to give notice to beforehand especially of danger or evil
Encourage: 1 a : to inspire with courage, spirit, or hope
An encouragement or exhortation is there to “inspire,” while a warning is there to “give notice...of danger or evil.” The function of an encouragement is to say, “keep going,” while the function of a warning is to say, “watch out.” These are two different responses altogether, so both must be taken into account when arriving at an interpretation of a passage.
Schreiner, though, can’t seem to admit his bias. Here then, is his most telling statement of the entire quote above:
“Jesus fully intends for us to understand that God, who elected his own for salvation, secures them from apostasy and preserves them through afflictions by use of warnings that caution watchfulness, wariness, and vigilant steadfastness” (159).
First, he tells us that he’s Calvinist:
“God, who ELECTED HIS OWN FOR SALVATION...”
Secondly, he tells us that the warnings are really “exhortations in disguise”:
“God...secures them from apostasy and preserves them...by use of warnings...”
In Schreiner’s Calvinist system, there is no way that the saved CAN FAIL to endure until the end! However, this contradicts what Paul says of the possibility of his own disqualification in the race for eternal life (1 Cor. 9:25-27).
In the Calvinist system, failure to endure is never an option; and yet, Jesus felt the need to warn His disciples in Matthew 10, Matthew 24, and Mark 13 about “false prophets and false Christs” who would attempt to lead the elect astray.
In addition, look at what Schreiner says about election:
“Election is not conditioned upon perseverance, nor does election nullify the necessity of perseverance.”
I’d say that he’s right with the second phrase, but WRONG with the first one. The Bible teaches that election IS CONDITIONED upon perseverance. In 2 Peter, Peter tells us that we must add perseverance to our faith and this is to be done so as to secure our calling and election:
“But also for this very reason, GIVING ALL DILIGENCE, ADD TO YOUR FAITH virtue...knowledge...self-control...PERSEVERANCE...godliness...brotherly kindness...love...therefore, brethren, BE EVEN MORE DILIGENT TO MAKE YOUR CALL AND ELECTION SURE, FOR IF YOU DO THESE THINGS YOU WILL NEVER STUMBLE; for so AN ENTRANCE will be supplied to you abundantly INTO THE EVERLASTING KINGDOM OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST” (2 Peter 1:5-7, 10-11, NKJV).
Why does Peter write to “make your call and election sure,” if God secures every believer’s election? There would be no need for neither you nor me to attempt to “add” to God’s secure election—IF it’s a guaranteed election!!
Peter goes on to say the following to the believers:
“consider that the longsuffering of our Lord IS SALVATION...you therefore, beloved, SINCE YOU KNOW THIS BEFOREHAND, BEWARE LEST YOU ALSO FALL FROM YOUR OWN STEADFASTNESS, BEING LED AWAY WITH THE ERROR OF THE WICKED” (2 Peter 3:15, 17).
Peter notes here that there is a possibility that the believers themselves could fall away and be “led away with the error of the wicked,” into everlasting punishment. This is why he warns them “beforehand,” as Jesus does in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:25).
As my last piece of biblical evidence in this post, I will use Paul’s words to the church at Rome:
“And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and DOING THE SAME, THAT YOU WILL ESCAPE THE JUDGMENT OF GOD?
Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, FORBEARANCE, and LONGSUFFERING, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
But in accordance with your HARDNESS AND YOUR IMPENITENT HEART YOU ARE TREASURING UP FOR YOURSELF WRATH IN THE DAY OF WRATH AND REVELATION OF THE RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENT OF GOD, who ‘will render to each one according to his deeds.’: eternal life to those who by PATIENT CONTINUANCE IN DOING GOOD seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—INDIGNATION AND WRATH, TRIBULATION AND ANGUISH, ON EVERY SOUL OF MAN WHO DOES EVIL...but GLORY, HONOR, AND PEACE TO EVERYONE WHO WORKS WHAT IS GOOD...FOR THERE IS NO PARTIALITY WITH GOD” (Romans 2:3-11, NKJV).
Schreiner may attempt to make the warnings sound like exhortations, but warnings can’t be exhortations and exhortations cannot be warnings. One encourages, while the other admonishes. In the words of Paul, while “all Scripture” is used for “doctrine” and “instruction in righteousness,” Scripture is also used for “reproof,” correction, rebuke when someone sins (2 Tim. 3:16, NKJV). There is a serious tone to Jesus’ words about enduring to the end...and I think we need to start paying attention...
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Implications of Endurance
In my last post, I looked at Matthew 10 and Matthew 24 and showed how Schreiner’s response to Marshall’s interpretation is strange. Schreiner does this, though, because of his commitment to “always saved.” As long as one holds to a view of “Once Saved, Always Saved,” even getting rid of the “once saved” doesn’t change the outcome: Schreiner, like OSAS proponents, will still argue unconditional eternal security. The difference between Schreiner’s argument and the OSAS argument is that Schreiner has more biblical evidence which should lead to a different conclusion...however, his presupposition won’t allow it, so he ends up at the same place as OSAS proponents.
I’m back to give further commentary regarding Jesus’ words in Matthew 10:22 and Matthew 24:13 (including Mark 13:13). Schreiner doesn’t seem content to just attack Marshall, but even the implications of Jesus’ words on endurance:
“So what is Jesus saying? He is saying that perseverance to the end is God’s means by which anyone will be saved. At the same time his words assure all who persevere and remind us that there is no other way to face persecution, even unto death, if we want to be saved in the final day. It is really this simple! But you ask, ‘What if I fail to persevere to the end?’ The answer from the context is simply that YOU WILL NOT BE SAVED, IF YOU FAIL TO PERSEVERE TO THE END. Again you may ask, ‘So are you telling me that Jesus’ words mean that IT IS POSSIBLE FOR ME TO LOSE MY SALVATION?’ No, that is AN UNWARRANED CONCLUSION TO DRAW either from the text or from our explanation of the text. Jesus’ words say nothing about the possibility of losing one’s salvation; that is not the function of his conditional promise. Rather, HIS WORDS FUNCTION TO ASSURE YOU THAT YOU WILL BE SAVED, IF YOU PERSEVERE” (Thomas R. Schreiner, “The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001, page 152).
It is at this time that I can announce to you, my readers, that Schreiner’s bias is upon us! We have arrived at one of the most classic statements Schreiner will make again and again throughout his book. He understands what Jesus is saying when he asserts, “you will not be saved, if you fail to persevere to the end.” As I noted in my last post, Schreiner seems to understand that Jesus’ promise is conditional (“if you endure to the end...”) However, the implications of such a condition he cannot accept: “ ‘So, are you telling me that Jesus’ words mean that it is possible for me to lose my salvation?’ No, that is an unwarranted conclusion to draw either from the text or from our explanation of the text.” Why does this implication fail?
“Jesus’ words say nothing about the possibility of losing one’s salvation; that is not the function of his conditional promise. Rather, his words function to assure you that you will be saved, if you persevere” (152).
Here’s the fundamental problem: earlier in Schreiner’s book, he discussed that eternal salvation was first, a PRESENT possession—that we have eternal life now:
“John regularly maintains that eternal life is something that believers possess NOW. He says that ‘whoever believes in the Son has eternal life’ (Jn. 3:36). John does not say that believers will have eternal life but that they HAVE eternal life. In fact, John emphasizes often that eternal life is a present gift, as the following texts demonstrate: Jn. 5:24...Jn. 6:47...Jn. 6:54...1 Jn. 5:11-13” (66, 67).
Then Schreiner went on to state that eternal life is also a future goal:
“Jesus forges a link between the age to come and eternal life in Mark 10:29-30, where he says, ‘no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age...and in the AGE TO COME, ETERNAL LIFE’ (NIV)...thus we can conclude that ETERNAL LIFE IS A GIFT OF THE COMING AGE (cf. Luke 18:30)” (65, 66).
So here’s the grand question: if I have current possession of eternal life, but I can fail to persevere and obtain the future possession, why do Jesus’ words in Matthew 10:22, Matt. 24:13, and Mark 13:13 NOT imply loss of salvation? If I receive a 30% coupon from a local bookstore and am told to bring the coupon back the following weekend and redeem it, doesn’t this imply that I can lose or throw away my coupon and fail to get 30% off of one of my purchases? The fact that I receive the coupon doesn’t mean that I will hold on to it and redeem it at the bookstore. It simply means that I have the POSSIBILITY of getting the discount—not that I WILL get it!
What is Schreiner’s response to the “loss of salvation” view?
“HIS WORDS FUNCTION TO ASSURE YOU THAT YOU WILL BE SAVED, IF YOU PERSEVERE” (152).
Schreiner only wants to point out the exhortation and confidence of Jesus’ words; and yet, within the same passage of Matthew 10, there are words of warning (as I stated in my last post). For example, within Matthew 10, Jesus not only talks about the one who “confesses” Him, but also the one who “denies” Him. It seems then, that even Jesus believed there would be two responses to persecution: either Jesus would be acknowledged, or Jesus would be rejected (to save one’s life). Why then, can Schreiner not acknowledge that when Jesus encourages the disciples to persevere to the end, that He is also implying the possibility that they can fail to endure and thus “forfeit” the salvation that they have?
We are given the example of Esau in 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; lest there be any fornicator or profane person LIKE ESAU, who for one morsel of food SOLD HIS BIRTHRIGHT. For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, HE WAS REJECTED, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it diligently with tears” (Hebrews 12:14-17, NKJV).
Esau had his birthright. He was the eldest, and therefore, possessed it when he had come of age. But one day he was hungry, and wanted some stew. He asked his brother to give him some of the red stew and his brother said, “I’ll do it if you give me your birthright in return.” So Esau gave Jacob his birthright and from that day forward, it is recorded in Genesis 25 that Esau “despised” his birthright.
The story of Jacob and Esau points to a spiritual reality. If it didn’t, the writer couldn’t have used them. So what exactly was the writer of Hebrews trying to say when he referenced the story of Jacob and Esau? I’ll get into that question at another time...
I’m back to give further commentary regarding Jesus’ words in Matthew 10:22 and Matthew 24:13 (including Mark 13:13). Schreiner doesn’t seem content to just attack Marshall, but even the implications of Jesus’ words on endurance:
“So what is Jesus saying? He is saying that perseverance to the end is God’s means by which anyone will be saved. At the same time his words assure all who persevere and remind us that there is no other way to face persecution, even unto death, if we want to be saved in the final day. It is really this simple! But you ask, ‘What if I fail to persevere to the end?’ The answer from the context is simply that YOU WILL NOT BE SAVED, IF YOU FAIL TO PERSEVERE TO THE END. Again you may ask, ‘So are you telling me that Jesus’ words mean that IT IS POSSIBLE FOR ME TO LOSE MY SALVATION?’ No, that is AN UNWARRANED CONCLUSION TO DRAW either from the text or from our explanation of the text. Jesus’ words say nothing about the possibility of losing one’s salvation; that is not the function of his conditional promise. Rather, HIS WORDS FUNCTION TO ASSURE YOU THAT YOU WILL BE SAVED, IF YOU PERSEVERE” (Thomas R. Schreiner, “The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001, page 152).
It is at this time that I can announce to you, my readers, that Schreiner’s bias is upon us! We have arrived at one of the most classic statements Schreiner will make again and again throughout his book. He understands what Jesus is saying when he asserts, “you will not be saved, if you fail to persevere to the end.” As I noted in my last post, Schreiner seems to understand that Jesus’ promise is conditional (“if you endure to the end...”) However, the implications of such a condition he cannot accept: “ ‘So, are you telling me that Jesus’ words mean that it is possible for me to lose my salvation?’ No, that is an unwarranted conclusion to draw either from the text or from our explanation of the text.” Why does this implication fail?
“Jesus’ words say nothing about the possibility of losing one’s salvation; that is not the function of his conditional promise. Rather, his words function to assure you that you will be saved, if you persevere” (152).
Here’s the fundamental problem: earlier in Schreiner’s book, he discussed that eternal salvation was first, a PRESENT possession—that we have eternal life now:
“John regularly maintains that eternal life is something that believers possess NOW. He says that ‘whoever believes in the Son has eternal life’ (Jn. 3:36). John does not say that believers will have eternal life but that they HAVE eternal life. In fact, John emphasizes often that eternal life is a present gift, as the following texts demonstrate: Jn. 5:24...Jn. 6:47...Jn. 6:54...1 Jn. 5:11-13” (66, 67).
Then Schreiner went on to state that eternal life is also a future goal:
“Jesus forges a link between the age to come and eternal life in Mark 10:29-30, where he says, ‘no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age...and in the AGE TO COME, ETERNAL LIFE’ (NIV)...thus we can conclude that ETERNAL LIFE IS A GIFT OF THE COMING AGE (cf. Luke 18:30)” (65, 66).
So here’s the grand question: if I have current possession of eternal life, but I can fail to persevere and obtain the future possession, why do Jesus’ words in Matthew 10:22, Matt. 24:13, and Mark 13:13 NOT imply loss of salvation? If I receive a 30% coupon from a local bookstore and am told to bring the coupon back the following weekend and redeem it, doesn’t this imply that I can lose or throw away my coupon and fail to get 30% off of one of my purchases? The fact that I receive the coupon doesn’t mean that I will hold on to it and redeem it at the bookstore. It simply means that I have the POSSIBILITY of getting the discount—not that I WILL get it!
What is Schreiner’s response to the “loss of salvation” view?
“HIS WORDS FUNCTION TO ASSURE YOU THAT YOU WILL BE SAVED, IF YOU PERSEVERE” (152).
Schreiner only wants to point out the exhortation and confidence of Jesus’ words; and yet, within the same passage of Matthew 10, there are words of warning (as I stated in my last post). For example, within Matthew 10, Jesus not only talks about the one who “confesses” Him, but also the one who “denies” Him. It seems then, that even Jesus believed there would be two responses to persecution: either Jesus would be acknowledged, or Jesus would be rejected (to save one’s life). Why then, can Schreiner not acknowledge that when Jesus encourages the disciples to persevere to the end, that He is also implying the possibility that they can fail to endure and thus “forfeit” the salvation that they have?
We are given the example of Esau in 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; lest there be any fornicator or profane person LIKE ESAU, who for one morsel of food SOLD HIS BIRTHRIGHT. For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, HE WAS REJECTED, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it diligently with tears” (Hebrews 12:14-17, NKJV).
Esau had his birthright. He was the eldest, and therefore, possessed it when he had come of age. But one day he was hungry, and wanted some stew. He asked his brother to give him some of the red stew and his brother said, “I’ll do it if you give me your birthright in return.” So Esau gave Jacob his birthright and from that day forward, it is recorded in Genesis 25 that Esau “despised” his birthright.
The story of Jacob and Esau points to a spiritual reality. If it didn’t, the writer couldn’t have used them. So what exactly was the writer of Hebrews trying to say when he referenced the story of Jacob and Esau? I’ll get into that question at another time...
Monday, November 2, 2009
Matthew 10 and Matthew 24: The "Giant Leap" and "False Step"
Even though I’m writing this post in the morning, I couldn’t help but get to Schreiner’s biased exegesis today. I’ve been anxious to get to it for the last few posts and will now do so.
I’ve told you, the readers, that Schreiner disagrees with the OSAS crowd (“Once Saved, Always Saved”); however, his exegesis will always come to the conclusion of “Always Saved,” no matter what! Schreiner’s bias of “unconditional eternal security” will come to the surface, and it’s important to expose such bias for what it is.
I respect Schreiner as a theologian; and throughout his book, “The Race Set Before Us,” I will examine good things that Schreiner has to say (particularly concerning the “loss-of-rewards” view propagated by Zane Hodges and others). However, Schreiner and all theologians have certain presuppositions that they bring with them to the biblical text. Because we as believers and theologians are so prone to distorting biblical interpretation to fit our theological systems, we have to always aim to examine opposing views and be able to declare reasons why those views are wrong. It should never be enough to say, “I don’t believe this...because I just don’t...” We should be willing to subject our own views to scrutiny and see if they can stand on their own. This is how one gains assurance that his or her view is correct—by allowing those views to be “tried by fire,” genuinely tested so their true worth can be revealed.
Now, first, let’s read Matthew 10:22 and Matthew 24:13—
“And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt. 10:22, NKJV).
“But he who endures to the end shall be saved” (Matt. 24:13, NKJV).
Regarding the words of Matthew 10 (verse 22 quoted above), Schreiner writes,
“Jesus spoke these words to his disciples when he sent them out to preach the advent of God’s kingship. He extends this consolation and promise to them because he has just announced that they will face persecution and hatred on account of him and the gospel. Jesus formulates his promise as a proverb, which explains why these words adapt well to other settings, such as the Olivet discourse [Matthew 24]. The function of this verse is like the conditional promise of Revelation 21:6-7 that we considered in chapter one, for Jesus promises salvation, but he conditions the promised salvation on perseverance ‘to the end’” (Thomas Schreiner, “The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001, page 147).
Jesus words to the disciples in Matthew 10 are words concerning the persecution they will face. Notice that Schreiner says that Matthew 10:22 is like Revelation 21:6-7. If Revelation 21 involves a “conditional promise,” and Matthew 10 is like Revelation 21, then Matthew 10:22 itself is a “conditional promise.” In addition, reread Schreiner’s words on salvation: “Jesus promises salvation, but he CONDITIONS the promised salvation on PERSEVERANCE TO THE END.” Here, Schreiner and I agree. Jesus’ words give a promise, but a promise based on a fulfilled condition: IF a person endures and remains, then at the end, after “having done the will of God,” he or she will “receive what was promised” (Hebrews 10:36, NKJV). If Jesus’ promise of salvation is conditional, then there is no unconditional eternal security, but instead, CONDITIONAL eternal security! The fact that Schreiner labels Matthew 10:22 as a “conditional promise” refutes his belief in “unconditional eternal security.”
Schreiner has discussed I. Howard Marshall’s reference to Matthew 10:22 as concerning eschatological salvation: “a physical sense would give a tautology: he who endures to the end shall not die before the end.” And Schreiner applauds him:
“Not only does Marshall properly acknowledge that Jesus’ proverbial words concern eschatological salvation, but he also correctly observes the conditional nature of the promise. He states, ‘The condition for salvation is that ‘steadfast endurance’ which does not give way under temptation but remains loyal to God and His will. This is accented by the phrase ‘to the end’” (“The Race Set Before Us,” 149).
But here is where Schreiner’s bias shines:
“Again, Marshall is correct to note, ‘There will be no salvation FOR THE PERSON WHO GIVES UP.’ However, Marshall takes both a GIANT LEAP and a FALSE STEP when he says, ‘Although this possibility is a slight one on the whole, nevertheless IT IS A REAL POSSIBILITY, and we have no right to deny its existence in the interests of a PRECONCEIVED THEORY.’ Without any explanation, Marshall converts Jesus’ conditional promise of salvation INTO A DECLARATIVE ANNOUNCEMENT OF POSSIBLE APOSTASY. MARSHALL HAS INVERTED THE FUNCTION OF THE WORDS JESUS DESIGNS TO CONSOLE HIS FOLLOWERS WHO FACE PERSECUTION AND DEATH ON HIS BEHALF. His inversion turns them into words that EXPRESS UNCERTAINTY AND DOUBT ABOUT THE OUTCOME. We believe that this is an unwarranted conclusion from the text, for suppositions in themselves do not function to indicate anything about possibility. We also believe that SUCH A READING OF CONDITIONAL PROMISES IS SUBVERSIVE TO CHRISTIAN FAITH AND CONFIDENCE, not affirmative or consoling, as Jesus intended his words” (149, 150).
First, Marshall says that, since the promise is conditional upon perseverance, then to fail to persevere indicates apostasy—or loss of salvation. All Marshall says is that “it is a real possibility,” not that it is a PROBABILITY! There are a number of things in life that it is “possible” to do, but not very likely to occur.
All Marshall does is affirm the implications of Jesus’ conditional promise, and now, he’s accused of “inverting the function of the words” of Jesus, and “subverting the Christian faith and confidence...” If Marshall is guilty of “subverting Christian confidence,” then so is the writer of Hebrews, for he exhorts the congregation:
“Therefore do not cast away your CONFIDENCE, which has great REWARD. For YOU HAVE NEED OF ENDURANCE, so that after you have done the will of God, YOU MAY RECEIVE THE PROMISE” (Hebrews 10:35-36, NKJV).
Here in the Hebrews writer’s words, we see that “confidence” is connected to “endurance,” which leads to the “reward.” By virtue of the Hebrew writer saying, “do not cast away your confidence,” we see that the readers could easily lose heart and run back to Judaism and its religious rituals. Marshall is simply confirming the words of Hebrews: that assurance in the Christian faith comes through endurance. How then, is Marshall guilty of undermining the Christian faith?
Another claim made by Schreiner is,
“MARSHALL HAS INVERTED THE FUNCTION OF THE WORDS JESUS DESIGNS TO CONSOLE HIS FOLLOWERS WHO FACE PERSECUTION AND DEATH ON HIS BEHALF.”
Schreiner believes that Jesus’ words are to encourage His followers to remain strong despite persecution; in his view, Marshall has “inverted the function of the words,” or changed them around to create a different meaning. What Schreiner seems to forget, however, is that, if promises are conditional and not guaranteed, then conditional promises come with a warning as well as an exhortation.
I’ll prove this with a simple passage we all know—Genesis 2. In the Garden of Eden, God gives Adam an encouragement and a warning, all rolled into one:
“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, ‘Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:16-17, NKJV).
The Lord told Adam that he could eat of all the trees of the Garden. This, then, is an exhortation. God made Adam and Eve as humans and built within them a biological desire for food as nourishment to provide strength for their bodies; so He knew they needed food to eat. He encourages them to enjoy the good food He has provided.
However...Adam and Eve were warned about ONE tree, the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God told them, “in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
Let’s look at God’s warning. If we take Schreiner’s view of this (as in his take on Matthew 10:22), God was only encouraging Adam and Eve to resist eating from the forbidden tree. I would say that God did want them to do the right thing, make the right choice. Everything God made was good, so He wanted man to do what was good (and by so doing, imitate his Creator). However, God also gave them a serious warning—that they would die if they disobeyed Him.
We know this warning is serious because, right after Adam and Eve sin, God declares man’s death:
“In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread TILL YOU RETURN TO THE GROUND, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, AND TO DUST YOU SHALL RETURN” (Genesis 3:19, NKJV).
Adam and Eve sinned, and God made good on His warning—they literally began to die that day in the Garden. We know that death came to them because we read in Genesis 5,
“So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died” (Gen. 5:5, NKJV).
Genesis 5 is what is known as “The Graveyard Chapter.” It is so named because it shows us that God’s sentence of death came to all of mankind, starting with Adam and continuing even to the present day.
So when God made a warning to Adam and Eve, He meant it; and when they sinned, He implemented the punishment He promised. Why then would it be any different with Matthew 10:22? Why is it that God was only trying to “encourage” them?
It becomes twice as problematic when you read the rest of Matthew 10 itself. What about Matthew 10:28?
“And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28, NKJV).
These words are encouraging in that Jesus is telling them not to fear physical death; but it is also a warning that they should fear the one who can cast them into Hell, eschatological damnation. Once again, we see exhortation and warning together.
In verses 32 and 33 of Matthew 10, we see exhortation:
“Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, HIM I WILL ALSO CONFESS BEFORE MY FATHER who is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32).
But we also see warning:
“But whoever denies Me before men, HIM I WILL ALSO DENY BEFORE MY FATHER who is in heaven” (Matt. 10:33).
Matthew 10 is full of exhortation (encouragement) and warning. Marshall’s analysis then, is consistent with Matthew 10 and the rest of the canon. Schreiner, then, attacks Marshall without any backing at all.
The truth is, all believers would like to have an unconditional guarantee to heaven; but we are not promised it. The only unconditional promise we have is, “and lo, I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS, even to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20, NKJV). The Lord Jesus promises to be with us and supply the strength we need to persevere. But we are still responsible for persevering in the faith:
“For YOU HAVE NEED OF ENDURANCE, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise” (Hebrews 10:36, NKJV).
I will tackle more of Schreiner’s exegetical and theological comments in future posts. Keep reading...
I’ve told you, the readers, that Schreiner disagrees with the OSAS crowd (“Once Saved, Always Saved”); however, his exegesis will always come to the conclusion of “Always Saved,” no matter what! Schreiner’s bias of “unconditional eternal security” will come to the surface, and it’s important to expose such bias for what it is.
I respect Schreiner as a theologian; and throughout his book, “The Race Set Before Us,” I will examine good things that Schreiner has to say (particularly concerning the “loss-of-rewards” view propagated by Zane Hodges and others). However, Schreiner and all theologians have certain presuppositions that they bring with them to the biblical text. Because we as believers and theologians are so prone to distorting biblical interpretation to fit our theological systems, we have to always aim to examine opposing views and be able to declare reasons why those views are wrong. It should never be enough to say, “I don’t believe this...because I just don’t...” We should be willing to subject our own views to scrutiny and see if they can stand on their own. This is how one gains assurance that his or her view is correct—by allowing those views to be “tried by fire,” genuinely tested so their true worth can be revealed.
Now, first, let’s read Matthew 10:22 and Matthew 24:13—
“And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt. 10:22, NKJV).
“But he who endures to the end shall be saved” (Matt. 24:13, NKJV).
Regarding the words of Matthew 10 (verse 22 quoted above), Schreiner writes,
“Jesus spoke these words to his disciples when he sent them out to preach the advent of God’s kingship. He extends this consolation and promise to them because he has just announced that they will face persecution and hatred on account of him and the gospel. Jesus formulates his promise as a proverb, which explains why these words adapt well to other settings, such as the Olivet discourse [Matthew 24]. The function of this verse is like the conditional promise of Revelation 21:6-7 that we considered in chapter one, for Jesus promises salvation, but he conditions the promised salvation on perseverance ‘to the end’” (Thomas Schreiner, “The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001, page 147).
Jesus words to the disciples in Matthew 10 are words concerning the persecution they will face. Notice that Schreiner says that Matthew 10:22 is like Revelation 21:6-7. If Revelation 21 involves a “conditional promise,” and Matthew 10 is like Revelation 21, then Matthew 10:22 itself is a “conditional promise.” In addition, reread Schreiner’s words on salvation: “Jesus promises salvation, but he CONDITIONS the promised salvation on PERSEVERANCE TO THE END.” Here, Schreiner and I agree. Jesus’ words give a promise, but a promise based on a fulfilled condition: IF a person endures and remains, then at the end, after “having done the will of God,” he or she will “receive what was promised” (Hebrews 10:36, NKJV). If Jesus’ promise of salvation is conditional, then there is no unconditional eternal security, but instead, CONDITIONAL eternal security! The fact that Schreiner labels Matthew 10:22 as a “conditional promise” refutes his belief in “unconditional eternal security.”
Schreiner has discussed I. Howard Marshall’s reference to Matthew 10:22 as concerning eschatological salvation: “a physical sense would give a tautology: he who endures to the end shall not die before the end.” And Schreiner applauds him:
“Not only does Marshall properly acknowledge that Jesus’ proverbial words concern eschatological salvation, but he also correctly observes the conditional nature of the promise. He states, ‘The condition for salvation is that ‘steadfast endurance’ which does not give way under temptation but remains loyal to God and His will. This is accented by the phrase ‘to the end’” (“The Race Set Before Us,” 149).
But here is where Schreiner’s bias shines:
“Again, Marshall is correct to note, ‘There will be no salvation FOR THE PERSON WHO GIVES UP.’ However, Marshall takes both a GIANT LEAP and a FALSE STEP when he says, ‘Although this possibility is a slight one on the whole, nevertheless IT IS A REAL POSSIBILITY, and we have no right to deny its existence in the interests of a PRECONCEIVED THEORY.’ Without any explanation, Marshall converts Jesus’ conditional promise of salvation INTO A DECLARATIVE ANNOUNCEMENT OF POSSIBLE APOSTASY. MARSHALL HAS INVERTED THE FUNCTION OF THE WORDS JESUS DESIGNS TO CONSOLE HIS FOLLOWERS WHO FACE PERSECUTION AND DEATH ON HIS BEHALF. His inversion turns them into words that EXPRESS UNCERTAINTY AND DOUBT ABOUT THE OUTCOME. We believe that this is an unwarranted conclusion from the text, for suppositions in themselves do not function to indicate anything about possibility. We also believe that SUCH A READING OF CONDITIONAL PROMISES IS SUBVERSIVE TO CHRISTIAN FAITH AND CONFIDENCE, not affirmative or consoling, as Jesus intended his words” (149, 150).
First, Marshall says that, since the promise is conditional upon perseverance, then to fail to persevere indicates apostasy—or loss of salvation. All Marshall says is that “it is a real possibility,” not that it is a PROBABILITY! There are a number of things in life that it is “possible” to do, but not very likely to occur.
All Marshall does is affirm the implications of Jesus’ conditional promise, and now, he’s accused of “inverting the function of the words” of Jesus, and “subverting the Christian faith and confidence...” If Marshall is guilty of “subverting Christian confidence,” then so is the writer of Hebrews, for he exhorts the congregation:
“Therefore do not cast away your CONFIDENCE, which has great REWARD. For YOU HAVE NEED OF ENDURANCE, so that after you have done the will of God, YOU MAY RECEIVE THE PROMISE” (Hebrews 10:35-36, NKJV).
Here in the Hebrews writer’s words, we see that “confidence” is connected to “endurance,” which leads to the “reward.” By virtue of the Hebrew writer saying, “do not cast away your confidence,” we see that the readers could easily lose heart and run back to Judaism and its religious rituals. Marshall is simply confirming the words of Hebrews: that assurance in the Christian faith comes through endurance. How then, is Marshall guilty of undermining the Christian faith?
Another claim made by Schreiner is,
“MARSHALL HAS INVERTED THE FUNCTION OF THE WORDS JESUS DESIGNS TO CONSOLE HIS FOLLOWERS WHO FACE PERSECUTION AND DEATH ON HIS BEHALF.”
Schreiner believes that Jesus’ words are to encourage His followers to remain strong despite persecution; in his view, Marshall has “inverted the function of the words,” or changed them around to create a different meaning. What Schreiner seems to forget, however, is that, if promises are conditional and not guaranteed, then conditional promises come with a warning as well as an exhortation.
I’ll prove this with a simple passage we all know—Genesis 2. In the Garden of Eden, God gives Adam an encouragement and a warning, all rolled into one:
“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, ‘Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:16-17, NKJV).
The Lord told Adam that he could eat of all the trees of the Garden. This, then, is an exhortation. God made Adam and Eve as humans and built within them a biological desire for food as nourishment to provide strength for their bodies; so He knew they needed food to eat. He encourages them to enjoy the good food He has provided.
However...Adam and Eve were warned about ONE tree, the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God told them, “in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
Let’s look at God’s warning. If we take Schreiner’s view of this (as in his take on Matthew 10:22), God was only encouraging Adam and Eve to resist eating from the forbidden tree. I would say that God did want them to do the right thing, make the right choice. Everything God made was good, so He wanted man to do what was good (and by so doing, imitate his Creator). However, God also gave them a serious warning—that they would die if they disobeyed Him.
We know this warning is serious because, right after Adam and Eve sin, God declares man’s death:
“In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread TILL YOU RETURN TO THE GROUND, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, AND TO DUST YOU SHALL RETURN” (Genesis 3:19, NKJV).
Adam and Eve sinned, and God made good on His warning—they literally began to die that day in the Garden. We know that death came to them because we read in Genesis 5,
“So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died” (Gen. 5:5, NKJV).
Genesis 5 is what is known as “The Graveyard Chapter.” It is so named because it shows us that God’s sentence of death came to all of mankind, starting with Adam and continuing even to the present day.
So when God made a warning to Adam and Eve, He meant it; and when they sinned, He implemented the punishment He promised. Why then would it be any different with Matthew 10:22? Why is it that God was only trying to “encourage” them?
It becomes twice as problematic when you read the rest of Matthew 10 itself. What about Matthew 10:28?
“And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28, NKJV).
These words are encouraging in that Jesus is telling them not to fear physical death; but it is also a warning that they should fear the one who can cast them into Hell, eschatological damnation. Once again, we see exhortation and warning together.
In verses 32 and 33 of Matthew 10, we see exhortation:
“Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, HIM I WILL ALSO CONFESS BEFORE MY FATHER who is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32).
But we also see warning:
“But whoever denies Me before men, HIM I WILL ALSO DENY BEFORE MY FATHER who is in heaven” (Matt. 10:33).
Matthew 10 is full of exhortation (encouragement) and warning. Marshall’s analysis then, is consistent with Matthew 10 and the rest of the canon. Schreiner, then, attacks Marshall without any backing at all.
The truth is, all believers would like to have an unconditional guarantee to heaven; but we are not promised it. The only unconditional promise we have is, “and lo, I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS, even to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20, NKJV). The Lord Jesus promises to be with us and supply the strength we need to persevere. But we are still responsible for persevering in the faith:
“For YOU HAVE NEED OF ENDURANCE, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise” (Hebrews 10:36, NKJV).
I will tackle more of Schreiner’s exegetical and theological comments in future posts. Keep reading...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)